Stand Fast and Hold the Traditions

[weariedsoul]

I never did discredit it. It is part of Tradition, and in fact is the hub of the Tradition. It sits in the center of the wheel and the rest of Tradition roots therein.

I dont understand your point exactly, so forgive me if i misunderstood you, but i know the words of the Lord that are recorded in the bible is the word of God. We can debate logos and all that but in the end the scriptures are still the word of God and given for our learning. That's all that matters, all we need to know about the scriptures, it doesn't matter if there is another word of God because it will never disagree with the written Word, and those written words are given to us for our learning and edification, they are like keys to the kingdom. Seriously, they are the word of God. Even if Gods word comes to me one day it will agree with the written word because it would agree with itself. And Jesus said the Holy spirit, who is the word of God also, would teach us all things and bring all things he already spoke into our remembrance, same goes for all scripture that the apostles wrote which is the inspired word of God..

Jesus is the word and his sayings/words are about how to obtain the kingdom of life and peace, hes also the Holy Spirit.

 

[sculleywr]

I dont understand your point exactly, so forgive me if i misunderstood you, but i know the words of the Lord that are recorded in the bible is the word of God. We can debate logos and all that but in the end the scriptures are still the word of God and given for our learning. That's all that matters, all we need to know about the scriptures, it doesn't matter if there is another word of God because it will never disagree with the written Word, and those written words are given to us for our learning and edification, they are like keys to the kingdom. Seriously, they are the word of God. Even if Gods word comes to me one day it will agree with the written word because it would agree with itself. And Jesus said the Holy spirit, who is the word of God also, would teach us all things and bring all things he already spoke into our remembrance, same goes for all scripture that the apostles wrote which is the inspired word of God..

Jesus is the word and his sayings/words are about how to obtain the kingdom of life and peace, hes also the Holy Spirit.

Here is the problem:

The Scripture never once claims to be all that is important. the question you are asking is being discussed on other threads in GT. in fact, there is one in length that is very active currently with plenty of information already posted.

The question here is not whether or not Tradition is authoritative. The question is what Tradition is authoritative.

 

[christseeker45]

The Holy Spirit is a separate person, as is Christ, and the Father but all one God. Now the Scriptures did not fall out of the sky they came out of Tradition but they were never meant to be the last word on everything. The original Scriptures were put together by a Church council lead by the Holy Spirit that had 73 books in it.

 

[sculleywr]

The Holy Spirit is a separate person, as is Christ, and the Father but all one God. Now the Scriptures did not fall out of the sky they came out of Tradition but they were never meant to be the last word on everything. The original Scriptures were put together by a Church council lead by the Holy Spirit that had 73 books in it.

Ding ding ding! we have a winner. Here have a cookie

 

[christseeker45]

yum Thank you

 

[Forge3]

I like chewy cookies

 

[Standing Up]

Okay. Back to the OP.

The point is when Paul says abide the traditions whether spoken or written, it is Irenaeus who tells us exactly what that meant---it was akin to the Nicene Creed. The barbarians believed the oral tradition which is the same as the written tradition.

IF, however, certain groups want to continue to assume that things that came centuries after apostles was "the same", well, all anyone can answer is, how is that schisming working for you?

 

[Forge3]

Okay. Back to the OP.

The point is when Paul says abide the traditions whether spoken or written, it is Irenaeus who tells us exactly what that meant---it was akin to the Nicene Creed. The barbarians believed the oral tradition which is the same as the written tradition.

IF, however, certain groups want to continue to assume that things that came centuries after apostles was "the same", well, all anyone can answer is, how is that schisming working for you?

There is no division in the Word of the Lord. Even as paradise means beyond seperation.

 

[weariedsoul]

Here is the problem:

The Scripture never once claims to be all that is important. the question you are asking is being discussed on other threads in GT. in fact, there is one in length that is very active currently with plenty of information already posted.

The question here is not whether or not Tradition is authoritative. The question is what Tradition is authoritative.

And i answered that question. The scriptures are authoritative. Man this place can really get to you.
Everything from a separate Jewish Gospel to teaching that Gods scriptures alone don't hold authority.
What part of the written Gospel and doctrine can we take away or add to? None.

 

[weariedsoul]

What man can change scripture? None.

The scriptures are the authority that no man can change because he doesn't have the authority to do so.

That means the scriptures stand alone and have the authority of God.

Show me a doctrine that man has changed or added to and i'll show you false doctrine.

 

[Standing Up]

There is no division in the Word of the Lord. Even as paradise means beyond seperation.

So, when Paul said abide the traditions whether oral or written, in effect, it turns out to be no more or less than basically the Nicene Creed. We can jettison all the rest of the 'de fide' baggage that a variety of groups postulated centuries afterward.

Like the latest one in 1950 dogma about Mary. Obviously zero to do with scripture or tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

Here is the problem:

The Scripture never once claims to be all that is important.-snip-

Maybe or maybe not. The point of the OP is when Paul says abide the traditions whether oral or written, the question was always what are those oral traditions?

Now we know (see the OP).

BUT, continue, if you want, to postulate all sorts of speculations like various marian beliefs or papacy dogmas (oops you disagree with that one ) as "Tradition". Let's just from now on call it what it is. Bishop opinion. BECAUSE we can now associate per Irenaeus what Paul meant about APOSTOLIC ORAL/WRITTEN TRADITION.

 

[sculleywr]

Okay. Back to the OP.

The point is when Paul says abide the traditions whether spoken or written, it is Irenaeus who tells us exactly what that meant---it was akin to the Nicene Creed. The barbarians believed the oral tradition which is the same as the written tradition.

IF, however, certain groups want to continue to assume that things that came centuries after apostles was "the same", well, all anyone can answer is, how is that schisming working for you?

This is the problem we see with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura gives denominations and individual leaders the right to invent their own traditions. This is why changing the way that we explain the original faith is so hard in the Orthodox Church, and in the early Church.

An example of this is the Nicene Creed's use of Homo-ousious. The use of this term was hard for people to accept because it was a new term. Some thought it was innovation. And innovation on doctrine is to be avoided whenever possible. However, doctrinal innovations are impossible to avoid in the Sola Scriptura schema.

90% of the doctrine of the Orthodox Church can be traced through the first few centuries of the Church. All of the core doctrines can be traced that far.

 

[sculleywr]

Maybe or maybe not. The point of the OP is when Paul says abide the traditions whether oral or written, the question was always what are those oral traditions?

Now we know (see the OP).

BUT, continue, if you want, to postulate all sorts of speculations like various marian beliefs or papacy dogmas (oops you disagree with that one ) as "Tradition". Let's just from now on call it what it is. Bishop opinion. BECAUSE we can now associate per Irenaeus what Paul meant about APOSTOLIC ORAL/WRITTEN TRADITION.

Yes, we see a snippet of what is meant by Paul as oral and written Traditions. Apostolic Succession is defended very well in his writings, and he claims they are the greatest defenders against heretical doctrines of the Valentinian heretics.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, we see a snippet of what is meant by Paul as oral and written Traditions. Apostolic Succession is defended very well in his writings, and he claims they are the greatest defenders against heretical doctrines of the Valentinian heretics.

Irenaeus gives us the oral (unwritten) traditions.

You prefer the docetic PoJ instead? It's contradictory to scripture. YOUR group rejected it. There's nothing in the oral tradition of Irenaeus (abide the traditions per Paul, whether written or spoken) as even mentions it.

 

[Standing Up]

This is the problem we see with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura gives denominations and individual leaders the right to invent their own traditions.

Absolutely not. It is the ASSUMED authority for bishops to make up their own traditions apart from oral/written scripture. Irenaeus CONFIRMS they are THE SAME.

Let's camp here shall we? Come to an agreement. Then move on.

Look, we can talk until 1054. And then circle back to oral/written tradition. The point of the OP is to answer the question, which oral traditions? Papacy? Ever-virgin? Bread type? We know these things from scripture. Not oral tradition later and apart from and not-tied to written tradition (scripture).

Oral tradition, if you believe Irenaeus, was exactly the same as scripture.

I believe in God the Father, creator of heaven and earth,
and in His son Jesus Christ, who suffered ...

PS SUFFERED, you want to know why he didn't say DIED? Perhaps a different thread.

 

[weariedsoul]

The OP asks what oral traditions Paul spoke of and thats a good question. Does it matter though? The Lord and apostles teach all we need to know in the Gospels and epistles don't they? I think comparing current tradition against scripture is good. If it isn't taught in scripture then its not necessary.

 

[Standing Up]

The OP asks what oral traditions Paul spoke of and thats a good question. Does it matter though? The Lord and apostles teach all we need to know in the Gospels and epistles don't they? I think comparing current tradition against scripture is good. If it isn't taught in scripture then its not necessary.

PERFECT. That is the point. Irenaeus is telling us that the apostles went out and orally spread the exact same salvific GOOD NEWS. The "barbarians" believed and were saved.

The apostles also wrote down the exact same Good News.

The oral and written traditions to hold on to, per Paul, therefore, are exactly the same.

 

[ThatWhichIsnt]

I have no problem with tradition as long as if it does not blatantly contradict Scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

Irenaeus gives us the oral (unwritten) traditions.

You prefer the docetic PoJ instead? It's contradictory to scripture. YOUR group rejected it. There's nothing in the oral tradition of Irenaeus (abide the traditions per Paul, whether written or spoken) as even mentions it.

as I have stated in the other forum, my GROUP is not represented by one person hundreds of years after the authorship. Also, taking one quote and applying it to the whole is about as intellectually honest as a doctor telling a man that drinking bleach is beneficial because it will kill the AIDS in him.