"Holy Tradition"--Who has the correct interpretation of the Traditions?

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think you missed this..... ^ That is how we view the difference in "tradition" that all the west does follow "the traditions" of their own idea of the church... and they 'developed" doctrine... The Reformation with "sola scriptura" and the RC with all the others.. simple... Nothing to hide here....

Well, untill the Orthodox and RCC straighten out which traditions and doctrines are the correct ones, I will stick with just the Scriptures.

Luke 24:44 He said yet toward them "these the words of Me which I speak toward ye still being together ye, that is binding to be filled all the having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772) in the Law of Moses, and the prophets and psalms about Me".

Acts 13:29 As yet they finish all-things the about Him having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772) according-lifting from the wood they place into a tomb.

 

[nestoj]

Catholics believe that the bible is the word of God.

Among it's important verses:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

So do we. My point is that it was written trough the knowledge of the Church. Anyway, the last verse you offered could lead us away from the OP, so I won't discuss them. Just to add: all verses are equally important. In this way, the scripture can be viewed as whole and its all-applying, unchanging truth understood.

God helps

 

[Philothei]

Well, untill the Orthodox and RCC straighten out which traditions and doctrines are the correct ones, I will stick with just the Scriptures.

Luke 24:44 He said yet toward them "these the words of Me which I speak toward ye still being together ye, that is binding to be filled all the having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772) in the Law of Moses, and the prophets and psalms about Me".

Acts 13:29 As yet they finish all-things the about Him having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772) according-lifting from the wood they place into a tomb.

Where in the Bible does it say this???

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Where in the Bible does it say this???

Greeting Philothei!!! Well I do not want to go too much off the topic of holy "traditions", but what verses in the OC would you like me to refer to?
Come over to the Christian Scriptures board or I can come to TAW if ya like.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Zechariah 13:5 And he says "Not a-prophet I, man tilling ground/0127 'adamah I, that adam he-caused-me-to-acquire/07069 qanah from youths of me".
And he says to him: "what the smitings/04347 makkah, these, between hands of thee"? And he says "which I was smitten/05221 nakah House of lovers/0157 'ahab of me".

 

[Albion]

So do we. My point is that it was written trough the knowledge of the Church.

Well, it wasn't. It was written by individuals who were inspired to write what they did by divine guidance. If you believe the Bible--which seems to be what everyone here is keen to say--then you have to accept what the Bible itself is saying about its origins and not some nonsense about some organization hiring Matthew and Luke to write for "the Church." That's the reason the scriptures are called "revelation."

The only way in which the Scriptures were written by the Church or "through the knowledge of the Church," whatever that is supposed to mean, is that the writers of the New Testament books were themselves disciples of Christ.

 

[MamaZ]

Well, it wasn't. It was written by individuals who were inspired to write what they did by divine guidance. If you believe the Bible--which seems to be what everyone here is keen to say--then you have to accept what the Bible itself is saying about its origins and not some nonsense about some organization hiring Matthew and Luke to write for "the Church." That's the reason the scriptures are called "revelation."

The only way in which the Scriptures were written by the Church or "through the knowledge of the Church," whatever that is supposed to mean, is that the writers of the New Testament books were themselves disciples of Christ.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Differing Traditions, versus vastly differing interpretations of bible by means of 'scripture alone.'

Since Tradition is living and dynamic, it stands to reason that differences would appear when parties are separated by distance, warfare, language, and finally, conflict.

Likewise, interpretation of scripture varies according to historical, cultural and linguistic differences.

I reject scripture alone because it is an urban legend.

 

[Thekla]

Well, it wasn't. It was written by individuals who were inspired to write what they did by divine guidance. If you believe the Bible--which seems to be what everyone here is keen to say--then you have to accept what the Bible itself is saying about its origins and not some nonsense about some organization hiring Matthew and Luke to write for "the Church." That's the reason the scriptures are called "revelation."

The only way in which the Scriptures were written by the Church or "through the knowledge of the Church," whatever that is supposed to mean, is that the writers of the New Testament books were themselves disciples of Christ.

I don't think the sense of "hiring by organization" was implied or stated in the post you are responding to.

Perhaps historical research would (both apologies by Christian authors and statements by non-Christian authors of the first and second centuries) reveal whether the New Testament writings were meant for general consumption (like the serialized Dicken's novels). Clearly, the epistles were intended for existing Christian "groups" (Churches) or those who lead them. The Acts was written (at least per St. Lukes writing) for an individual. Research on the person and position of Theophilus, if there is extant contemporary record of him, may be helpful.

Given the paucity of mass publishing during the 1st century, the existence of the (visible) Church as of Pentecost, and the apostolic role, it can be said that the writings of the NT were written by those within the Church. Further, without the existence of mass publication and distribution, it is surely reasonable to conclude that the Gospels were meant to be received by those "within" the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

,,,,,,,,,,, Further, without the existence of mass publication and distribution, it is surely reasonable to conclude that the Gospels were meant to be received by those "within" the Church.

Greetings Thekla!!! Was the book of Revelation read in all those early churches by the messengers these letters were sent to? Thoughts?

Revelation 1:3 Blessed the one reading, and the ones hearing, the Words of the Prophecy, and keepings in it/her having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time Is-Near/egguV <1451>.

11 saying: "which you are beholding, write! into a scrollet and send!to the seven Out-Calleds. Into Efeson, and into Smurnan, and into Pergamon and into Quateira and into Sardei and into Filadelfeian and into Laodikeian"

20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou saw on the right of Me, and the seven lampstands, the golden-ones, those seven stars, Messengers of the seven Out-Calleds are, and those seven lampstands which thou saw, seven Out-Calleds are.

 

[Albion]

I don't think the sense of "hiring by organization" was implied or stated in the post you are responding to.

Perhaps historical research would (both apologies by Christian authors and statements by non-Christian authors of the first and second centuries) reveal whether the New Testament writings were meant for general consumption (like the serialized Dicken's novels). Clearly, the epistles were intended for existing Christian "groups" (Churches) or those who lead them. The Acts was written (at least per St. Lukes writing) for an individual. Research on the person and position of Theophilus, if there is extant contemporary record of him, may be helpful.

Whom they were intended for does not have anything to do with what caused them to be written in the first place.

Moreover, no one could take exception to these writings having been intended for extant congregations. That's obvious in the writings themselves.

But we all know that "Church wrote the Scriptures" is said by those who want to assert something else--that the organisational church, the visible entity, made possible the scriptures. That, of course, it not true.

Given the paucity of mass publishing during the 1st century, the existence of the (visible) Church as of Pentecost, and the apostolic role, it can be said that the writings of the NT were written by those within the Church.

...which I myself said in the post to which you are replying: "The only way in which the Scriptures were written by the Church or "through the knowledge of the Church," whatever that is supposed to mean, is that the writers of the New Testament books were themselves disciples of Christ."

 

[Thekla]

Greetings Thekla!!! Was the book of Revelation read in all those early churches by the messengers these letters were sent to? Thoughts?

Revelation 1:3 Blessed the one reading, and the ones hearing, the Words of the Prophecy, and keepings in it/her having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time Is-Near/egguV <1451>.

11 saying: "which you are beholding, write! into a scrollet and send!to the seven Out-Calleds. Into Efeson, and into Smurnan, and into Pergamon and into Quateira and into Sardei and into Filadelfeian and into Laodikeian"

20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou saw on the right of Me, and the seven lampstands, the golden-ones, those seven stars, Messengers of the seven Out-Calleds are, and those seven lampstands which thou saw, seven Out-Calleds are.

Hey, LLoJ

I assume the message was given. St. John had a disciple, so perhaps they were conveyed by him, or by other means.

A side note: the Church at Smyrna was said to be in possession of at least an early copy of (portions of ?) the NT; I have not heard whether or not these survived the burning of Smyrna in 1922. IIRC, it was the longest surviving of the Churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelations.

 

[nestoj]

Well, it wasn't. It was written by individuals who were inspired to write what they did by divine guidance. If you believe the Bible--which seems to be what everyone here is keen to say--then you have to accept what the Bible itself is saying about its origins and not some nonsense about some organization hiring Matthew and Luke to write for "the Church." That's the reason the scriptures are called "revelation."

The only way in which the Scriptures were written by the Church or "through the knowledge of the Church," whatever that is supposed to mean, is that the writers of the New Testament books were themselves disciples of Christ.

Sure they ware. They ware inspired by God, but somehow I think they heard what they had written from the Apostles. Could they do that if outside of the Church and non-Christians? Sure they could, nothing is impossible to God, but the fact is all of them ware in that Church and Revelation was given to them in the Church. We might disagree where and what that Church is now, but are we disagreeing on how was the Revelation passed to them? Further, I never said they ware hired scribes, called just to do the writing. That was a great misinterpretation of my words. I said they ware written in the Church, with the words of Christ as a foundation, trough the knowledge of Apostles and by guidance of the Holy Ghost. I hope that clarifies.

God helps

 

[Albion]

Sure they ware. They ware inspired by God, but somehow I think they heard what they had written from the Apostles.

They either were inspired by God to write what they did...or they picked it up from someone. That you would like to think that it was from the Apostles is, of course, a nice thought. It would make everything simpler if it were so.

No, you can't have the Bible be divine revelation and something humans came up with, both at the same time.

Could they do that if outside of the Church and non-Christians?

Whoa! No one said anything even remotely like that. In fact, I said earlier that the only way that "Church wrote the Bible" makes any sense at all is that these people were disciples of Christ. That's pretty obvious, I'd say, that they were Christians. But they were acting as individuals. "The Church" didn't create the New Testament. To be fair, you worded this overworked old claim differently, and I was thinking you were meaning to say the same thing as so many others have done, but in your own way.

We might disagree where and what that Church is now, but are we disagreeing on how was the Revelation passed to them?

Not if we agree that God inspired them and that they wrote as individuals, as they were inspired by God to write.

I said they ware written in the Church, with the words of Christ as a foundation, trough the knowledge of Apostles and by guidance of the Holy Ghost. I hope that clarifies.

Some of that is certainly correct. The part about the "through the knowledge of Apostles" is, however, just wishful thinking.

 

[Thekla]

seems some of the confusion may betray a difference of understanding; the notion of "individuals" is contrary to (the eastern Orthodox) understanding of Christian/Church/koinonia/soteriology

(as a parallel, was the OT written by individuals for individuals, or by some so called by God for the benefit of the community ?)

or, in other words, was the NT written for individuals or for the Church (Ekklesia) ?
were those who wrote it of the Church or of themselves ?
the Church is an ikon of Trinity, where the persons are not individuals, per se

 

[Albion]

seems some of the confusion may betray a difference of understanding; the notion of "individuals" is contrary to (the eastern Orthodox) understanding of Christian/Church/koinonia/soteriology

Well, that's your business. These men were inspired by God as individuals he chose out of mankind for the purpose (much as Christ chose his Apostles; they did not apply for the position).

(as a parallel, was the OT written by individuals for individuals, or by some so called by God for the benefit of the community ?)

Now you are off-topic. The point under scrutiny concerned the writing being done as a project of "The Church," i.e. the visible church's hierarchy. Saying that the result of the writing was beneficial to the community, however,is a totally different idea and not one that I'd guess any of us here would disagree with.

or, in other words, was the NT written for individuals or for the Church (Ekklesia) ?

Again, you've switched from BY WHOM to FOR WHOM--two different ideas.

That said, how about the question of the thread? Which church's interpretation of Tradition is correct? (And how do we know?)

 

[Thekla]

Well, that's your business. These men were inspired by God as individuals he chose out of mankind for the purpose (much as Christ chose his Apostles; they did not apply for the position).

or these humans were chosen for a purpose, but that purpose did not end "within them"; within the Church each has a calling/purpose to fulfill. Not all the apostles have writings included in the NT (or even wrote) but that does not change the significance or fruit of their calling fulfilled.

Now you are off-topic. The point under scrutiny concerned the writing being done as a project of "The Church," i.e. the visible church's hierarchy. Saying that the result of the writing was beneficial to the community, however,is a totally different idea and not one that I'd guess any of us here would disagree with.

the Church is a continuation/extension/fulfillment of the OC. Some explain that the visible Church started at Pentecost, but She was before that; She "begins" in Paradise, where both the spiritual (noetic/angelic) and human (noetic and material/physical) live in worship of God. In this sense, it is not off-topic, but respects the fuller notion of "Church". And, understanding this, the view of the NT as arising from Church is understood in part by the OT as arising from within community.

Again, you've switched from BY WHOM to FOR WHOM--two different ideas.

its not a switch, but arises from the idea of koinonia (as above)

That said, how about the question of the thread? Which church's interpretation of Tradition is correct? (And how do we know?)

Paul says that he "traditioned" the teaching (we don't seem to have that word as a verb, unlike Greek); the correctness of Tradition is found in the integrity of the ethos/ithos - the "person/character" as lived out.

so, if the NT is not at variance with what was already Tradition/taught/practiced in the early Church, then it is part of and arises from what already is. If, however it is at variance or in opposition to the faith in Christ lived by the Church, then it can be said to arise from individuals. Note that St. Paul writes the epistles to correct and encourage what has been taught. He clearly writes for the Church, and has been baptized into the Church.

 

[Albion]

Every church, or most of them, has some theory that justifies its claim to uniqueness. So, back to the question...which one that says its guided by Tradition is right?

 

[nestoj]

They either were inspired by God to write what they did...or they picked it up from someone. That you would like to think that it was from the Apostles is, of course, a nice thought. It would make everything simpler if it were so.

No, you can't have the Bible be divine revelation and something humans came up with, both at the same time.

You can be inspired in interpretation. Also, the idea to write in this case is an inspiration from God.

Whoa! No one said anything even remotely like that. In fact, I said earlier that the only way that "Church wrote the Bible" makes any sense at all is that these people were disciples of Christ. That's pretty obvious, I'd say, that they were Christians. But they were acting as individuals. "The Church" didn't create the New Testament. To be fair, you worded this overworked old claim differently, and I was thinking you were meaning to say the same thing as so many others have done, but in your own way.

As individuals they are part of the Church. "Church didn't wrote the Bible" can only have sense in a way that the writers ware individuals and not part of some sort of collective mind. In other aspects, the Bible is indeed from the Church for the Church.

Not if we agree that God inspired them and that they wrote as individuals, as they were inspired by God to write.

I never understood inspiration as a spelling.

Some of that is certainly correct. The part about the "through the knowledge of Apostles" is, however, just wishful thinking.

Think again.

Luke 1:

"1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;


3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"



God helps

 

[Albion]

You can be inspired in interpretation. Also, the idea to write in this case is an inspiration from God.

So...it's not necessary to talk about "The Church" as having caused any of this? What's just about exactly what I was pointing out.

"Church didn't wrote the Bible" can only have sense in a way that the writers ware individuals and not part of some sort of collective mind.

Not at all. They were acting as individuals ...and they were members of the Church. That in no way makes their writings the result of a Church project.

Think again.

Luke 1:

"1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;


3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"

Sorry, but you missed the meaning in that passage. It doesn't tell us that the NEW TESTAMENT was written as the Apostles dictated it to some other people. Not at all. All that this passage says is that the Apostles teaching was revered, as we all know. Two totally separate things.

 

[nestoj]

So...it's not necessary to talk about "The Church" as having caused any of this? What's just about exactly what I was pointing out.

I never said that. God is a prime cause of a Church and by that a prime cause of anything good coming from the Church. Neither I said the Bible is a "project of a Church". Writings of an ECFs also aren't "projects". Neither is Liturgy. What I've said is: are part of the Tradition.

Not at all. They were acting as individuals ...and they were members of the Church. That in no way makes their writings the result of a Church project.

Not the project for sure. But the fact is they emerged from the Church. Ware created by individuals who had a visible line connecting them with the Apostles and ware in that Church, and later ware selected by the Church (trough the same divine inspiration) to be included into the NT.

Sorry, but you missed the meaning in that passage. It doesn't tell us that the NEW TESTAMENT was written as the Apostles dictated it to some other people. Not at all. All that this passage says is that the Apostles teaching was revered, as we all know. Two totally separate things.

He says that on the beginning of his writing of the Gospel. My conclusion is it relates to what he is about to write. Also: "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;". Further, he doesn't mention reverence but: "4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." meaning he will give the foundation to what the Theophilus was thought and goes on with the Gospel. This also points me to the conclusion that entire passage up until then was about what will follow.

Now, I'm far from a good knowledge in English, but my NT in Serbian also has that meaning.

God helps