The order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.

[Ceallaigh]

The same can be said of nearly every protestant denomination.

Say what? One of the biggest arguments Catholicism has against Protestantism is that, unlike Catholocism, it doesn't have a magisterium. Only cult versions of Protestantism like JW and LDS have a magisterium.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I wanted to be sure that you'd read it and understand what you read.

Ah more condescension. If you can't keep up a good argument, belittle your opponent. Is that an example of a Catholic tradition that's not dependent upon scripture?

BTW, pretty funny that the GNB translation backfired on you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Only cult versions of Protestantism like JW and LDS have a magisterium.

No, no! They all have a "magisterium", just a small one, sometimes a single man, the local pastor, is the magisterium and disobedience leads to excommunication of one kind or another.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the GNB translation

I like the GNB, it was completely in line with what I said.

 

[FenderTL5]

Did you miss the part (post #2) about Matthew, John and Peter being eye witnesses?
They wrote about what they saw, not just what they heard about.

No, I didn't miss it.
The Gospels were still written later on, after the Church was already established.
Several of the Epistles predate the Gospels, with John's Gospel being the last written of the four.

 

[Clare73]

No, I didn't miss it.
The Gospels were still written later on, after the Church was already established.
Several of the Epistles predate the Gospels, with John's Gospel being the last written of the four.

Is the issue timing, or is the issue accuracy between what one is told and what one has personally seen and heard?

 

[Fervent]

No, no! They all have a "magisterium", just a small one, sometimes a single man, the local pastor, is the magisterium and disobedience leads to excommunication of one kind or another.

That's hardly been my experience, seems like little more than a spurious antagonistic accusation.

 

[FenderTL5]

No, no! They all have a "magisterium", just a small one, sometimes a single man, the local pastor, is the magisterium and disobedience leads to excommunication of one kind or another.

Instead of excommunication, there's usually another schism (split).

 

[FenderTL5]

Is the issue timing, or is the issue accuracy between what one is told and what one has personally seen and heard?

I understand it to be the order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.
In this instance there's no argument being made for greater accuracy in one or the other.
For the sake of discussion, I would hope the oral stories were just as accurate as the written Gospel - since that's the order in which it came.

See also:

I don't know that this is so revolutionary or disruptive an idea...things have to happen first before you can write about them having happened, right? So that prejudices the order of things rather naturally. I'm going to guess that if people are against this idea it's probably due to centuries of insinuations (by this point) by various academics in Europe and elsewhere working in what has been dubbed 'Higher Textual Criticism' which is also concerned with things like the order of the composition of the Bible, but as part of an 'enlightenment'-sort of project to treat the Bible as anyone would any secular piece of writing, when obviously for believers that's just not what it is. (Not even for those of us who recognize that it has a history, and did not follow out of the sky one day with 66 or however many books, a table of contents, and some handy maps and introductory materials like many Bibles have nowadays.)

 

[ARBITER01]

The order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.​

There is nothing earlier in Christianity than the writings of our Apostles, nothing. We have those small churches to thank for saving those writings for us and copying them.

 

[Fervent]

The argument here seems to be a shell game, since it takes ordinary "tradition" and conflates it with a notion of sacred tradition. Yet Luke seems to be countering a notion of sacred tradition, because his writing is so that what Theophilus knows is not confused by a less trustworthy mode of transmission. In essence, you seem to be trying to argue that tradition is inspired because it preceded commitment to writing but such an argument is defeated by Luke's words which convey distrust in tradition as the cause for his task of writing.

 

[FenderTL5]

The order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.​

There is nothing earlier in Christianity than the writings of our Apostles, nothing.

Nonsense. The writings of the Apostles were addressed to a body/bodies of believers, the churches. The Church pre-existed the written New Testament. Those Churches were preaching, teaching, celebrating the Eucharist, Baptizing etc before the first word of the New Testament was written down.

 

[ARBITER01]

Nonsense. The writings of the Apostles were addressed to a body/bodies of believers, the churches. The Church pre-existed the written New Testament. Those Churches were preaching, teaching, celebrating the Eucharist, Baptizing etc before the first word of the New Testament was written down.

lol, friend, there's nothing earlier than our Apostles writings on how anything was done.

 

[Ceallaigh]

No, I didn't miss it.
The Gospels were still written later on, after the Church was already established.
Several of the Epistles predate the Gospels, with John's Gospel being the last written of the four.

Isn't that based on earliest known manuscript rather rather than actual first manuscript?

 

[Ceallaigh]

The argument here seems to be a shell game, since it takes ordinary "tradition" and conflates it with a notion of sacred tradition. Yet Luke seems to be countering a notion of sacred tradition, because his writing is so that what Theophilus knows is not confused by a less trustworthy mode of transmission. In essence, you seem to be trying to argue that tradition is inspired because it preceded commitment to writing but such an argument is defeated by Luke's words which convey distrust in tradition as the cause for his task of writing.

Yes exactly. Very well put.

 

[FenderTL5]

Isn't that based on earliest known manuscript rather rather than actual first manuscript?

No. I'm referencing the order they were written. There are scholars who spend their lives researching this and there are several such lists.
Here are two (as examples):

Consider Marcus Borg’s listing of the New Testament books in the order they were written in The Evolution of the Word (including his likely dates10):

1 Thessalonians (50 CE)
Galatians (50 CE)
1 Corinthians (50 CE)
Philemon (mid-50s CE)
Philippians (mid-50s CE)
2 Corinthians (mid-50s)
Romans (58 CE)
Mark (70 CE)
James (70-80 CE)
Colossians (80s CE)
Matthew (80-90 CE)
Hebrews (80-90 CE)
John (90 CE)
Ephesians (90s CE)
Revelation (90s CE)
Jude (90s CE)
1 John (100 CE)
2 John (100 CE)
3 John (100 CE)
Luke (100 CE)
Acts (100 CE)
2 Thessalonians (100 CE)
1 Peter (100 CE)
1 Timothy (100-110 CE)
2 Timothy (100-110 CE)
Titus (100-110 CE)
2 Peter (120-150 CE)

Likewise, consider the “consensus dates” that are often used as a benchmark by New Testament scholars for discussing when the writings of the New Testament were composed:

Galatians (48 CE)
1 Thessalonians (51 CE)
2 Thessalonians (51 CE)
1 Corinthians (53-57 CE)
Philippians (54-55 CE)
Philemon (54-55 CE)
2 Corinthians (55-58 CE)
Romans (57-58 CE)
Jude (60-110 CE)
Colossians (62-70 CE)
Mark (65-73 CE)
James (65-85 CE)
1 Peter (75-90 CE)
Matthew (80-90 CE)
Luke (80-90 CE)
Acts (80-90 CE)
Hebrews (80-90 CE)
Ephesians (80-90 CE)
John (90-110 CE)
1 John (90-110 CE)
2 John (90-110 CE)
3 John (90-110 CE)
Revelation (95 CE)
1 Timothy (100 CE)
2 Timothy (100 CE)
Titus (100 CE)
2 Peter (110 CE)

EDIT TO ADD, let's make it three instead of two:

• Galatians (48-49 CE)
• James (48-49 CE)
• Jerusalem Council (50 CE)
• Mark (50-60 CE)
• Jude (50-60 CE)
• 1 Thessalonians (51-52 CE)
• 2 Thessalonians (51-52 CE)
• 1 Corinthians (54 CE)
• 2 Corinthians (56 CE)
• Romans (56-59 CE)
• Colossians (58 or 61 CE)
• Philemon (58 or 61 CE)
• Laodicians (58 or 61 CE)
• Matthew (~60 CE)
• Luke (60-62 CE)
• Philippians (61-62 CE)
• Ephesians (61-62 CE)
• 1 Timothy (62 CE)
• Titus (62 CE)
• Acts (62-64 CE)
• 2 Timothy (64 CE)
• Death of Paul (64 CE)
• 1 Peter (64-66 CE)
• Hebrews (64-70 CE)
• 2 Peter (66-68 CE)
• Death of Peter (68 CE)
• Revelation (68-70 CE)
• Destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE)
• John (70-80 CE)
• 1 John (70-80 CE)
• 2 John (80-100 CE)
• 3 John (80-100 CE)

 

[Ceallaigh]

Nonsense. The writings of the Apostles were addressed to a body/bodies of believers, the churches. The Church pre-existed the written New Testament. Those Churches were preaching, teaching, celebrating the Eucharist, Baptizing etc before the first word of the New Testament was written down.

The events of the gospels predate the formation of the church. The events written in Acts happened at the beginning of the church. The events taking place in the epistles were in the early days of the church. The only way to know that celebrating the Eucharist, baptizing etc was taking place, is because that's what scripture says.

 

[ARBITER01]

The events of the gospels predate the formation of the church. The events written in Acts happened at the beginning of the church. The events taking place in the epistles were in the early days of the church. The only way to know that celebrating the Eucharist, baptizing etc was taking place, is because that's what scripture says.

Exactly.

Probably the second thing at that would be the earliest church fathers, but scripture is foremost.

 

[Ceallaigh]

No. I'm referencing the order they were written. There are scholars who spend their lives researching this and there are several such lists.
Here are two (as examples):

Consider Marcus Borg’s listing of the New Testament books in the order they were written in The Evolution of the Word (including his likely dates10):

1 Thessalonians (50 CE)
Galatians (50 CE)
1 Corinthians (50 CE)
Philemon (mid-50s CE)
Philippians (mid-50s CE)
2 Corinthians (mid-50s)
Romans (58 CE)
Mark (70 CE)
James (70-80 CE)
Colossians (80s CE)
Matthew (80-90 CE)
Hebrews (80-90 CE)
John (90 CE)
Ephesians (90s CE)
Revelation (90s CE)
Jude (90s CE)
1 John (100 CE)
2 John (100 CE)
3 John (100 CE)
Luke (100 CE)
Acts (100 CE)
2 Thessalonians (100 CE)
1 Peter (100 CE)
1 Timothy (100-110 CE)
2 Timothy (100-110 CE)
Titus (100-110 CE)
2 Peter (120-150 CE)

Likewise, consider the “consensus dates” that are often used as a benchmark by New Testament scholars for discussing when the writings of the New Testament were composed:

Galatians (48 CE)
1 Thessalonians (51 CE)
2 Thessalonians (51 CE)
1 Corinthians (53-57 CE)
Philippians (54-55 CE)
Philemon (54-55 CE)
2 Corinthians (55-58 CE)
Romans (57-58 CE)
Jude (60-110 CE)
Colossians (62-70 CE)
Mark (65-73 CE)
James (65-85 CE)
1 Peter (75-90 CE)
Matthew (80-90 CE)
Luke (80-90 CE)
Acts (80-90 CE)
Hebrews (80-90 CE)
Ephesians (80-90 CE)
John (90-110 CE)
1 John (90-110 CE)
2 John (90-110 CE)
3 John (90-110 CE)
Revelation (95 CE)
1 Timothy (100 CE)
2 Timothy (100 CE)
Titus (100 CE)
2 Peter (110 CE)

EDIT TO ADD, let's make it three instead of two:

• Galatians (48-49 CE)
• James (48-49 CE)
• Jerusalem Council (50 CE)
• Mark (50-60 CE)
• Jude (50-60 CE)
• 1 Thessalonians (51-52 CE)
• 2 Thessalonians (51-52 CE)
• 1 Corinthians (54 CE)
• 2 Corinthians (56 CE)
• Romans (56-59 CE)
• Colossians (58 or 61 CE)
• Philemon (58 or 61 CE)
• Laodicians (58 or 61 CE)
• Matthew (~60 CE)
• Luke (60-62 CE)
• Philippians (61-62 CE)
• Ephesians (61-62 CE)
• 1 Timothy (62 CE)
• Titus (62 CE)
• Acts (62-64 CE)
• 2 Timothy (64 CE)
• Death of Paul (64 CE)
• 1 Peter (64-66 CE)
• Hebrews (64-70 CE)
• 2 Peter (66-68 CE)
• Death of Peter (68 CE)
• Revelation (68-70 CE)
• Destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE)
• John (70-80 CE)
• 1 John (70-80 CE)
• 2 John (80-100 CE)
• 3 John (80-100 CE)

This looks like the sort of thing Bart Ehrman uses to disprove the validity of the New Testament.

 

[FenderTL5]

The events of the gospels predate the formation of the church. The events written in Acts happened at the beginning of the church. The events taking place in the epistles were in the early days of the church. The only way to know that celebrating the Eucharist, baptizing etc was taking place, is because that's what scripture says.

Most place the writing of Galatians very early. First or second in almost every one. It begins:
Galatians 1
New International Version

1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me, To the churches in Galatia:

He was writing to churches. There were churches before there were letters to churches.
You do understand how a timeline works?