How do we know . . . .

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

where the Traditions are apostolic, the benefit is obvious per the Tradition (interpretation) of the understanding of the resurrection. Other Traditions (interpretations) are less apparent to modern Christians because of cultural shifts in understanding (for example, the real presence). Tradition is, in part, a bulwark against cultural shifts and historical trends. For example, the hymns maintain the apostolic era of the meaning of words. The apostles witnessed; Tradition maintains the understanding based on witness.

Often, Christ is cited as speaking against 'traditions of men' - here the line must be drawn per what the 'tradition of men' is. Christ admonishes in Matthew (23:34) that the Jews have been provided with prophets, scribes ... was, then, Christ speaking against all the scribes and pharisees, or just some ?

The problem is that so much tradtion has little or nothing to do with Scripture at all. For example, Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition. You are looking to the wrong source for validity.

Go Cards!

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

where the Traditions are apostolic, the benefit is obvious per the Tradition (interpretation) of the understanding of the resurrection. Other Traditions (interpretations) are less apparent to modern Christians because of cultural shifts in understanding (for example, the real presence). Tradition is, in part, a bulwark against cultural shifts and historical trends. For example, the hymns maintain the apostolic era of the meaning of words. The apostles witnessed; Tradition maintains the understanding based on witness.

Often, Christ is cited as speaking against 'traditions of men' - here the line must be drawn per what the 'tradition of men' is. Christ admonishes in Matthew (23:34) that the Jews have been provided with prophets, scribes ... was, then, Christ speaking against all the scribes and pharisees, or just some ?

The problem is that so much tradtion has little or nothing to do with Scripture at all. For example, Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition. You are looking to the wrong source for validity.

Go Cards!

 

[disasm]

The problem is that so much tradtion has little or nothing to do with Scripture at all. For example, Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition. You are looking to the wrong source for validity.

Go Cards!

We aren't Roman Catholic.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

It's very obvious that Jesus was blasting the Pharisees for the hypocritical way they interpreted Scripture. They became elitists who felt they had the full measure of truth and so they made the rules whatever they wanted them to be. They did it to line their own pockets and keep the people ignorant of the truth. In much the same way the RCC chained the Bible to the pulpit by telling people they couldn't understand it without the priests around to interpret it. Money and power -- that's really what's behind a great deal of tradition.

Go Cards

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The problem is that so much tradtion has little or nothing to do with Scripture at all. For example, Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition. You are looking to the wrong source for validity.

Go Cards!

Thekla is not Roman Catholic.

Forgive me...

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

We aren't Roman Catholic.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

That's why the words "For example" are used. I was only stating a position that is very much like yours.

Go Cards!

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

We aren't Roman Catholic.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

That's why I used the words "For example" when describing a theology that doesn't have a paper's thickness of difference between them.

Go Cards!

 

[Thekla]

The problem is that so much tradtion has little or nothing to do with Scripture at all. For example, Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition. You are looking to the wrong source for validity.

Go Cards!

nor do I ascribe to RC Tradition (and am not much familiar with it).

But just as there were, in Christ's time, "good and bad" prophets, scribes and pharisees, so with the larger category "tradition". Then, there is (good) Tradition, and praxis (practice) as well as tradition -- the latter, to some extent guards "Tradition" by creating a new, separate culture -- the culture of Christianity as opposed to the culture of the world. Further, Truth (the Truth as in the person of Christ) is an ongoing reality; though not apostles, Truth is still witnessed and experienced.

 

[Thekla]

I lost my post

I'll try again:

I'm not much familiar with RC, so can't comment.
But there is Tradition, and also praxis (practice) and tradition. The latter, in a sense, is part of the creation of a new Christian culture, a Christocentric reality that exists in parallel to the existing culture (world) but is not of it. This tradition, the Christocentric lived out and visible in the daily lives of Christians protects Tradition from the degradation possible when the larger culture (world) insinuates itself into people/Church. It is part bulwark, part also the creative outpouring of humans who hold Christ as their center.

Further, Truth is Christ. The apostles were the first witnesses, but Truth is witnessed and experienced still, and ever will be.

 

[Thekla]

I lost my post

I'll try again:

I'm not much familiar with RC, so can't comment.
But there is Tradition, and also praxis (practice) and tradition. The latter, in a sense, is part of the creation of a new Christian culture, a Christocentric reality that exists in parallel to the existing culture (world) but is not of it. This tradition, the Christocentric lived out and visible in the daily lives of Christians protects Tradition from the degradation possible when the larger culture (world) insinuates itself into people/Church. It is part bulwark, part also the creative outpouring of humans who hold Christ as their center.

Further, Truth is Christ. The apostles were the first witnesses, but Truth is witnessed and experienced still, and ever will be.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

I lost my post

I'll try again:

I'm not much familiar with RC, so can't comment.
But there is Tradition, and also praxis (practice) and tradition. The latter, in a sense, is part of the creation of a new Christian culture, a Christocentric reality that exists in parallel to the existing culture (world) but is not of it. This tradition, the Christocentric lived out and visible in the daily lives of Christians protects Tradition from the degradation possible when the larger culture (world) insinuates itself into people/Church. It is part bulwark, part also the creative outpouring of humans who hold Christ as their center.

Further, Truth is Christ. The apostles were the first witnesses, but Truth is witnessed and experienced still, and ever will be.

I'm sorry Thelka but I just can't seem to track with what you are saying. Can you simplify it any?

Go Cards!

 

[HisKid1973]

I guess the issue lies at some of us just trust what the original apostles written/oral that got put into canon and not put that same authority to other "writings " that are uninspired...Sorta, stick to the book types...

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

I lost my post

I'll try again:

I'm not much familiar with RC, so can't comment.
But there is Tradition, and also praxis (practice) and tradition. The latter, in a sense, is part of the creation of a new Christian culture, a Christocentric reality that exists in parallel to the existing culture (world) but is not of it. This tradition, the Christocentric lived out and visible in the daily lives of Christians protects Tradition from the degradation possible when the larger culture (world) insinuates itself into people/Church. It is part bulwark, part also the creative outpouring of humans who hold Christ as their center.

Further, Truth is Christ. The apostles were the first witnesses, but Truth is witnessed and experienced still, and ever will be.

I'm sorry Thelka but I just can't seem to track with what you are saying. Can you simplify it any?

Go Cards!

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I remember reading in my bible this group of people who wanted to stone Paul because the felt his message of the risen Christ did not square verbatim with the written word....Thessalonians if I remember. Then Paul went and spoke to the Bereans and they accepted both Paul's oral account AND the written word. The Bereans, a classic example of the Apostolic Tradition, relying on both the written and spoken Word.

this group of people who wanted to stone Paul because the felt his message of the risen Christ did not square verbatim with the written word

Uh no . . . the passage:

Acts 17:5
5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people.

says it was because they were jealous . . . not anything about verbatim with the word dude.

they accepted both Paul's oral account AND the written word. The Bereans, a classic example of the Apostolic Tradition, relying on both the written and spoken Word

And no again. The passage:
Acts 17:11
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
NASU

Paul's teaching was BASED completely on the Scriptures . . . nothing here about oral tradition. The entire fact that the Bereans went to the Scripture to see if what he said was true PROVES the fact that here Paul was expositing the texts.

Again, I have no problem with oral tradition . . . but everywhere I see the NT hint at this . . . it is founded in SCRIPTURE first . . . so tradition is good and worthy of consideration . . . but it derives its authority FROM the scripture FIRST.

NOTICE NONE OF THE NT AUTHORS ARGUE FROM THE TARGUMS or THE OTHER JEWISH TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE. Save for an obscure reference from Jude about the consumption of Moses . . .
NASU

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Uh no . . . the passage:

Acts 17:5
5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people.

says it was because they were jealous . . . not anything about verbatim with the word dude.



And no again. The passage:
Acts 17:11
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
NASU

Paul's teaching was BASED completely on the Scriptures . . . nothing here about oral tradition. The entire fact that the Bereans went to the Scripture to see if what he said was true PROVES the fact that here Paul was expositing the texts.

Again, I have no problem with oral tradition . . . but everywhere I see the NT hint at this . . . it is founded in SCRIPTURE first . . . so tradition is good and worthy of consideration . . . but it derives its authority FROM the scripture FIRST.

NOTICE NONE OF THE NT AUTHORS ARGUE FROM THE TARGUMS or THE OTHER JEWISH TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE. Save for an obscure reference from Jude about the consumption of Moses . . .
NASU

To scottbot . . . this was shoved way back in the thread . . .

 

[Asinner]

That's why I used the words "For example" when describing a theology that doesn't have a paper's thickness of difference between them.

Go Cards!

Hey

Our theologies are vastly different. Just to clarify.

Love,
Christina

 

[Trento]

It's very obvious that Jesus was blasting the Pharisees for the hypocritical way they interpreted Scripture. They became elitists who felt they had the full measure of truth and so they made the rules whatever they wanted them to be. They did it to line their own pockets and keep the people ignorant of the truth. In much the same way the RCC chained the Bible to the pulpit by telling people they couldn't understand it without the priests around to interpret it. Money and power -- that's really what's behind a great deal of tradition.

Go Cards

I find it very interesting that Jesus, while He often scathingly rebuked the Pharisees, nevertheless says:

• The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.
  
  (Matthew 23:2-3; NRSV)

Pharisees had the teaching authority at that time, but were hypocritical in not following their own teaching. Yet Jesus (somewhat surprisingly) said to follow them as authorities anyway, because they sat on "Moses' seat" (i.e., they preserved the ongoing Tradition).

Before the advent of printing, the rarity of books mad them available only to the wealthy. they were often locked away in chests. The Church, wishing to make the Bible available to all the faithful and still to ensure it against loss, chained it to a desk or lectern near a window. There even poor students had its use and it was in popular demand. Bias and ignorance have interpreted this chaining as proof that the Church withheld the Bible from the laity.

 

[Montalban]

Trento! No quote mine used!

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Before the advent of printing, the rarity of books mad them available only to the wealthy. they were often locked away in chests. The Church, wishing to make the Bible available to all the faithful and still to ensure it against loss, chained it to a desk or lectern near a window. There even poor students had its use and it was in popular demand. Bias and ignorance have interpreted this chaining as proof that the Church withheld the Bible from the laity.

You'd think if they were interested in making it available to all the faithful, they would've translated it so that non-latin readers could understand it. Unless your definition of faithful doesn't include the general population of believers.

 

[Montalban]

You'd think if they were interested in making it available to all the faithful, they would've translated it so that non-latin readers could understand it. Unless your definition of faithful doesn't include the general population of believers.

a) how many could read, anyway?
b) Latin was the lingua franca in the west
c) the 'conspiracy' of not translating it fails in general, because Orthodoxy for one, had the Bible translated in the languages of the people