Holy Tradition

[Jane_the_Bane]

Even within Protestantism, there tends to exist a general consensus that the most successful faction within early Christianity is also the one that ought to be regarded as theologically correct.

Given how power politics and military force have determined success and failure throughout history, I find that to be a fairly daring suggestion, to say the least.

History was written by the victors - and they did not win because of the superiority of their beliefs, but because they eventually had an army to point at anyone who'd promote a different point of view, within or without their own organization.

It's not a coincidence that most "heretical" writings known today have only been found within the last hundred years. Nor is it all that impressive that the "holy" tradition has singled out all those early theologians who were the direct ancestors of the victorious faction within the larger body of Christianity. After all, who else would they try to establish as authoritative? Their competitors?

 

[Jonathan Jarvis]

I read some where that the definition of history is a lie that everyone agrees upon.

It does not require an army with superior stregnth to change peoples beliefs. Just look at the equal opportunies policy in your contract of employment to see what you are forced to believe in or risk losing your job.

In the UK there was a recent court case over an employee who was demoted for posting "whatever next" about same sex marriage.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I read some where that the definition of history is a lie that everyone agrees upon.

While that might be overstating it more than a bit, people hsould be more aware of the fact that history is not an objective pursuit, but always coloured by the perception and/or agenda of the person writing it. Every historian has to filter the data available to him or her, constructing a more or less linear narrative. The result will always be a biased interpretation, even if the scholar in question tries his very best to stay neutral and impartial.

Just look at the equal opportunies policy in your contract of employment to see what you are forced to believe in or risk losing your job.

Combating prejudice and discrimination is a noble cause - I might disagree with the methods used, however.
Quotas and "affirmative action" (read: positive discrimination) do very little to eliminate existing societal problems - they merely obfuscate the symptoms, but do not heal the causes. And at times, they create new injustices in their own right.

In the UK there was a recent court case over an employee who was demoted for posting "whatever next" about same sex marriage.

Where did he post it and what was his job? I doubt anybody would be demoted for voicing such an opinion in private, no matter how idiotic or prejudiced it may be.

 

[nebulaJP]

Delete, moved.

 

[Jonathan Jarvis]

I agree fully that history is coloured by the perception and /or personal agenda of the historian. Perhaps I might extend this also to include the theoretical / political bias of the hegenomy in which he finds himself.

I understand that following Nicea there was a purge of those teachings that did not conform to the creed. Over the following centuries those which were not destroyed at the time must have surfaced now and again. It begs the question what did the later scholars do when they were found and why they felt compelled to surpress them until comparatively recently.

In respect to the employment law issue, I got the quote from another source but I have cut and pasted the associated press feed for the report. Reading the trial judgement it appears that Mr Smith posted the comment on facebook out of work time and the complaint was made by one of his co-workers who was his FB friend.

The employer was found to be in breach of contract by demoting him. However his damages for breach of contract was limited as he had accepted his employers breach rather than resigning.


Friday November 16 2012. LONDON (AP) — Britain's High Court ruled Friday that a Christian was unfairly demoted for posting his opposition to gay marriage on Facebook.

Adrian Smith was stripped of his management position with the Trafford Housing Trust in northwest England and had his salary cut by 40 percent after posting that gay weddings in churches were "an equality too far."

The trust said Smith broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views that might upset co-workers.

But High Court judge Michael Briggs ruled Friday that Smith had been "taken to task for doing nothing wrong" and found his employer guilty of breach of contract.

Smith said he was glad the court had backed the principle that "Britain is a free country where people have freedom of speech."

And he received support from veteran gay rights and civil liberties campaigner Peter Tatchell, who said Smith's employer had overreacted.

"In a democratic society, Adrian has a right to express his point of view, even if it is misguided and wrong," Tatchell said.

Trafford Housing Trust chief executive Matthew Gardiner, said he "fully accepted" the court's decision and had apologized to Smith, though it was not clear whether he would be reinstated.

In Britain, same-sex couples can currently form civil partnerships, which carry the same legal rights as marriage. The government wants to change the law to include gay marriage, a move opposed by many religious groups.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Even within Protestantism, there tends to exist a general consensus that the most successful faction within early Christianity is also the one that ought to be regarded as theologically correct.

Given how power politics and military force have determined success and failure throughout history, I find that to be a fairly daring suggestion, to say the least.

History was written by the victors - and they did not win because of the superiority of their beliefs, but because they eventually had an army to point at anyone who'd promote a different point of view, within or without their own organization.

Your claim does not jibe with the history. All of the doctrine that matters was written and complete by the first 100 years, and no armies were involved. The weeding out process that followed is done by sheer merit, and is plain to see which ideas have merit and which do not.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Your claim does not jibe with the history. All of the doctrine that matters was written and complete by the first 100 years, and no armies were involved. The weeding out process that followed is done by sheer merit, and is plain to see which ideas have merit and which do not.

The scriptures you draw upon were cherry-picked out of a considerably larger, considerably more diverse pool. It's retroactive continuity.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Your term cherry picking sounds capricious. It is not at all difficult to tell the genuine from the fake. I would also like to see reference to this greater diversity you allude to that was written prior to 100 AD.

 

[Zoness]

If we want to use the term cherry picking we should take a look at Luther's omissions from the previously accepted 72 books of the Bible and the even more that the oriental Orthodox accept as valid. That's called fine-tuning a message.

 

[Harry3142]

Martin Luther removed from the Old Testament those books which Judaism itself did not recognize as true Scripture. This made the Christian Old Testament's list of books conform to those of Judaism's Holy Scripture, aka Tanakh.

As for the New Testament, the books we now have in it had already been compiled by 170 AD, with the exceptions of James and Revelation. The Muratorian Fragment, dated to circa 170 AD, not only furnishes us with the list of books then accepted as authentic, but also tells us why those particular books were accepted as authentic, while other books were rejected as forgeries:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

Having said this, I must agree with Jane concerning her judgement. What happened was the contamination of Christianity by permitting theologies which in reality did not conform to Holy Writ to nonetheless influence how Holy Writ would be taught. Even though they rejected books which were clearly written far beyond the time of the apostles, but whose authors attempted to have others accept as having been written during their lifetime, they accepted the teachings of other books which were also written many years later than the time of the apostles.

Because of this the Christian theology includes the perpetual virginity of Mary, rather than her having other children following the birth of Jesus. It also includes Mary's own birth having been extraordinary in order that she not taint Jesus with Original Sin. As well, the belief in transubstantiation as a result of the eucharist ceremony was not scriptural, but instead was formulated by Justin Martyr in the 2nd century.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Even within Protestantism, there tends to exist a general consensus that the most successful faction within early Christianity is also the one that ought to be regarded as theologically correct.

Given how power politics and military force have determined success and failure throughout history, I find that to be a fairly daring suggestion, to say the least.

History was written by the victors - and they did not win because of the superiority of their beliefs, but because they eventually had an army to point at anyone who'd promote a different point of view, within or without their own organization.

It's not a coincidence that most "heretical" writings known today have only been found within the last hundred years. Nor is it all that impressive that the "holy" tradition has singled out all those early theologians who were the direct ancestors of the victorious faction within the larger body of Christianity. After all, who else would they try to establish as authoritative? Their competitors?

Nonsensical cliché-rant over?

1: At one point, 2/3rds of the bishops were Arians, and had the sympathy of the Emperor, who did what he could to get that heresy pushed through. Unsuccessfully.
Thank God for Julian the Apostate who didn't give a fiddlestick about Christological disputes - his brief reign gave Orthodoxy the time to catch its breath and "strike back", ending up as the dominant position within the Church by the time of the ascension of Theodosius the Great.

2: For the first 325 years, the Church was persecuted, many times ending in martyrdom. And yet, it still continued to just grow and grow. Your "evil Christians are evil, and have always just used power to get rich" is ridiculous nonsense.

3: The most successful "faction" shouldn't be considered correct BECAUSE it's the most successful one, but because it's the one that is in accordance with Scripture.
Yes, Scripture. If you're now going to throw back the ridiculous notion that Scripture was just decided by a bunch of old men based on random criteria to make themselves more powerful, it just shows how little you know about the actual process.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

If we want to use the term cherry picking we should take a look at Luther's omissions from the previously accepted 72 books of the Bible

Luther included 80. That never got reduced until 1880 (At least the way i read that last)

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Mainline Protestantism traces It's lineage through to the proto-orthodox school, one branch of which eventualy evolved into Nicene orthodoxy. Some of the pre-Nicene fathers they claim as ancestors in the faith would probably had been labeled heretical on Trinitarian and Christological grounds according to the later more strictly defined requirements but there is still a bit of family resemblence at least.

I think it would be a positive development for the reformation to continue on a more radical basis. To question the whole "orthodox" enterprise and to reexamine the other streams of early Christianity on equal ground with the so called "orthodox". People should feel free to examine and question everything that came out of the proto-orthodox and orthodox stream (or any other for that matter) even the canon/s they eventually implemented and enforced. Not necessarily to reject anything but not to just accept things based solely on the authority of that tradition either. A more radical Protestantism wouldn't be turned off by the fact that a Pope or council of Bishops called something heretical but would honestly and open mindedly judge the view for themseleves.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

snip

Translation: "Every man is an island, and gets to determine what reality is "for him" all by himself. If someone says 2+2=5, then it does...for him"
Utter nonsense.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Translation: "Every man is an island, and gets to determine what reality is "for him" all by himself. If someone says 2+2=5, then it does...for him"
Utter nonsense.

Your "translation" was inaccurate. That's usually what happens when people put "snip" rather then an actual quote in the quotation thing and then offer to "translate". I neither said nor implied any such thing. Certainly every man has a right to evaluate information and come to their own conclusion but it wouldn't make sense to say that they get to determine their own private reality simply by choosing what to believe.

I was pointing out the often unacknowledged power of tradition within mainstream Protestantism. That seems to be on topic with the thread. See what happens when an indvidual questions the common tradition regarding the Biblical canon if your not convinced now.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I'm definitely not saying tradition is inherently bad or even that I necessarily disagree with many of the traditions of the stream of Christianity often labeled "orthodox.". I'm just drawing attention to the prevalence of tradition and saying that It's good to question everything.

 

[Zoness]

Luther included 80. That never got reduced until 1880 (At least the way i read that last)

Either way, Protestantism truncates even more of the complete text that was presented by the original church.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

People should feel free to examine and question everything that came out of the proto-orthodox and orthodox stream (or any other for that matter) even the canon/s they eventually implemented and enforced. Not necessarily to reject anything but not to just accept things based solely on the authority of that tradition either. A more radical Protestantism wouldn't be turned off by the fact that a Pope or council of Bishops called something heretical but would honestly and open mindedly judge the view for themseleves.

To the extent I have done exactly this, I think it is not done on a widespread basis because protestants would see just cause for liturgy, and other things they have chopped off.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Either way, Protestantism truncates even more of the complete text that was presented by the original church.

To be fair, Martin Luther only pointed out that the books he called "apocrypha" were part of the Septuagint, but NOT part of the official Jewish scriptures - and thus, not part of what he believed to be the divinely inspired canon.

He did not regard these scriptures as heretical, or even actively excluded them from printings (as far as I know). They are merely added as an appendix titled "apocrypha" - or at least that's how it is handled in contemporary Luther bibles.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Utter nonsense.

If you want utter nonsense, look no further than a mentality that essentially boils down to:
"Tradition is right because it's tradition."