Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

Root of Jesse · Mar 19, 2012

Clearly said:
[FONT=&quot]1) REGARDING CHANGES TO THE EARLIEST TRADITIONS BY THE CATHOLIC CONGREGATION[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clearly, I don't think you've shown any Sacred Tradition that has changed since Jesus died[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Root of Jesse #75[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot], my goal was not to force you to admit to the changes in doctrines I have already demonstrated to the rest of the forum and which they see with clarity. We all are allowed to see what we want. Rather, I wanted to provide public information to historically minded readers to allow them to be able to recognize significant changes in doctrines that have occurred as the Roman congregation broke away from the earliest form of Christianity and became a type unto itself. ALL of us ought to recognize the tendency for inaccurate doctrinal innovation exists in all of us.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A) NEW TRADITIONS CREATED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After the apostles died, the specific schizm that later became the Roman Catholic Church created entirely NEW traditions that did not exist in authentic and earliest Christianity. Weve already discussed the innovative new claim to have received Peters religious apostolic authority through an obscure bishop. We discussed changes made to the earliest form of Baptism; we discussed changes made to the earliest known eucharist; we discussed the damnation of innocent un-baptized infants (and the mentally infirm) and other innovations made by the roman congregation as they drifted away from early Christian tradition. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Historically the issue was not WHETHER such changes occurred in christian doctrines and traditions, (historically, it is obvious that they occurred). The historical issues now debated often have more to do with WHY and HOW the Roman Congregation (and other christianities) changed early doctrines and adopted others. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The shift to man made religion was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). This shift to man-made theology drives the historical discussions asking WHY the roman congregation abandoned perfectly logical and sensible early doctrines for illogical and nonsensical doctrines and HOW new interpretations and traditions were adopted as a new orthodoxy.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]B) TRADITIONS CHANGED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Weve also discussed completely authentic doctrines which the Roman Congregation adopted in a changed form as the Roman congregation split off from the earliest doctrines. For example, the roman congregations version of a sort of purgatory. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Critics of the Roman congregation have complained repeatedly regarding the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and yet it is clear that the Roman Congregation is perfectly correct that a form of this doctrine DID exist in early Christian tradition. Though the Roman congregation nowadays have only retained tenuous and narrow textual evidence as a source of their version of this doctrine (e.g. apocrypha), there is actually a great deal of textual evidence to show that a version of this doctrine was quite widely believed and described in early sacred Judao-Christian texts. The greater textual evidence was simply lost and remained relatively unknown and unused by the later versions of the Roman Congregation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]C) TRADITIONS ABANDONED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Weve also discussed early Christian traditions that were abandoned by the Roman Congregation. These are traditions existing in detailed form in early Judao-Christianity, but which were abandoned by the Roman Congregation over the years. As the Roman Congregation severed the doctrinal links which bound them to early Judao-Christian understanding of Gods purposes, of creation and its form, of his plan for the pre-existent spirits of mankind; of the nature of the fall of man as well as the nature of man himself; the nature of evil and the fall / origin and motives of Lucifer, etc, they were left unable to neither understand nor to give detailed explanation to questions that were relatively simple principles in early judao-christianity. The summation of pfaffenhofens answer to three very, very, simple principles was I dont know. The early Judao-Christians had detailed traditions that answered such basic questions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) THE ESSENTIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] You've shown peripherals that can be but don't have to be believed, but they're not essential to Catholic faith. Root of Jesse #75 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are principles you are not considering Root of Jesse.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, You have not considered how the Roman Congregations adoption of unessential counterfeit traditions affect the essentials. For example; consider how a false claim to authority affects your essential doctrine of Baptism : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]...what gets someone into heaven? Baptism. If you're dying and desire to be baptized, and I baptize you, you will go to heaven[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Root of Jesse #75[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have no religious authority[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to offer and perform authentic baptism. The Roman congregation has no more religious authority to baptize than any other congregation they have traditionally viewed as unauthorized. If Baptism and eucharist cannot be carried out without religious authority (as the apostolic fathers tell us), then the roman congregations cannot offer an authentic baptism or an authentic eucharist. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thus your personal guarantee of heaven based only upon "baptism" is a promise no more valid than buying indulgences without faith or repentance provides forgiveness and sanctity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your simple statement that only baptism is necessary, divorces entry into heaven from other moral principles that were important in authentic early Judao-Christian belief. Faith, and repentance also were necessary principles for the mentally competent in early Christian tradition. Baptism without authentic Faith and authentic repentance did not sanctify anyone in early Christian tradition.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have not considered that early traditions may have been important to the early Christians in their type of Christianity, though they are not important to you in your different type of Christianity. Without historical insight, you cannot imagine how an accurate insight into mans nature; Gods nature and his plan for mankind; the origin, nature and purposes of evil changes the nature of intelligent and efficient interaction with God and in carrying out his plans for mankind.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In pointing out New traditions created by the roman congregation; Changed traditions and traditions abandoned by the Roman Congregation, I was speaking of how the Roman Congregation differed from original and authentic Chrisitanity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You view the Roman congregation as original christianity whereas I view it as an early break off-religion of the earlier christianity. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am not so interested in the beliefs of the schizm that became known as the roman catholic faith as I am in the beliefs of the earliest and most original christianity. This is the distinction that was difficult for the non-historian pfaffenhoven to understand. One must FIRST understand what authentic Judao-Christian traditions WERE, BEFORE one can honestly claim they believe in original Christian traditions. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]nefusiti[/FONT]

There have been no changes in Catholic doctrine or dogma.

Root of Jesse · Mar 19, 2012

Clearly said:
POST ONE OF TWO

For example, an early Synagogal Prayer reads :

1 Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit. 2 Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation, the sequence of providence, the judgment seats of different legislation, why the world came to be and why man was appointed a world citizen. 3 Let him understand his own nature, of what sort it is. Let him be educated in how God punished the wicked...5 And how God, though he foresaw, did not abandon the race of men, but summoned them at various times from error and folly into the understanding of truth....6 Let the one who offers himself learn during his instruction these things and those that are related to them.Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - # 8 Instruction for the Catechumens (AposCon 7.39.2-4)

The modern roman congregation (and others) can no longer teach the same traditions nor in the same detail that were so important to the early christians.

This is still in effect today. In fact, I, myself, went through the process.

2) THE CONSEQUENCE OF GAINING KNOWLEDGE OF EARLY AND AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN TRADITION

One must FIRST understand what authentic Judao-Christian traditions WERE, BEFORE one can honestly claim they believe in original Christian traditions.

This is still in effect today. In fact, I myself went through just this practice.

3) THE SHIFT FROM THEOLOGY BASED ON REVELATION FROM GOD TO THEOLOGY CREATED BY THEOLOGIANS

The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians. The shift to man made religion was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). This shift to man-made theology drives the historical discussions asking WHY the roman congregation abandoned perfectly logical and sensible early doctrines for illogical and nonsensical doctrines and HOW new interpretations and traditions were adopted as a new orthodoxy.

What was the Holy Spirit doing from the Early Church to Luther? Sleeping?
Do you dare to say that Jesus Christ let His church drift away for 1400 years without pilot nor rudder.Pfaffenhofen, #77

The Jews had the same difficulty in imagining and admitting to themselves the terrible truth of the early Christian Claim that THEY had lost Gods bestowal of Prophets and living lines of revelation from God (upon which scriptures were based) and that these gifts had been transferred to Christianity. They asked the same rhetorical question as to why God would allow his covenant people to drift without pilot nor rudder (as it were). The same difficult admission faced Christianity once their prophets and apostles died.

This is, in fact, not true. Our theology is based, exactly, on the apostles and prophets.

Regarding the Jews, do you know how they handle it? The do not allow Isaiah 56 to ever be read in the synagog.

And afterwards, at his approach, his disciples will abandon the teaching of the twelve apostles, and their faith, and their love, and their purity. And there will be much contention at his coming and at his approach. And in those days (there will be) many who will love office, although lacking wisdom. And there will be many wicked elders and shepherds who wrong their sheep, (and they will be rapacious because they do not have holy shepherds). And many will exchange the glory of the robes of the saints for the robes of those who love money; and there will be much respect of persons in those days, and lovers of the glory of this world. And there will be many slanderers and [much] vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many. And in those day there will not be many prophets, nor those who speak reliable words, except one here and there in different places, because of the spirit of error and of fornication, and of vainglory, and of the love of money, which there will be among those who are said to be servants of the One, and among those who receive that One. 29 And among the shepherds and the elders there will be great hatred towards one another. 30 For there will be great jealousy in the last days, for everyone will speak whatever pleases him in his own eyes. 31 And they will neglect (gr) the prophecy of the prophets who were before me, and my visions also...they will make ineffective, in order that they may speak what bursts out of their heart. Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 3:21-31;

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

The final quote is not scriptural. And from scholarly examination, it is clearly a code for the persecution of the Church by Nero, and the belief that Nero was an Antichrist.

Clearly · Mar 24, 2012

Clearly in post 80 said:
3) THE SHIFT FROM THEOLOGY BASED ON REVELATION FROM GOD TO THEOLOGY CREATED BY THEOLOGIANS

Clearly claimed : “ The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians. The shift to “man made religion” was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). This shift to man-made theology drives the historical discussions asking WHY the roman congregation abandoned perfectly logical and sensible early doctrines for illogical and nonsensical doctrines and HOW new interpretations and traditions were adopted as a new “orthodoxy”. “

What was the Holy Spirit doing from the Early Church to Luther? Sleeping?
Do you dare to say that Jesus Christ let His church drift away for 1400 years without pilot nor rudder. Pfaffenhofen, #77

Clearly explained that “The Jews had the same difficulty in imagining and admitting to themselves the terrible truth of the early Christian Claim that THEY [i.e. the jews] had lost God’s bestowal of Prophets and living lines of revelation from God (upon which scriptures were based) and that these gifts had been transferred to Christianity. They asked the same rhetorical question as to why God would allow his covenant people to drift “without pilot nor rudder” (as it were). The same difficult admission faced Christianity once their prophets and apostles died.

As early christian congregations, including the catholic congregation, underwent the same loss of prophets and apostolic gifts of revelation among them, it was completely natural for this void to be filled by theologians who simply did the best they could to develop doctrines and codify traditions in this formative stage of early Christianity.

I am not trying to FAULT them, I think they did the best they could at reasoning out a set of doctrines. The point is that this process of creating doctrine was DIFFERENT and INFERIOR to the earlier and authentic process of receiving doctrines by revelation through living Prophets and Apostles. It is my opinion that the Spirit of God has always been willing to influence, at some level, all individuals in all ages as they make themselves willing and able to receive his influence. guidance.

Still, the tendency to apostasy was not simply a defect among the Jews, but ALL of us have the tendency to doctrinal drift and innovation as religious data passes through our biases and becomes interpreted into beliefs. This tendency was not unexpected as the early texts tell us :

“ And afterwards, at his approach, his disciples will abandon the teaching of the twelve apostles, and their faith, and their love, and their purity. And there will be much contention at his coming and at his approach. And in those days (there will be) many who will love office, although lacking wisdom. And there will be many wicked elders and shepherds who wrong their sheep, (and they will be rapacious because they do not have holy shepherds). And many will exchange the glory of the robes of the saints for the robes of those who love money; and there will be much respect of persons in those days, and lovers of the glory of this world. And there will be many slanderers and [much] vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many. And in those day there will not be many prophets, nor those who speak reliable words, except one here and there in different places, because of the spirit of error and of fornication, and of vainglory, and of the love of money, which there will be among those who are said to be servants of the One, and among those who receive that One. 29 And among the shepherds and the elders there will be great hatred towards one another. 30 For there will be great jealousy in the last days, for everyone will speak whatever pleases him in his own eyes. 31 And they will neglect (gr) the prophecy of the prophets who were before me, and my visions also...they will make ineffective, in order that they may speak what bursts out of their heart.” Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 3:21-31;

Root of Jesse responded in post # 82 “Regarding the Jews, do you know how they handle it? The[y] do not allow Isaiah 56 to ever be read in the synagog. “

The Jewish tendency to avoid admitting the loss of prophets and revelation, does not excuse Christians from doing the very same thing. We should avoid the hypocrisy of condemning Jews since Christians are also guilty of the same unwillingness to admit the significance of the loss of prophets and revelation; AND, we do it for exactly the same reasons as the Jews did.

We see the very same patterns of deflection, denial and deferral of admissions among Christians as well as among the Jews.

1) We deflect attention away from uncomfortable data : For example : When faced with the uncomfortable point that “ The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians. The shift to “man made religion” was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). “, rather than considering the consequences of this point, you simply criticize the jews for not considering the consequences.

2) We frankly deny uncomfortable data : For example : when confronted by discomforting data demonstrating doctrinal innovations; doctrinal changes; and doctrinal losses of important early traditions by the roman congregation, you simply claim : “There have been no changes in Catholic doctrine or dogma.”.

And, this denial comes in the very face of data demonstrating the opposite had actually occurred.

This claim that ones doctrines and texts are unchanged over the millennia is NOT merely a “roman catholic” phenomenon, but tends to affect most Christians. Even Islamists often fall back onto the claim that the Holy Qu’ran text is absolutely unchanged over centuries. ALL of us tend to engage in such denial to avoid the moral dilemma of having to realize we might have error in our beliefs.

3) We also tend to offer an irrelevant point in exchange for a relevant one as a type of deflection. For example, we’ve already demonstrated the inability of the Roman Congregation to teach it’s members the earliest Christian traditions they abandoned long ago and due to changes in the early doctrines they did retain in some form. When I point out that the earliest Christians were required to be taught the early form of these doctrines, before baptism, you claim : “This is still in effect today. In fact, I, myself, went through the process. #82.

You in fact, did NOT go through the process of learning the same traditions as the earliest Christians were taught, (e.g. creation from matter, pre-creation existence of spirits, etc.) which you already admitted that you do NOT believe in. Instead, you were taught a different set of traditions than the earliest Christian traditions.

Deferring and deflecting by attempting to bury this contradiction in another point so as not to be noticed is simply another deflection.

Root of Jesse, I am not trying to single you out, I’ve already pointed out that other educated forum catholics have also pointed out that they do not know and were not taught such early traditions by the roman congregation.

For example : “[FONT=&quot]We’ve also discussed early Christian traditions that were abandoned by the Roman Congregation. These are traditions existing in detailed form in early Judao-Christianity, but which were abandoned by the Roman Congregation over the years. As the Roman Congregation severed the doctrinal links which bound them to early Judao-Christian understanding of Gods purposes, of creation and it’s form, of his plan for the pre-existent spirits of mankind; of the nature of the “fall of man” as well as the nature of man himself; the nature of evil and the fall / origin and motives of Lucifer, etc, they were left unable to neither understand nor to give detailed explanation to questions that were relatively simple principles in early judao-christianity. The summation of one educated roman Catholic formum members’ “ answer to three very, very, simple principles was “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I don’t know[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”. The early Judao-Christians had detailed traditions that answered such basic questions.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” Clearly in # 76[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have already admitted that you were not taught[/FONT][FONT=&quot], nor believe in these same early traditions, nor is the modern Roman congregation able to teach these early traditions in the same detail and context as the early Judao-Christians did.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I pointed out that the different roman doctrines and different roman practices means a different Christianity.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In the context of the Sola Scriptura vs Holy Tradition and their relationship to the creation of doctrine or the understanding of the earliest Judao-christian doctrines : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Your claim that your interpretations are based on your reading of the apostles and prophets is no different and no more valid than a hypothetical "sola scripturists" attempt to base their different doctrines and practices “on the apostles and prophets”. Whether one bases their interpretations on “erroneous sola scriptura” or “erroneous traditions”, still such interpretations based on error will contain errors.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]eieiacseti[/FONT]

Root of Jesse · Mar 26, 2012

Actually, I'm waiting for you to show me some early-held belief that the Catholic Church no longer teaches or adheres to which is doctrinal in nature, meaning it must be believed in order to be a Catholic in good standing.

I don't consider you singling me out, but everything you say that we've pushed aside, I say we still believe.

Pfaffenhofen · Mar 26, 2012

Root of Jesse said:
Actually, I'm waiting for you to show me some early-held belief that the Catholic Church no longer teaches or adheres to which is doctrinal in nature, meaning it must be believed in order to be a Catholic in good standing.

I don't consider you singling me out, but everything you say that we've pushed aside, I say we still believe.

I am dizzy reading this.
Never thought this would be a problem....

ranpleasant · Mar 26, 2012

Pfaffenhofen said:
But I am trying just to find the origin of this antithesis between Tradition and Scripture.

Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are not opposites, rather both are the Word of God. Holy Scripture is the Word of Jesus Christ writed down by the apostles. Holy Tradition is the Word of Jesus Christ preached by the apostles but written down by men other then the apostles. Because they are both the Word of God there are no conflicts between what is taught in Holy Scripture and what is taught in Holy Tradition. The unity of the Catholic Church comes from interpreting Holy Scripture in the context of Holy Tradition. The great diversity among Protestant denominations is due primarily to their personal interpretations Holy Scripture without the context of Holy Tradition.

Please note that the Catholic Church has many many traditions that have nothing to do with Holy Tradition. For example, celibacy among the priesthood of the Latin Rite is a tradition, but it is not Holy Tradition, thus it can be changed. On the other hand, that only men may be ordained into the priesthood is based upon Holy Tradition, thus it is dogma and cannot be changed by any one, including Popes.

For a good understanding of Holy Tradition I highly suggest a book written in 1928: Tradition and the Church by George Agius.

Ran

Clearly · Mar 26, 2012

Root of Jesse :

The Historical issue is not what a modern roman catholic “must believe” to be in “good standing”. The claim you made that I disagreed with was your intimation that no early authentic tradition was lost to the early roman congregation as they evolved into the church that later became the roman catholic church. I think it was a simple “overstatement” meant to be a bit of a brag (the type that any of us might make without thinking of the consequences&#8230, however since you resisted correction, we have continued on this point so as to give readers of the thread sufficient information to see whether they believe the claim is true or not.

We have already discussed in detail the differences between roman Catholic traditions and the original Christianity and their traditions. We discussed entirely new doctrines the roman catholic church originated (such as their claim to apostolic authority for the obscure bishop Linus); we discussed authentic doctrines that underwent modification by the later roman catholic church (such as purgatory, which is certainly based on an authentic early Christian tradition); and lastly we discussed early traditions and Christian doctrines which were lost or abandoned by the later roman catholic church and which they are no longer believe or are unable to teach in significant detail to their membership (such as pre-creation existence of mans’ spirit; issues underlying the origin of evil; the war in heaven; Lucifers’ fall, etc).

For example :

[FONT=&quot]1) REGARDING CHANGES TO THE EARLIEST TRADITIONS BY THE CATHOLIC CONGREGATION[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“ Clearly, I don't think you've shown any Sacred Tradition that has changed since Jesus died. ” Root of Jesse #75[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot], my goal was not to force you to admit to the changes in doctrines I have already demonstrated to the rest of the forum and which they see with clarity. We all are allowed to see what we want. Rather, I wanted to provide public information to historically minded readers to allow them to be able to recognize significant changes in doctrines that have occurred as the Roman congregation broke away from the earliest form of Christianity and became a type unto itself. ALL of us ought to recognize the tendency for inaccurate doctrinal innovation exists in all of us.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A) NEW TRADITIONS CREATED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After the apostles died, the specific schizm that later became the Roman Catholic Church created entirely NEW traditions that did not exist in authentic and earliest Christianity. We’ve already discussed the innovative new claim to have received Peter’s religious apostolic authority through an obscure bishop. We discussed changes made to the earliest form of Baptism; we discussed changes made to the earliest known eucharist; we discussed the damnation of innocent un-baptized infants (and the mentally infirm) and other innovations made by the roman congregation as they drifted away from early Christian tradition. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Historically the issue was not WHETHER such changes occurred in christian doctrines and traditions, (historically, it is obvious that they occurred). The historical issues now debated often have more to do with WHY and HOW the Roman Congregation (and other christianities) changed early doctrines and adopted others. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The shift to “man made religion” was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). This shift to man-made theology drives the historical discussions asking WHY the roman congregation abandoned perfectly logical and sensible early doctrines for illogical and nonsensical doctrines and HOW new interpretations and traditions were adopted as a new “orthodoxy”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]B) TRADITIONS CHANGED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We’ve also discussed completely authentic doctrines which the Roman Congregation adopted in a changed form as the Roman congregation split off from the earliest doctrines. For example, the roman congregations version of a sort of “purgatory”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Critics of the Roman congregation have complained repeatedly regarding the Roman Catholic doctrine of “Purgatory”, and yet it is clear that the Roman Congregation is perfectly correct that a form of this doctrine DID exist in early Christian tradition. Though the Roman congregation nowadays have only retained tenuous and narrow textual evidence as a “source” of their version of this doctrine (e.g. apocrypha), there is actually a great deal of textual evidence to show that a version of this doctrine was quite widely believed and described in early sacred Judao-Christian texts. The greater textual evidence was simply lost and remained relatively “unknown” and “unused” by the later versions of the Roman Congregation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]C) TRADITIONS ABANDONED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We’ve also discussed early Christian traditions that were abandoned by the Roman Congregation. These are traditions existing in detailed form in early Judao-Christianity, but which were abandoned by the Roman Congregation over the years. As the Roman Congregation severed the doctrinal links which bound them to early Judao-Christian understanding of Gods purposes, of creation and it’s form, of his plan for the pre-existent spirits of mankind; of the nature of the “fall of man” as well as the nature of man himself; the nature of evil and the fall / origin and motives of Lucifer, etc, they were left unable to neither understand nor to give detailed explanation to questions that were relatively simple principles in early judao-christianity. The summation of [one educated roman catholics’] answer to three very, very, simple [historic] principles [regarding these themes] was “I don’t know”. [However] The early Judao-Christians had detailed traditions that answered such basic questions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) “THE ESSENTIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“ You've shown peripherals that can be but don't have to be believed, but they're not essential to Catholic faith.“ Root of Jesse #75 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are principles you are not considering Root of Jesse.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, You have not considered how the Roman Congregations’ adoption of “unessential” counterfeit traditions affect the “essentials”. For example; consider how a false claim to authority affects your “essential doctrine” of Baptism : “...what gets someone into heaven? Baptism. If you're dying and desire to be baptized, and I baptize you, you will go to heaven. “ Root of Jesse #75[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have no religious authority[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to offer and perform authentic baptism. The Roman congregation has no more religious authority to baptize than any other congregation they have traditionally viewed as “unauthorized”. If Baptism and eucharist cannot be carried out without religious authority (as the apostolic fathers tell us), then the roman congregations cannot offer an authentic baptism or an authentic eucharist. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thus your personal guarantee of heaven based only upon "baptism" is a promise no more valid than buying indulgences without faith or repentance provides forgiveness and sanctity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your simple statement that only baptism is necessary, divorces entry into heaven from other moral principles that were important in authentic early Judao-Christian belief. Faith, and repentance also were necessary principles for the mentally competent in early Christian tradition. Baptism without authentic Faith and authentic repentance did not sanctify anyone in early Christian tradition.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have not considered that early traditions may have been important to the early Christians in their type of Christianity, though they are not important to you in your different type of Christianity.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Without historical insight, you cannot imagine how an accurate insight into mans nature; Gods’ nature and his plan for mankind; the origin, nature and purposes of evil changes the nature of intelligent and efficient interaction with God and in carrying out his plans for mankind.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In pointing out New traditions created by the roman congregation; Changed traditions and traditions abandoned by the Roman Congregation, I was speaking of how the Roman Congregation differed from original and authentic Chrisitanity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You view the Roman congregation as original christianity whereas I view it as an early break off-religion of the earlier christianity. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am not so interested in the beliefs of the schizm that became known as the roman catholic faith as I am in the beliefs of the earliest and most original christianity. This is the distinction that was difficult for the non-historian pfaffenhoven to understand. One must FIRST understand what authentic Judao-Christian traditions WERE, BEFORE one can honestly claim they believe in “original” Christian traditions. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]

After the death of the apostles and the prophets, The theology created by the Roman Congregation (and all other congregations) shifted from theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles to a theology created by theologians. This shift to “man made religion” attempted to simulate authentic religion (which involved revelation between God and mankind rather than logic and reason of theologians).

This is NOT to fault them since ALL of us speculate and reason concerning what we believe.

However, the theologians creating much of the roman congregations doctrine, speculated and reasoned in ways that created different doctrines and different traditions than they might have created had they maintained the early context of pre-mortal existence and other early traditions.

Clearly
eitwneseis

ranpleasant · Mar 26, 2012

Double post:

ranpleasant · Mar 26, 2012

Clearly said:
After the death of the apostles and the prophets, The theology created by the Roman Congregation (and all other congregations) shifted from theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles to a theology created by theologians. This shift to man made religion attempted to simulate authentic religion (which involved revelation between God and mankind rather than logic and reason of theologians).

After the death of the apostles the Catholic Church maintained what the apostles taught about Jesus Christ in both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition from that time until today in an unbroken line of authority. The Catholic Church was able to do this because Jesus Christ said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).

Implying that the Catholic Church was little more than a "Roman Congregation" borders on being silly. The Catholic Church is the universal church created by Jesus Christ upon the rock of St. Peter.

Ran

Clearly · Mar 27, 2012

1) Ranpleasant repeated the claim “After the death of the apostles the Catholic Church maintained what the apostles taught about Jesus Christ in both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition from that time until today in an unbroken line of authority. “ post 89

Historically, the roman congregation did what all other early congregations did (and still do). Without prophets and apostles to declare and explain doctrines, the roman congregation was left to decide for themselves how to interpret the gospel and to develop their own interpretation of the gospel. Historically, the bishop of the roman congregation had no more authority than the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch or any other congregation nor is there any period-appropriate evidence that Peter gave any apostolic authority to Linus or any roman bishop.

2) Regarding the claim that the roman catholic church maintained apostolic teachings, Ranpleasant said “The Catholic Church was able to do this because Jesus Christ said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt 16:18).

Historically, the roman catholic church did NOT maintain early Judao-Christian doctrines and early traditions unchanged, and, historically, they did not obtain nor maintain apostolic authority. Thus, you might consider some other interpretation than one where jesus was speaking of a roman congregation that did not even exist at that time. We have already discussed the various innovations of, changes in, and loss of doctrines experienced by the evolving roman congregation.

3) Ranpleasant said “ Implying that the Catholic Church was little more than a "Roman Congregation" borders on being silly. “

Ranpleasant, this is a historical thread. The roman congregation, in the early stages, WAS a roman congregation. I understand that you feel it is a great organization nowadays, and It certainly did evolve and change, and became an organization that grew in numbers and in its later and larger form, wielded tremendous theological influence over millennia.

But in the days immediately after the apostles died, the roman congregation was simply a congregation among other congregations, nor was it the first Congregation of christians, nor was it pre-eminent in the earliest stages of the christian movement.

Clearly
eidrdrsion

Root of Jesse · Mar 27, 2012

Clearly said:
Root of Jesse :

The Historical issue is not what a modern roman catholic must believe to be in good standing. The claim you made that I disagreed with was your intimation that no early authentic tradition was lost to the early roman congregation as they evolved into the church that later became the roman catholic church. I think it was a simple overstatement meant to be a bit of a brag (the type that any of us might make without thinking of the consequences), however since you resisted correction, we have continued on this point so as to give readers of the thread sufficient information to see whether they believe the claim is true or not.

We have already discussed in detail the differences between roman Catholic traditions and the original Christianity and their traditions. We discussed entirely new doctrines the roman catholic church originated (such as their claim to apostolic authority for the obscure bishop Linus); we discussed authentic doctrines that underwent modification by the later roman catholic church (such as purgatory, which is certainly based on an authentic early Christian tradition); and lastly we discussed early traditions and Christian doctrines which were lost or abandoned by the later roman catholic church and which they are no longer believe or are unable to teach in significant detail to their membership (such as pre-creation existence of mans spirit; issues underlying the origin of evil; the war in heaven; Lucifers fall, etc).

For example :
After the death of the apostles and the prophets, The theology created by the Roman Congregation (and all other congregations) shifted from theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles to a theology created by theologians. This shift to man made religion attempted to simulate authentic religion (which involved revelation between God and mankind rather than logic and reason of theologians).

This is NOT to fault them since ALL of us speculate and reason concerning what we believe.

However, the theologians creating much of the roman congregations doctrine, speculated and reasoned in ways that created different doctrines and different traditions than they might have created had they maintained the early context of pre-mortal existence and other early traditions.

Clearly
eitwneseis

I'm trying to tell you that none of that is lost (though I didn't have time to read your entire post-maybe tomorrow). They may not be held up as highly as they were in the early church, but since they're not essential, they might be hidden. For example, most people have no idea why priests kiss the altar when they process for Mass. But a little digging would show them. It's no secret, it's just that the faith is very rich. If you take the time, there's so much to know, but if you don't want to or don't have the time, you can still have enough to get you to heaven.

Clearly · Mar 28, 2012

POST ONE OF TWO

Root of Jesse said : “I'm trying to tell you that none of that is lost… They may not be held up as highly as they were in the early church, but since they're not essential, they might be hidden.” (pg 10 post #91)

I think all readers realize what you are trying to convince us of. I am simply demonstrating to all other readers that the roman congregation started new traditions not held by the earliest Christians; that they have changed some of the authentic doctrines they inherited from the earliest Christian traditions and and that the roman congregation lost and abandoned many of the early traditions held by early Judao-Christianity.

It makes no sense to claim that such traditions are not “lost”, but rather they are “hidden” to the Catholic Hierarchy; that they are hidden so deeply that no catholic knows about such traditions; that they are no longer able to teach the earliest traditions in any significant depth or clarity anymore; hidden so deeply that they no longer believe in them. These ARE the very characteristics of information that is “lost” and “abandoned”.

You claim that your traditions assist your interpretations of biblical text, yet you do not have the earliest nor the most correct traditions of early Judao-Christian traditions.

If you remember, To demonstrate this historical fact, I asked for a comparison of three modern roman catholic traditions to compare for similarity; for quantity and quality of data concerning these traditions saying :

“As an example comparison between the tradition of roman catholicisms’ current traditions and the earliest judao-christian traditions from the earliest sacred texts, perhaps you and I can offer a comparison for forum readers.

1) Will you describe the Roman Catholic tradition regarding the origin of man’s spirit from it’s consciousness to birth and what determines the moral and mental characteristics a spirit is born with

2) Will you describe the current catholic tradition regarding relationship of the spirit of mankind to God the Father and the Father’s reason for creating the world and inhabiting it with a mankind who has fallen from their initial moral perfection of the garden

3) Will you describe the current catholic tradition regarding details about the fall of Lucifer and his motives and reason for engineering the fall of Adam and eve and his continuing to war against God” POST #30 page #3

Concerning tradition #1, The depth of your catholic tradition regarding pre-creation condition of the souls of men is summed up in the only reference you could muster : [FONT=&quot]"Before you were in the womb, I knew you" (Root of Jesse in post #32). That was it; the sum total of the roman catholic description of this early christian tradition.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I asked you in post 41 (page 5)

“… are you sure you don’t want to add some data to these descriptions since these descriptions of catholic doctrine on these subjects seems to be very superficial and lack detail? Let me know if you need more time on these descriptions,”

You were still unable to come up with any more of a description of catholic tradition on this point. I felt that I should give you more time since you were probably scrambling to find ANYTHING from catholic sources on the subject. And this is why I asked you AGAIN in post 44 (of page 5)

- Meanwhile, are you sure you don’t want to add more data regarding Catholic doctrine regarding the origin of mans spirit and it’s characteristics; the purpose of creation and concerning the origin of Lucifer and his motives? (since I plan to post on those later today&#8230

[/FONT]
In post 45 (page 5) you quoted my offer for more time and said “I’m sure.” As you were unable to offer anything else.

If you are still unable to find ANYTHING else, but rather now theorize that such traditions are hidden, so deeply that even a diligent roman catholic cannot find the information after a significant search; then they are “hidden” so deeply that they are in all normal sense, abandoned by and no longer taught to the general membership in any detail and context so as to useable nowadays to help you interpret sacred texts.

Compare your single sentence describing the depth of the roman catholic knowledge with just an OVER VIEW from early Judao-Christian traditions :

[FONT=&quot] Many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian sacred Texts, relate the expansive doctrine of the pre-mortal realm and the nature of spirits there and God’s purposes for creation.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The theme of pre-creation and what happened there is written into the early sacred texts, their hymns contain the doctrine; virtually ALL of the ascension literature contains the doctrine, the war in heaven texts certainly contain the doctrine; the earliest liturgies contain the doctrine; the midrashic texts contain the doctrine, the Jewish Haggadah contains the doctrine, the Zohar contains it; the testament literature is full of it. One simply cannot READ the earliest sacred Judao-Christian texts without reference to this early Christian doctrine. This vast early literature is part of the context for early christians and illuminates their understanding of biblical texts that reference this pre-creation time period and what happened there. I’ll offer some examples.

Enoch, in his vision of pre-creation heaven, relates seeing the spirits that have populated and will populate the earth during it’s existence : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]”... I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1st Enoch 40:1) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The great scribe Enoch is commanded by the angel to : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“... write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.” (2nd Enoch 23:4-5) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In his vision the angel bids Enoch, “Come and I will show you the souls of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the souls of the righteous who have not yet been created.” After seeing various pre-existent souls, the ancient midrashic explanation is given us by himself. Enoch, regarding these many souls says : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“the spirit shall clothe itself in my presence” refers to the souls of the righteous which have already been created in the storehouse of beings and have returned to the presence of god; and “the souls which I have made” refers to the souls of the righteous which have not yet been created in the storehouse.” (3rd Enoch 43:1-3) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The vast ascension literature, describes the pre-creation realm of spirits. Abraham, in his ascension Vision describes the unnumbered spirits he sees, many of whom are waiting to come into mortality. The angel says to Abraham : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“Look now beneath your feet at the firmament and understand the creation that was depicted of old (i.e. planned). Among other things Abraham says “I saw there a great crowd of men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the portrayal, and half of them on the left side of the portrayal.”... He asks : “Eternal, Mighty One! What is this picture of creation?” 2 And he said to me, “This is my will with regard to what is in the council and it became good before my face (i.e. according to his plan).. “These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes who existed previously...and through you. some (who have been) prepared for being put in order (slav” restoration&#8221, others for revenge and perdition at the end of the age....those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for me of the people with azazel; these are the ones I have prepared to be born of you and to be called my people (The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:1-7 and 22:1-5 and 23:1-3) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The doctrine of pre-mortal existence of the spirits within men permeates the biblical text as well. A knowledge of this simple principle explains and underlies many of the quotes in many other texts as well. In the Old testament it was said : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (ecclesiates 12:7). This principle is mirrored in multiple other early Judao Christian texts as well : When God the Father commands the son to “Go, take the soul of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The only begotten Son said to Sedrach, “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born.” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
When the Son finally DOES take the Soul of the Mortal Sedrach, he simply takes it back to God “where it came from”. God’s statement to the prophet Sedrach is simply a rephrase of what God said in Old Testament Ecclesiastes 12:7...” and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” This principle is repeated in this same ancient usage in many of the ancient sacred texts from the earliest periods.

“Jesus said, “Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return.” (THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS v 49)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4)

The Early Christian usage of Ecclesiates 12:7 was used in this same way by the Apostle Peter as he explained to Clement that "This world was made so that the number of spirits predestined to come here when their number was full could receive their bodies and again be conducted back to the light." (Recognitions)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In this same ancient context, the question God asked Job; “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?”; was NOT simply rhetorical, but it was a REMINDER :

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

In this early Judao-Christian context, Job KNEW the answer when God asked where Job was when God laid the foundations of the earth “and all the sons of God shouted for joy”. The texts are explicit that the spirits were taught regarding God’s plan to send the spirits of men to earth. They knew they would undergo a fall of Adam and Of the need for a Redeemer. The savior describes this period of time to the ancient Prophet Seth when sons of God shouted for Joy. The redeemer said regarding this time period before creation in a assembly of jubilant spirits : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“And I said these things to the whole multitude of the multitudinous assembly of the rejoicing Majesty. The whole house of the Father of Truth rejoiced that I am the one who is from them.... And they all had a single mind, since it is out of one. They charged me since I was willing. I came forth to reveal the glory to my kindred and my fellow spirits.” (The second treatise of the Great Seth) [/FONT]

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Clearly · Mar 28, 2012

POST TWO OF TWO

[FONT=&quot] In explaining the relationship the pre-mortal realm of spirits, to the current time when individuals do as they please, unhampered (as it were), by a remembrance of pre-mortal relationships, the messiah remarked : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“After we went forth from our home, and came down to this world, and came into being in the world in bodies, we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant, but also by those who think that they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals. They persecuted those who have been liberated by me, since they hate them...” (The second treatise of the Great Seth) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The early Christian doctrine of Pre-mortal existence removed arbitrariness out of the accusation that God himself created spirits unequally. IN this ancient model, the spirits are partly responsible for their own nature upon entering this life. Instead of arbitrarily creating spirits with defects (the very defects for which spirits may be punished for later), in this early christian context, the Lord creates the body in relationship to certain characteristics the spirit has already obtained (or did not obtain) in it’s heavenly abode over vast periods of time. For example, Napthali explains this to his sons from the testament literature :

Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“For just as a potter knows the pot, how much it holds, and brings clay for it accordingly, so also the Lord forms the body in correspondence to the spirit,” and, because the Lord knows and has known the spirit over eons, “ the Lord knows the body to what extent it will persist in goodness, and when it will be dominated by evil. For there is no form or conception which the Lord does not know since he created every human being according to his own image.” (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Napthali 2:2-5) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the context of the spirit of man existing long before other spirits, Jewish Haggadah relates that “Instead of being the last, man is really the first work of creation...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)

This it the very same teaching the Apostle Peter taught the Christian convert Clement. The Apostle Peter tells the young christian convert Clement about the pre-earth council and man’s place within this plan : "which (plan) He [God the Father] of his own good pleasure announced in the presence of all the first angels which were assembled before Him. Last of all He made man whose real nature, however, is older and for whose sake all this was created." (Recognitions)

The principle that man’s spirit pre-exists the creation of the earth itself, was one of the FIRST things the Apostle Peter teaches Clement. I believe there is a reason the Apostle Peter taught the principle of Pre-Existence to Clement at an early stage in Clements conversion to Christianity. Perhaps, for such theists, the key to understanding what God is doing with mankind is contained inside of the concept that we are eternally spiritual.

Many early Judao-Christian texts are quite explicit in explaining the doctrines underlying the New Testament Theology on this subject. For example : Speaking of the souls of men and the manner after which they are sent from their heavenly dwelling place to earth, the Haggadah relates :

Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“The soul and body of man are united in this way: When a woman has conceived...God decrees what manner of human being shall become of it – whether it shall be male or female, strong or weak, rich or poor, beautiful or ugly, long or short, fat or thin, and what all it’s other qualities shall be. Piety and wickedness alone are left to the determination of man himself. “Then God makes a sign to the angel appointed over the souls, saying, “Bring me the soul so-and-so, which is hidden in Paradise, whose name is so-and-so, and whose form is so-and-so.” The angel brings the designated soul, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Occasionally the spirit is reluctant to leave the untainted pre-mortal heaven for an earth where she knows her existence will be more difficult as she gains her moral education by coming to earth. In such accounts, God is NOT angry but the text says “ God consoles her. The text relates God telling the soul that : Quote :[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The entire chapter regarding the soul of man discussed in detail what happens with spirits before they enter the body and it relates their forgetting of their prior preparation and existence with God. (I might mention that souls anciently are all described in the female gender - like ships are - in modern parlance)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Such principles in the Haggadic text (which is related to the talmudic history) is mirrored in several other texts. For example, the Zohar confirms the doctrine as it relates essentially the same description. : Quote:[/FONT] "[FONT=&quot]At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and each soul was formed into the exact outline of the body she was destined to tenant. Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this and this place, into this and this body.” Yet often enough the soul would reply: “Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, , and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained.” Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: “Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world.” Then the soul, realizing it could not disobey, would unwillingly descend and come into this world.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In very symbolic language, the Zohar relates the creation of the souls in heaven to the point that they become formed and cognizant and take on characteristics they will keep with them when they are placed into bodies at birth, even to the point of having gender. Speaking of these fully developed souls it says : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“the soul of the female and the soul of the male, are hence preeminent above all the heavenly hosts and camps.”

The question in the sacred text is then asked : "It may be wondered, if they [the souls] are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day. [...]Speaking of those left behind who mourn it was taught “Withal, the village people weep for the departure of the king’s son from among them. But one wise man said to them: ‘Why do you weep? Was this not the king’s son, whose true place is in his father’s palace and not with you?...’ “If the righteous were only aware of this, they would be filled with joy when their time comes to leave this world. For does it not honor them greatly that the matron comes down on their account, to take them into the King’s palace, where the King may every day rejoice in them?....And so, happy are the righteous and in the world to come, ... (THE ZOHAR - A SEAL UPON YOUR HEART) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

5-THE LOSS OF MANY EARLY DOCTRINES

The centuries following the death of Christ were described by a logia of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas as follows : Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Jesus said, “The kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This logia is one of many sad descriptions of the failed attempt to pass on the doctrines and traditions of the early Christianities to later generations, however, in the last days, when one looks inside of modern Christian Churches, one finds that much of the doctrinal substance that gave the early Church it’s value, is no longer to be found in it. Non restorationists and non historian Christians have lost much of the precious knowledge for which the agnostics and philosophers have been clamoring and debating over for 1700 years. If the Roman Congregation’s knowledge of such early traditions consists of the simple quotation : "Before you were in the womb, I knew you", then they do not have any advantage over any other Christianity that can quote the same scripture.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse, If you remember the three example major traditions which I suggested we compare between early Judao-Christian tradition and what became the Roman Catholic traditions; we have already touched on lightly the roman catholic churches’ loss of the doctrine of pre-creation existence of the spirit of man; it’s origin[/FONT] from it’s consciousness to birth and what determines the moral and mental characteristics a spirit is born with (though the Roman tradition did not even HAVE data regarding determinations of characteristics men are born with&#8230. We only touched on the difference between early Christian tradition and the different Roman Catholic tradition regarding the relationship of the spirit of mankind to God the Father and the Father’s reason for creating the world and inhabiting it with a mankind who has fallen from their initial moral perfection of the garden (I might remind you that roman catholic tradition differs and lacks the coherent logic of early Christian traditions in these areas as well). We did not really even touch on the differences between and lack of early traditions by the roman congregation regarding the origin of “evil” in the form of satan. I asked you on page 3, post #30 the following :

3) Will you describe the current catholic tradition regarding details about the fall of Lucifer and his motives and reason for engineering the fall of Adam and eve and his continuing to war against God”

Lets continue on to compare the depth and quality of modern roman catholic tradition on this issue with the Early Judao-christian tradition on the origin of evil in Lucifer and the circumstances surrounding the “war in heaven” and his fall from heaven and the source of his enemity with Adam and the rest of us.

This will be yet another chance for you to make your claim.

Describe the roman catholic tradition in this regard in the best depth you can. Why don’t you research the catholic tradition and describe what the roman catholic church teaches it’s members? Please, take your time rather than to respond with a simple sentence but give us the best depth and data you are able to gather. (Unless of course, there is only a simple sentence of data on this tradition to be had).

Clearly
eiviviviiv

ranpleasant · Mar 28, 2012

MPaul said:
...the Protestants uphold Scripture as the only ultimate authority, as compared to the Roman Catholic Church maintaining that Holy Tradition has divine authority at a level above Scripture.

You are misunderstanding what is Holy Tradition. One of the best description of Holy Tradition was given in 1928 by Monsignor George Agius in his book Tradition and the Church. On page 1 Monsignor Agius wrote:

The proper source of Revelation is the word of God, which is both written and unwritten. The written is contained in Scripture; the unwritten in Tradition.

When we speak of the unwritten word of God, we do not mean that it has never been written, but that it was never written by the man to whom God revealed it. It was committed to writing afterwards by his disciples or by others who heard it from his lips.

It is clear from the above description that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are equal in authority since they are both the Word of God. But according to 1st Timothy 3:15 both are subordinate to the authority of the Catholic Church since the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth".

Some Protestants have spent a lot of time in this thread trying to prove that the Holy Tradition maintain by the Catholic Church has changed. A more important issue to me is since they follow Scripture Alone how do they justify not following Holy Tradition since the Bible clearly says to do so? Also, since they don't follow Holy Tradition how do they justify believing in the Holy Trinity since the concept is not fully explain in Holy Scripture?

Ran

Clearly · Mar 29, 2012

1) Regarding the relative value of Scripture versus Tradition in interpretation of texts.

ranpleasant said : “It is clear from the above description that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are equal in authority…” (pg 10 #94)

Ranpleasant, if Mpaul, (and the rest of us...), seem confused about this specific claim you are making, I think we are to be excused for our confusion since the prior roman catholic claim was that tradition was superior to scripture (rather then being “equal&#8221. The Roman Catholic Pfaffenhofen taught us that in the Catholic view, “Tradition is higher in value than Scripture, no doubt about it.” (in post #9) Thus we may have been operating on a different assumption regarding an "official" roman catholic doctrine on this subject

Is there any consensus among the Forum roman Catholics as to what is the official correct roman Catholic doctrine on this point? Perhaps quotes from an official roman catholic source or text?

2) Regarding the modern theory of a “three is one” model of the Godhead :

Ranpleasant said : “ Also, since they don't follow Holy Tradition how do they justify believing in the Holy Trinity since the concept is not fully explain in Holy Scripture? “ (pg 10 #94)

Ranpleasant, I believe that you are correct on both points :

1)That the Catholic model of the trinity (which the protestants inherited) is not “fully explained” in scripture and is NOT necessarily the most obvious model one a person might take away from reading of the New Testament for the first time without some prior coaching. The older the early Judao-Christian texts are, the more the ancient model of a "trinity" seems to diverge from the modern model of a "trinity".

2) I believe that you are also correct in your intimation that protestants simply inherited their theory of the Godhead from the Catholic model, who, in turn, had inherited their model from the logic and reasoning of theologians.

The theologian Origen reminds us that in this early stage of development of the Christian movement, many basic and important Christian doctrines and traditions had not yet taken shape. For example, Origen reminds us that, in his day, the Christian movement had not yet decided whether God the Father had a material body or not. This and many other important traditions were still in the early stages of development by the theologians as they reasoned out the various theories and finally decided what they would teach as the “orthodoxy” of that period.

This interesting point shows the degree to which protestants and catholics inherited many of their traditions from the same early theologians. I am completely unconvinced that a hypothetical and unbiased “native” who read the New Testament for the first time, would envision the same relationship between the three members of the Christian trinity early theologians theorized (and which both the Catholics and the protestants have inherited).

Clearly
eivineviib

Root of Jesse · Mar 30, 2012

Clearly said:
Root of Jesse said : I'm trying to tell you that none of that is lost They may not be held up as highly as they were in the early church, but since they're not essential, they might be hidden. (pg 10 post #91)

I think all readers realize what you are trying to convince us of. I am simply demonstrating to all other readers that the roman congregation started new traditions not held by the earliest Christians; that they have changed some of the authentic doctrines they inherited from the earliest Christian traditions and and that the roman congregation lost and abandoned many of the early traditions held by early Judao-Christianity.

It makes no sense to claim that such traditions are not lost, but rather they are hidden to the Catholic Hierarchy; that they are hidden so deeply that no catholic knows about such traditions; that they are no longer able to teach the earliest traditions in any significant depth or clarity anymore; hidden so deeply that they no longer believe in them. These ARE the very characteristics of information that is lost and abandoned.

You claim that your traditions assist your interpretations of biblical text, yet you do not have the earliest nor the most correct traditions of early Judao-Christian traditions.

Name some new traditions started by the roman congregation that were not held by the earliest Christians. Name some which have changed. Name some which have been lost or abandoned. Then demonstrate how they are core Christian beliefs that should be held if we are to be saved.

Regarding what I said "Before you were in the womb, I knew you.", this is not the depth of my knowledge, it is a summary. I don't have the time, nor the care to demonstrate how this refutes what you claim above.

Root of Jesse · Mar 30, 2012

Clearly said:
POST ONE OF TWO

Root of Jesse said : I'm trying to tell you that none of that is lost They may not be held up as highly as they were in the early church, but since they're not essential, they might be hidden. (pg 10 post #91)

I think all readers realize what you are trying to convince us of. I am simply demonstrating to all other readers that the roman congregation started new traditions not held by the earliest Christians; that they have changed some of the authentic doctrines they inherited from the earliest Christian traditions and and that the roman congregation lost and abandoned many of the early traditions held by early Judao-Christianity.

It makes no sense to claim that such traditions are not lost, but rather they are hidden to the Catholic Hierarchy; that they are hidden so deeply that no catholic knows about such traditions; that they are no longer able to teach the earliest traditions in any significant depth or clarity anymore; hidden so deeply that they no longer believe in them. These ARE the very characteristics of information that is lost and abandoned.

You claim that your traditions assist your interpretations of biblical text, yet you do not have the earliest nor the most correct traditions of early Judao-Christian traditions.

If you remember, To demonstrate this historical fact, I asked for a comparison of three modern roman catholic traditions to compare for similarity; for quantity and quality of data concerning these traditions saying :

Concerning tradition #1, The depth of your catholic tradition regarding pre-creation condition of the souls of men is summed up in the only reference you could muster : [FONT=&quot]"Before you were in the womb, I knew you" (Root of Jesse in post #32). That was it; the sum total of the roman catholic description of this early christian tradition. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I asked you in post 41 (page 5) You were still unable to come up with any more of a description of catholic tradition on this point. I felt that I should give you more time since you were probably scrambling to find ANYTHING from catholic sources on the subject. And this is why I asked you AGAIN in post 44 (of page 5)[/FONT]
In post 45 (page 5) you quoted my offer for more time and said Im sure. As you were unable to offer anything else.

If you are still unable to find ANYTHING else, but rather now theorize that such traditions are hidden, so deeply that even a diligent roman catholic cannot find the information after a significant search; then they are hidden so deeply that they are in all normal sense, abandoned by and no longer taught to the general membership in any detail and context so as to useable nowadays to help you interpret sacred texts.

Compare your single sentence describing the depth of the roman catholic knowledge with just an OVER VIEW from early Judao-Christian traditions :

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Are you a Gnostic???

ranpleasant · Mar 30, 2012

Root of Jesse said:
Name some new traditions started by the roman congregation that were not held by the earliest Christians. Name some which have changed. Name some which have been lost or abandoned. Then demonstrate how they are core Christian beliefs that should be held if we are to be saved.

Please note that Holy Tradition is the Word of God, it does not change, it affects the whole Church, and no one in the Catholic Church has ever had the authority to change it. The dogma of the Catholic Church is part of Holy Tradition. That aboration is evil is rooted in Holy Tradition, this is dogma, no Pope will ever have the authority to change this. The sacraments are supported by both Holy Scripture and by Holy Tradition, thus teachings on sacraments can never be changed because no one will ever have the authority to change it. As I often point out to some of my more liberal Catholic friends, God does not change to mind to meet the sinful wants of men.

On the other hand there are many many traditions within the Catholic Church that are not part of Holy Tradition. These tradition often affect only a part of the Church. For example, the ban on priest marrying affects only the Latin Rite of the Church. A married men can be ordained as a priest in all of the other rites of the Catholic Church but they cannot marry once ordained. All Popes have had the authority to remove this ban. The clothing, music, etc., are all just traditions.

Ran

Clearly · Mar 30, 2012

“ Regarding what I said "Before you were in the womb, I knew you.", this is not the depth of my knowledge, it is a summary. I don't have the time, nor the care to demonstrate how this refutes what you claim above.”Root of Jesse pg 10, #96

1) Root of Jesse :

I hope I have not come across as disrespectful in any way since that is NOT the way I feel regarding roman catholicism, nor do I feel that way about any other honest religious view.

However, you continue to make HISTORICAL claims without taking sufficient responsibility to allow us to examine your theories. It is almost five weeks since I asked for the information that you say you have “no time” to give, yet you’ve spent considerable time and significant energy on many, many posts which continue to make multiple unsupported and erroneous Historical claims of superior theology, or superior interpretations over other Christianities.

Of course you must expect someone, at some point, to ask you to support a claim with data. If it is really true that you don’t “care” to give us information or to allow your theories to be examined, some posters may view this as undeserved arrogance and hypocrisy, especially if you demand from others, the very types of data which you have been unwilling or unable to give. It was the tenor of pride and superiority as much as the error in your historical claims that caught my attention on this subject.

2) Regarding your claim that you “have more data”, but for some unknown reason, will not or cannot give it to us.

The point is that the roman catholic data doesn't exist to support your claim. It is not simply YOUR inability to offer data that is obvious, but not a single other roman catholic has been able to step in with even another bit of data; not a single sentence from any of them. ( I even had to offer the catechism that referenced the creation of the spirit). The roman Catholic Pfaffenhofen has seemed the most honorable and honest of all (to his wonderful credit) since he has at least admitted that he doesn’t know regarding this doctrine. And this honest and straightforward admission is from a (self-described) educated, greek-speaking, lawyer, priesthood-able, roman catholic.

It is already CLEAR that you do not have data we are asking for.

The roman Catholics do not HAVE the same set of traditions and data as the earliest Judao-Christians had. Much knowledge has been abandoned by and LOST to the roman congregation and the roman Catholics cannot teach them as a belief in any depth or clarity even comparable to the early Judao-Christians.

The point has already BEEN made.

We are trying to examine your claim that the Catholic Church is “untouched in its teaching for 2000 years” and your second claim that it is the retention of ancient tradition which makes Catholic interpretation of scripture superior to “sola scriptura”. While erroneous “sola scriptura” has demonstrated itself unworkable for interpretation, the reliance on an erroneous tradition has no advantage for correct interpretation of texts. Thus, catholic interpretations cannot BE held to be somehow superior than opposing interpretations if they are based on erroneous data, or lack of data.

3) ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DOCTRINES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CONGREGATION ABANDONED OR LOST

We’re still discussing the fact that the Roman Congregation has abandoned and lost early traditions regarding evil and lucifer as an example of a very basic tradition which the roman congregation is unable to teach in clarity and context as the early Judao-Christians were able to do.

If Root of Jesse is unable to offer the Roman Catholic teaching on this subject in any depth, then ANY OTHER CATHOLIC WHO BELIEVES THEY HAVE THE SAME DOCTRINE AND DEPTH AS EARLY JUDAO-CHRISITANS HAD ARE WELCOME TO OFFER THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONS regarding these points so as to allow us to compare the roman catholic doctrine with the early Judao-Christian doctrine. (The doctrine of good - evil is one of the most basic of all religious doctrines.)

Below is the third of three comparisons I offered to make with Root of Jesse back on page #3, post #30 :

3) Will you describe the current catholic tradition regarding details about the fall of Lucifer and his motives and reason for engineering the fall of Adam and eve and his continuing to war against God”

I had already repeated the request to compare the roman congregations doctrine multiple times.

Describe the roman catholic tradition in this regard in the best depth you can. Why don’t you research the catholic tradition and describe what the roman catholic church teaches it’s members? Please, take your time rather than to respond with a simple sentence but give us the best depth and data you are able to gather. (Unless of course, there is only a simple sentence of data on this tradition to be had).

I certainly respect roman catholic scholarship (the catholic Migne is a GIANT in my estimation), but it is clear historically, that the later roman catholicism is a different Christianity in doctrine and practice than the earliest Christianity. It is not the same.

Clearly
eifusifufutwoi

p.s. No Root of Jesse, I am not particularly "gnostic" though I do have a historians interest in the gnostics.

Root of Jesse · Apr 2, 2012

Clearly, do you hold a job? How many hours do you work? Do you have a family? How much of your time do you spend on them? Do you worship/pray/study? How much? These three things, not in that order, but the order of God/Family/Work all come before posting on this, or any forum. I work 50 hours a week, spend half that interacting with family, and much of the rest of my waking hours worshipping God, and learning more about him.
I have no need to show off my knowledge of my faith to anyone. The best way I can do that is by living it. I don't find you insulting, or anything else, I just don't have the time to make long posts which demand lots of attention, and try to refute them point by point.
I don't care what the gnostic gospels/writings say. They are not held to be good Catholic teaching. FWIW, Arianism was also very popular in early Christianity, but it's a heresy, so why would I read anything about their beliefs? Same with the Gnostics. Just because some early people claimed to be Christian and wrote things doesn't mean that they had orthodox beliefs. So, if you're saying, according the works like the Gospel of Thomas (which is not accepted by Cathlics), something was believed that we no longer hold to be true, then so what? Why should a Christian try to follow any of the Mosaic law? When we believe that Jesus fulfilled the law, we shouldn't. I appreciate your studies, but I have a life to live. Maybe, if my wife passes, I would have more time to read and study, but I give it at least an hour a day, and sometimes find that too much. I hope you understand.

Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Catholic

Newbie

Catholic

Catholic

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Newbie

Catholic

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Catholic

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency