Z
zz912
Guest
It was the chair of Moses. And funny enough, that was oral tradition which Jesus acknowledges as having authority.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Egg-zactly.
And I like that phrase: “personal Bible litmus test”.
It’s a pithy way to say that someone has just arbitrarily decided “these are the list of things which make something inspired, although I don’t have any source for where this list of things come from–they certainly don’t come from the Bible–and not a single book meets all of the criteria, and some of the non-inspired books meet as many criteria as these inspired books have so it’s really just an arbitrary application of my arbitrary litmus test”.
J
joe371
Guest
Scripture is clear that we should turn to Jesus’ church, even if one does not believe it is the Catholic Church, as we do. If Jesus wanted us to turn to scripture to answer questions, handle issues and resolve doctrinal differences, it does not work, but rather divides Jesus Mystical Body, the Church.
Z
zz912
Guest
There is only one Church.Scripture is clear that we should turn to Jesus’ church, even if one does not believe it is the Catholic Church, as we do. If Jesus wanted us to turn to scripture to answer questions, handle issues and resolve doctrinal differences, it does not work, but rather divides Jesus Mystical Body, the Church.
So the question is to find the ecclesial community which meets the requirements for it to be Christ’s Church.
- It has to have an altar.
- It has to have bishops who have authority handed to them from those who had it handed from all the back to the Apostles.
- It has to hold to the oral teachings that Paul commanded Christians to hold fast to.
Z
zz912
Guest
Feel free to use the phrase, I don’t believe it is mine. I think it came from someone else.
As noted above, I would love to hear the justification of why the Didache is not included.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Here’s what will happen. A poster who denies that he is actually submitting to the authority of the CC each and every time he quotes from the NT will say: I know what’s inspired not because the Catholic Church discerned this, but because the books of the NT have these criteria: A, B, C and D.
A Catholic will say: so why don’t you include the Shepherd of Hermas in the canon?
This poster will say: because it doesn’t have D.
Then the Catholic will say: so why do you include the Epistle to the Hebrews?
Poster will respond: because it has A, C and D.
No acknowledgement will be forthcoming by the poster that he is applying a double standard. The inspired books only need to meet a (uniterated) number of criteria–it’s no matter if C or D is not met, because A and B are met.
YET! The uninspired books are automatically excluded because C or D is not met. Even if A and B are met.
#cognitivedissonance
J
joe371
Guest
The one Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox and Oriental Churches…
C
clem456
Guest
What’s wrong with this picture ^.As a follower of Christ, I have a hard time taking anything else you might say with any degree of credibility (and no, I’m not denying the value and inspiration of the OT).
“Tradition is only useful…” Showing contempt for the person of Christ, however unwittingly. Confining the life-giving Jesus to a book, rather than proclaiming his full life and the life of his disciples. His life continues with him, with his people. It’s real, because before there was a NT, there was a God-man. The NT springs forth from a walking, breathing, teaching, story telling community of people gathered around Christ. Do you believe Christ is now dead?
It’s a frightening proposition, isn’t it? The very idea of a person being God in the Flesh got Christ crucified. **'It ain’t in the book!!! Show me where it’s written, and I’ll believe in you…!!" **. That’s has things a little backwards, eh?
Tradition can’t contradict scripture. Both have Christ as their source. They are not separable, as you are separating them.
We understand your view, that rather than being of one source, you think the book fulfills The Person. That is clear. What’s interesting is that you are maybe the last one to realize it.
Z
zz912
Guest
And which of them have unity with the rock upon which the Church is built?
J
joe371
Guest
Z
zz912
Guest
Which Old Testament books did they rely upon when the Council in Acts made the decision about the requirements of Gentiles entering the Church?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Amos 9:11-12
Z
zz912
Guest
Amos 9:11 “In that day I will raise upZZ912:
Amos 9:11-12
the booth of David that is fallen
and repair its breaches,
and raise up its ruins,
and rebuild it as in the days of old;
12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations who are called by my name,”
says the Lord who does this.
I fail to see where it lays out the requirements for what Gentiles must abide by when they enter the Church. Could you explain it to me?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
things known from long ago.
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. nstead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Acts 15:12-21
Z
zz912
Guest
I don’t see the requirements they list being in Amos. Amos supports the view that Gentiles are to be admitted into the Church. But nothing in there gives support for the determination of what rules they must abide by.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
The point is that the Gentiles were never under the restrictions of the Mosaic Law. it was only for the Israelites. Since the OT foretold a time when the Gentiles would be brought into the Church, there would be no warrant to burden them with commandments they have never been under (and which, indeed, even the Jews couldn’t keep).
What any of that has to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity, IDK; but you asked the question
P
pablope
Guest
mark-shea.com/tradition.html
The Church, of course, began as an almost totally Jewish sect. Its Lord was a Jew, the apostles were all Jews, the first thousands of converts were Jews and the only Bible it had when Gentiles began flooding into the Church were Jewish Scriptures. As delegates of the supposed Bible-only “hidden Church” attending the Council of Jerusalem, let’s try to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What does Scripture say?
It says the covenant of circumcision is “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). It says the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets are circumcised. It says that circumcision is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon every male who wants to join the Covenant People (Ex 12:48). Period. No exceptions. Moreover, looking around the room we note that the apostles and elders are all circumcised and that the Lord Jesus they preach was circumcised (Lk 2:21). And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18) while he is stone silent that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People.
And so, the Council meets and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares…
…that circumcision for Gentiles is against the will of the God who does not change.
Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?
Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.
Z
zz912
Guest
The OT foretold they would be brought into the Church, but it never said they would not be burdened with the commandments.The point is that the Gentiles were never under the restrictions of the Mosaic Law. it was only for the Israelites. Since the OT foretold a time when the Gentiles would be brought into the Church, there would be no warrant to burden them with commandments they have never been under (and which, indeed, even the Jews couldn’t keep).
What any of that has to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity, IDK; but you asked the question
That declaration is not based upon any OT Scripture, and is entirely based upon the authority of the Catholic Church to bind and loose.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
No, it didn’t. But that isn’t what you asked.
Actually, it was based on the authority of continuing/new revelation, received and acted upon by the Church. Is the Acts 15 situation continuing today?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m guessing that what zz is referring to is the fact that the Church, on its own authority, abrogated the commandment concerning circumcision.
And yes, it is possible to be a Christian today without circumcision.
- Status