- Oct 2, 2020
- 28,326
- 15,342
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
So what's in holy tradition that's not founded on and rooted in scripture?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So what's in holy tradition that's not founded on and rooted in scripture?Everything that is in Holy Tradition that is not in Holy Scripture; the former is the superset and the latter the proper subset of divine revealed truth.
Virtually everything that you've complained about for the past 281 posts.So what's in holy tradition that's not founded on and rooted in scripture?
So we only have the Catholic's word on a lot of things.Virtually everything that you've complained about for the past 281 posts.
Wow an evasive and condescending reply in one. Because you can not name a Catholic tradition that is not dependent upon scripture.Virtually everything that you've complained about for the past 281 posts.
Your church verifies it.The Church verifies it.
What you say; yes.What is written by people other than the Lord, Jesus Christ, and that we say he taught.
But it's not Scriptural either.That is about it, except that the tradition is not Catholic alone.
No, but I only said that to show that I am not against tradition, as such. In the Methodist church we use Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience to learn about and assess doctrines.Traditions say those things but that is not Apostolic Tradition.
And how could you possibly know that if they were unwritten???That's is a foundational verse I see used to support things Catholocism came up with and or established hundreds of years after the apostles. But what seems to always get overlooked is taught by us. As in taught by us original Apostles. So ironically 2 Thess 2:15 actually knocks down latter traditions, rather than support them.
There's no indication that what the apostles spoke differed from what they wrote.And how could you possibly know that if they were unwritten???
There's no indication at all that they wrote everything they spoke. Just speculation. They do tell us that not everything Jesus said and did was recorded, however.There's no indication that what the apostles spoke differed from what they wrote.
In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven. Acts 1:1-2There's no indication at all that they wrote everything they spoke. Just speculation. They do tell us that not everything Jesus said and did was recorded, however.
That's presumption. The church received and continuously taught what Jesus taught. There's no need for it all to be written. Again, the church taught it before any of it was written.Because Jesus was God, came to show us what God is like, teach us about him, his will, his Gospel and his kingdom.
If Jesus didn't teach it, it wasn't that important. If the Gospel writers didn't include it because he taught it to them at some point; either it wasn't a doctrine or it was not important.
And so is Tradition considered to be the Word of God.The Bible is the word of God - written about God, by God. We know what God said, what he taught, what he is like, what his will is etc etc through the Bible.
The Bible also teaches us about Jesus - whose coming, ministry, death, resurrection was prophesied in the OT and presented in the Gospels. Jesus is THE Word of God - his living, eternal and final word. There is no salvation or reconciliation with God apart from Jesus.
But the bible can't necessarily tell you what it means to say -when controversy comes up as it does in these very forums-over the bible. So the "authority" become whoever thinks that they're interpreting it correctly.In matters of doctrine, the Bible is the final authority.
Most knowledge was plain and accepted, not esoteric, in the early church as reflected in the writings of the early fathers, although the church had to fight against Gnosticism, and Arianism, which was based on the bible.So I'm sorry but I don't believe you can present teaching that is not in the Gospels, was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles and then say; oh but that doesn't matter; the Bible doesn't say everything and it was handed down to us by oral tradition.
At best, that sounds like "we have some sort of secret knowledge which you don't know,", which is Gnosticism. At worst, that is a statement that we don't need to rely on the Bible, we can believe what we like.
Yes, the OT could be fully explained only in light of the new revelation brought to us by Christ. Much of the NT was written addressing specific matters often to specific audiences. Again, it was not written as a clear, exhaustive catechism. That was the role of the church. And the eastern churches just "happen" to hold to many of the same practices and beliefs that you object to. The bible is not exactly the book you conceive it to be. The church received what the apostles taught, whether written or not.Jesus and his disciples had the OT only.
The OT contains the accounts of creation, the giving of God's law and covenant and tells the story of how those who were rescued from Egypt became God's people. It teaches us what God said through his prophets - what he said about their immediate situation/predicament and what he would do in the future. The phrases "thus saith the Lord", "This is what the Lord says", "the Lord says, tells us, wants from you ....." are found all over the OT. Jesus' coming, ministry and death are shown in the OT; the Holy Spirit is in the OT.
Jesus quoted often from the OT and referred to its characters. After his resurrection he explained what Moses, the prophets and Psalms said about him and how they spoke of his coming.
The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by Apostles who had been with Jesus. The main source for Mark's Gospel was St Peter, and one of Luke's sources was Mary, the mother of Jesus. Before he ascended to heaven, Jesus spent 40 days with his Apostles teaching them about the kingdom. He had already said that his Holy Spirit would live in them, reminding them of all he had taught.
The Gospel writers wrote their accounts so that future generations would know about Jesus, who he was, why he came and what he taught.
When the NT was compiled, only the books, epistles and teachings that were from the Apostles, or faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, were included.
Again, you are expecting us to believe a doctrine that was not taught, nor penned, by Jesus or the Apostles. Are you claiming some special knowledge about these things; that Jesus secretly taught them to Peter/John/James but that none of them taught or recorded them?
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John 21:25In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven. Acts 1:1-2
I even wager that, if the new testament had not been written, the church would still teach the same as she always has, just as the apostles and early disciples were able to teach without the new testament.I understand that. But the bulk of Catholic tradition is based on and rooted in scripture. Scripture isn't based upon or rooted in Catholic tradition, it's the other way around. Without Catholic tradition, there would still be scripture. Whereas without scripture, there would be no Catholic tradition. Quotes from a whole host of theologians and councils and fathers and documents down through the centuries, are all founded upon and rooted in what's written in the Bible.
The point is what the apostles taught is found in what they wrote. It's not like there's apostolic teaching that's not contained within the NT. If I'm wrong about that, then please cite the apostolic teaching that's not contained within the NT.I even wager that, if the new testament had not been written, the church would still teach the same as she always has, just as the apostles and early disciples were able to teach without the new testament.
So the 4th century onwards traditions of the Catholic church are the unrecorded things Jesus did. How is that supposed to make sense when you stop and think about it?"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John 21:25
Surely you know that this statement is not exhaustive because saint John writes, "there are many other things that Jesus did. If they were all written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written"In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
"All that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven" is exhaustive though.Surely you know that this statement is not exhaustive because saint John writes, "there are many other things that Jesus did. If they were all written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written"
It's not presumption.That's presumption. The church received and continuously taught what Jesus taught. There's no need for it all to be written. Again, the church taught it before any of it was written.
By you, maybe.And so is Tradition considered to be the Word of God.
All Christian churches agree with, believe and teach the Gospel - that Jesus was born, was God, lived, taught, healed, died, rose again, ascended, sent his Spirit and will return again one day. THAT is what we have in common. THAT is doctrine. The message of God's love, grace and salvation are recorded in the Bible, and that is our final authority. Hence, Moonies are wrong when they claim that Jesus told "Rev" Moon that he had failed. Other cults are wrong when they claim that Jesus wasn't God or there is no Trinity. If I met someone on the streets today who told me that Jesus was an astronaut, ascended back to heaven in a spaceship, will be returning to earth in that same space ship and their church had believed that for the past 1,000 years; I would ask them where that teaching was in the Bible.But the bible can't necessarily tell you what it means to say -when controversy comes up as it does in these very forums-over the bible. So the "authority" become whoever thinks that they're interpreting it correctly.
You're claiming that the church has authority over, and teaches more than, the word of God. I don't accept that.Yes, the OT could be fully explained only in light of the new revelation brought to us by Christ. Much of the NT was written addressing specific matters often to specific audiences. Again, it was not written as a clear, exhaustive catechism.
Yes, so much for Sola Scriptura."All that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven" is exhaustive though.
What we have in the opening of Acts and in the closing of the Gospel of John, are two statements that appear to contradict each other.
Its not hidden. It's in the beliefs and practices of the church. Infant baptism isn't so easily supportable by the bible. Neither is doing away with observing the Sabbath on the 7th day. But that's what the church did, not arbitrarily, or out of arrogance, but based on what she'd received. And yet 7th Day Adventism exists in part because we cannot go back and point to a definitive place in the bible where it says that we can now change sabbath observance to Sunday. Arianism nearly took over the Christian world in large part because there are many verses that support the non-deity of Christ. It took the efforts of the church to ensure that we're not Arian today.But it's not private because it's out in the open but no one has ever written it down so it can't be cited but it's out in the open even though people have to ask what it is but that can't be said it's just there and always has been even though it's unknown but it's out in the open...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?