Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

[Clearly]

1) ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN READ HAVE ACCESS TO HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD GIVE THEM "GREATER DETAIL AND CLARITY AND DEPTH" REGARDING EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS.


[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by Abrahamist : “ [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Without actually having access to this much greater detail and clarity and depth of tradition, how do you actually know this? “ [/FONT]

Your premise that we have no access to “greater detail and clarity and depth of tradition” is incorrect. You have misunderstood and are not thinking historically.

ANYONE MAY HAVE ACCESS to “greater detail and clarity and depth of tradition” of these specific examples of traditions that the Catholics no longer teach with detail and clarity. This is only a disadvantage to false historical claims. Accurate and true historical claims BENEFIT from the wonderful amount of early historical data that is available to almost anyone nowadays.

Though history shows certain roman catholic claims to be incorrect, history supports other roman catholic historical claims.

For example, most PROTESTANTS no longer teach any accurate form of the tradition of “PURGATORY”, whereas the roman Catholics HAVE retained a form of this tradition. AND I SUPPORTED THE ROMAN CATHOLICS IN THEIR HISTORICAL CLAIM THAT THIS WAS A TRUE TRADITION.

In the “Which denomination…” thread the Catholics attempted to support the doctrine by a single reference to a scripture from the apocrypha. The early Judao-christians taught such a tradition with much greater detail and clarity. Let me give you an example of this tradition with a bit more data :

On page P19, in posts #187-189 I supported the Catholic tradition of Purgatory to the Poster named “Yedida”. I wrote, regarding purgatory : –

************************************** Q U O T E **********************************************

Yedida ….Given the early splintering within the Christian movement I would agree with you that the early group that evolved into the Roman Catholic Church is not like the earliest Christian church in many ways.

However, I believe the Catholics are perfectly correct regarding the authenticity of the specific Judao-Christian doctrine of a place for spirits of mankind existing between Death and their later physical resurrection.

The early Judao-christians described both spirits existing before coming to this earth and a place after birth where such spirits remain for a time.

Two posters supporting the doctrine of purgatory explained that “Purgatory didn't become Canon before then but it was always practiced and believed.” (Poster LOCO) and Dark Lite explained that “Purgatory has its roots in history. You will find this is true for all doctrines of the Catholic Church. Whether the early Judao-Christians were correct or incorrect, still, the early Judao-christians themselves describe this doctrine in some detail in the early texts.







REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF A PLACE WHERE SPIRITS OF MEN ABIDE AFTER DEATH AND WHILE AWAITING RESURRECTION AND JUDGEMENT
Some confusion is caused by translation since, in describing the “intermediate” world between mortality and Final Judgment Both writers and translators of various early texts use many words somewhat arbitrarily in their translations, to refer to this place such as SHEOL - HADES - SPIRIT WORLD, PARADISE, PURGATORY, etc. (…sometimes "HELL" is used). The TERM “Purgatory” may be a later term, but the doctrine itself existed among the earliest Judao-christians.

Because translators use so many different terms for the same place, Occassionally, it is only the context that saves us from confusion.

For example the description that “paradise is in between the corruptible and the incorruptible.” ( 2 Enoch 8:5) indicates the ancient meaning for Paradise which moderns often forget.

This ancient usage of the word “Paradise” changes the meaning of Jesus promise to Dymas (the thief crucified beside Jesus) that “today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (lk 23:43). It was not “heaven” Dymas was promised, but it was “paradise”, the place between corruptible mortality and incorruptible heaven. The greek term "παραδιζο" referred to the place of gardens just outside of the castle of the king.

Quote: Of mortals it was said, “ Either he will be in this world or in the resurrection or in the places in the middle.” (The gospel of Phillip)

In the earliest version of this doctrine, All who leave mortality through death enter the place in the middle, i.e. Sheol, hades, spirit world, paradise, etc.

The “complainer” Ezra complains regarding the end of his life : “Bewail me, all holy and just ones, because I have entered the bowl of Hades.” (Apoc of Ezra7:1) The glorified Jesus reminds Ezra that he had been there as well : “Hear, Ezra, my beloved one. I, being immortal, received a cross, I tasted vinegar and gall, I was set down in a grave. And I raised up my elect ones and I summoned up Adam from Hades (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4). But more on this later.

In the earliest descriptions I can find of this doctrine, it is not simply a place for the evil or uncommitted, but rather in the earliest model of this doctrine, ALL WHO DIE GO TO THIS SPIRIT WORLD (THE PLACE IN THE MIDDLE)

In this ancient theology, all souls, including the Patriarchs, upon dying, have their spirits placed into this spirit world. Quote: “do you not know that all those who (spring) from Adam and Eve die? And not one of the prophets escaped death and not one of those who reign has been immortal. Not one of the forefathers has escaped the mystery of death. All have died, all have departed into Hades, all have been gathered by the sickle of Death.” (TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension A) 8:9; 7)

Quote:“ And Death said, “Hear, righteous Abraham, for seven ages I ravage the world and I lead everyone down into Hades – kings and rulers, rich and poor, slaves and free I send into the depth of Hades (T of Abr (rec A) 19:7) .

Quote: “For Death deceived Abraham. And he kissed his hand and immediately his soul cleaved to the hand of Death....13...the undefiled voice of the God and Father came speaking thus : “Take, then my friend Abraham into Paradise, where there are the tents of my righteous ones and (where) the mansions of my old ones, Isaac and jacob, are in his bosom... (TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension A) 20:9,13-15)

None of these references refer to the "Hell" that individuals may be sent to after the Judgment, but Hades was also a name for this "spirit world"; the "place in the middle". Another point of confusion regarding Hades is that the experience there is NOT the same for all individuals since individuals are divided according to their degree of righteousness. Thus the ancient texts describe it differently according to who is sent there (i.e the righteous vs the unrighteous).

I think that the catholic version of this early doctrine took on a bit different character partly because in some contexts, this spirit world was a sort of bondage; a "prison" of sorts.

For example, In describing Sheol, Enoch is shown that it has separate “areas” for individuals to be “assigned to”. In his vision, Enoch asks the angel : Quote:
.”For what reason is one separated from the other? And he replied and said unto me, “These three have been made in order that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And in the manner in which the souls of the righteous are separated (by) this spring of water with light upon it, in like manner the sinners are set apart when they die and are buried in the earth and judgment has not been executed upon them in their lifetime,... until the great day of judgment...They will bind them there forever–even from the beginning of the world. ....Such has been made for the souls of the people who are not righteous, but sinners and perfect criminals; they shall be together with (other) criminals who are like them. (1Enoch 22:9-13)

Since the righteous are with the righteous, they seem to adapt to a calm existence, the unrighteous, being grouped with others of their type and having increased awareness of the result of their moral choices become unhappy in their regrets and distress. And, Sheol itself also had a “middle place” according to this ancient model.

In Abraham’s description of Hades, he asks the angel : “Is one who is unable to enter through the strait gate unable to enter into life?...4 And Michael answered...you will enter through it unhindered, as will all those who are like you.”...8And when they went, they found an angel holding in his hand one soul of a woman from among the six myriads, because he found (her) sins evenly balanced with all her works, and they were neither in distress nor at rest, but in an intermediate place.. ( TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension B) 9:1-10)

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clearly]

POST TWO OF THREE

******************************CONTINUING MY QUOTE SUPPORTING CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY ************

In this early doctrine, Hades was not simply a place where souls “sleep”, but they are cognizant and communicate and still have free will. Those spirits who had no idea nor concept of God’s plan for them are still allowed to learn and make moral choices just as those who had the gospel given to them while in mortality. They may make the same moral progress as any other individuals. For example : Enoch, describes his vision of Hades/Sheol, teaching that there are those there who teach moral law :
Quote:

“Come and I will show you where the souls of the wicked stand, and where the souls of the intermediate stand;... He said to me: The souls of the wicked are brought down to sheol....Samki’el is in charge of the souls of the intermediate, to support them and purify them from sin, through the abundant mercies of the Omnipresent One. “ (3en 44:1-3)

It is not merely Samki’el who teaches, but the spirit of men communicate and teach one another as I’ll point out later in the discussion of Christian texts of Christ’s descension into Sheol (hades, hell, paradise, etc, etc). However, the early Christian Saints also understood, that the spirits of individuals in Sheol (hades, paradise, etc) still possessed intelligent free will and could also accept the blessings of the Gospel as far as they were able. Being “bodiless”, these individuals could NOT be baptized, though they could make the change of heart associated with faith, humility, repentance, etc. From the testimony of the two sons of Symeon, we know that individual believers in the spirit world WERE teachers of others, just as those with bodies teach and testify of the gospel to others.

Whether moral progress occurs to the spirit before mortality, or during mortality or after mortality, still, changes may occur as long as God allows the individual to chose. The ancient saying in this context of moral change occurring in men is that “God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called “true,” dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they are immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water." (The gospel of Phillip)

The doctrine of the descensus is foreign to many protestant churches, but anciently, the Judao-Christians spoke of the descent of Christ into “the place in between” (sheol, hades, hell, etc.) after his death The descent of Christ into this spirit world after his death is described in multiple ancient accounts.

One is The Gospel of Bartholomew. In this account, the Apostle Bartholomew asks the risen Jesus : “Lord, when you went to be hanged on the cross, I followed you at a distance and saw how you were hanged on the cross and how the angels descended from heaven and worshiped you. And when darkness came, I looked and saw that you had vanished from the cross; only I heard your voice in the underworld,.....Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.”

In this christian account, Jesus summarizes his descent into Hades saying : Quote:
"I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.... When I descended with my angels to the underworld ,in order to dash in pieces the iron bars and shatter the portals of the underworld”... “ I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.... “I was hanged upon the cross for your sake and for the sake of your children.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one)

The early Christian Gospel of Nicodemus, text contains multiple testimonies of the living Jesus after his resurrection AND descriptions of Jesus actions in Hades when he visited the “spirits imprisoned” there. Joseph (of Arimathea) observes to those discussing Jesus resurrection : Quote:
“Why then do you marvel at the resurrection of Jesus? It is not this that is marvelous, but rather that he was not raised alone, but raised up many other dead men who appeared to many in Jerusalem. And if you do not know the others, yet Symeon, who took Jesus in his arms, [Luke 2:34] and his two sons, whom he raised up, you do know. For we buried them a little while ago. And now their sepulchers are to be seen opened and empty, but they themselves are alive and dwelling in Arimathaea”...Joseph said: “Let us go to Arimathaea and find them.” Then arose the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel and others with them, and went to Arimathaea and found the men of whom Joseph spoke.” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch one)

These men then speak with the resurrected sons of Symeon (who were NOT Christians and were NOT baptized while they were alive). These two had died, and gone to the world of Spirits, converted to Christianity while in the spirit world, and had then been resurrected with many others at the resurrection of Christ and who were walking among and teaching others regarding Jesus. The brothers described what happened in this Spirit world (sheol, hades, etc). Quote:

“We, then were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another, and immediately our father, Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled the joy, and they said to one another: “This shining comes from a great light.” The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said : “This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.” Then there came into the midst another, an anchorite from the wilderness. The patriarchs asked him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am John, the last of the prophets, who made straight the ways of the Son of God, and preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins.....And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved,....Therefore I say to you all: When you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshiped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At another time it is impossible” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch two)

I might make the point here that it is not only John the Baptist’s spirit who is teaching the gospel, but the spirits of the other Patriarchs among the spirits of men are teaching the gospel to individuals such as the sons of Rabi Simeon, and many testified of gospel truths to the others in the spirit world.

The story continues : “Now when John was thus teaching those who were in Hades, the first-created, the first father Adam heard, and said to his son Seth: My son, I wish you to tell the forefathers of the race of men and the prophets where I sent you when I fell into mortal sickness.”

Seth then teaches the others regarding the "oil of mercy" that Adam requested and that Seth was told “go and tell your father than after the completion of fifty-five hundred years from the creation of the world, the only-begotten son of God shall become man and shall descend below the earth. And he shall anoint him with that oil. And he shall arise and wash him and his descendants with water and the Holy spirit. And then he shall be healed of every disease....When the patriarchs and prophets heard this, they rejoiced greatly.” This same message was NOT merely for Patriarchs and Prophets, but for all souls there who would listen.

In chapter four, Satan adjure Hades to prevent Jesus from coming if it is possible, “For I believe that he comes here to raise all the dead”....” and while Satan and Hades were speaking thus to one another, a loud voice like thunder sounded: “Lift up your gates, O rulers, and be lifted up, O everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in”...David said: “Do you not know, blind one, that when I lived in the world, I prophesied that word: ‘Lift up your gates, O rulers?’” (Ps 23:7). Isaiah said: “I foresaw this by the Holy Spirit and wrote: ‘The dead shall arise, and those who are in the tombs shall be raised up, and those who are under the earth shall rejoice (ps 26:19) O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory.’” .....the gates of brass were broken in pieces and the bars of iron were crushed and all the dead who were bound were loosed from their chains, and we with them. And the King of glory entered in like a man, and all the dark places of Hades were illumined.”.

The sons of Symeon continue to relate that : Quote:
Ch VIII ...the King of glory stretched out his right hand, and took hold of our forefather Adam and raised him up. Then he turned also to the rest and said: “Come with me, all you who have suffered death through the tree which this man touched. For behold, I raise you all up again through the tree of the cross. With that he put them all out. “

Importantly, the sons of Symeon testify : Quote:
“All this we saw and heard, we two brothers who also were sent by Michael the archangel and were appointed to preach the resurrection of the Lord, but first to go to the Jordan and be baptized. There also we went and were baptized with other dead who had risen again. Then we went to Jerusalem also and celebrated the passover of the resurrection. But now we depart, since we cannot remain here. And the love of God the Father and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all [2 Cor. 13;14].” (The Gospel of Nicodemus- Christ’s descent into hell ch XI)

Even Symeons sons were authorized by Michael and sent to teach of the resurrection of Jesus. However FIRST, they were appointed by Michael to “first to go to the Jordan and be baptized.” “There also we went and were baptized with other dead who had risen again.”

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clearly]

POST THREE OF THREE

***************************CONTINUING MY QUOTE SUPPORTING THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY *********

There are other ancient Christian texts that also describe the ancient Christian faith in relation to their dead in this spirit world. For example, the ancient text from the diary of a Christian woman Perpetua (The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity) is the story of a new convert to Christianity. The specific doctrines that this new convert was taught and believed in are quite poignant AND, descriptive terms.

First, Perpetua relates : Quote:
“my father, furious at the word ‘Christian,’ threw himself upon me as though to pluck out my eyes but he was satisfied with annoying me;...Then I thanked the Lord for being parted for a few days from my father, and was refreshed by his absence. During those few days we were baptized, and the Holy Spirit bade me make no other petition after the holy water save for bodily endurance. A few days after we were lodged in prison; and I was in great fear, because I had never known such darkness. What a day of horror! Terrible heat, thanks to the crowds! Rough handling by the soldiers! To crown all I was tormented there by anxiety for my baby. (The Passion of Perpetual and Felicity ch three)

Perpetua, who understood the ancient doctrine that all saints were to receive revelation for themselves is asked by her brother to ask God whether they might expect deliverance or ultimately be martyred. Quote:

“Then my brother said to me: ‘Lady sister, you are now in great honor, so great indeed that you may well pray for a vision and may well be shown whether suffering or release be in store for you.’ And I who new myself to have speech of the Lord, for whose sake I had gone through so much, gave confident promise in return, saying : ‘Tomorrow I will bring you word.’

Perpetua understands that she may ask God for revelation in a prayer and has every confidence that her prayer will be answered. She then made her request of God, and received a vision that confirmed they would be martyred and “...at once I told my brother, and we understood that we must suffer, and henceforward began to have no hope in this world.”

Perpetua understood also that she could make specific and limited requests for those who were dead in the same way that she could ask for specific and limited requests for the living. Perpetua had another Brother Dinocrates who had died as a child, untaught and unbaptized and, who, she understood to be in the spirit world with all others who had died. Perpetua relates : Quote:

“After a few days, while we were all praying, suddenly in the middle of the prayer I spoke, and uttered the name of Dinocrates...And I saw at once that I was entitled, and ought, to make request for him. And I began to pray much for him...At once on this very night this was shown me. I saw Dinocrates coming forth from a dark place, where there were many other dark places...and the wound which he had when he died was in his face still.... “For him then I had prayed; and there was a great gulf between me and him, so that neither of us could approach the other. There was besides in the very place where dinocrates was a font full of water, the rim of which was above the head of the child; and Dinocrates stood on tiptoe to drink. I grieved that the font should have water in it and that nevertheless he could not drink because of the height of the rim. And I woke and recognized that my brother was in trouble. But I trusted that I could relieve his trouble, and I prayed for him every day until we were transferred to the garrison prison, for we were to fight with the beasts at the garrison games on the Caesar Geta’s birthday.

It is obvious that Perpetua could see both that Dinocrates’ ability to access salvific principles was limited, she “saw at once that I (she) was entitled, and ought to make request for him.”. He was thirsty, but could not drink of the living water.

After making a completely appropriate request for Dinocrates to receive the Gospel she relates in Ch VIII that Quote:

“During the daytime, while we stayed in the stocks, this was shown me. I was that same place which I had seen before, and Dinocrates clean in body, well-clothes and refreshed; and where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and the font which I had seen before had its rim lowered to the child’s waist; and there poured water from it unceasingly; and on the rim a golden bowl full of water. And Dinocrates came forward and began to drink from it, and the bowl failed not. And when he had drunk enough of the water, be came forward being glad to play as children will. And I awoke. Then I knew that he had been released from punishment.”

Dinocrates was given the chance to drink of living water of gospel knowledge to the extent he desired. Though Dinocrates never fully accessed the font of water, he did access the part of this living water he could access by virtue of the golden bowl of water. The story of Dinocrates is lost to history at this point.

However, my point in offering such descriptions is NOT to say the specific Roman Catholic description of “purgatory” is correct per se, but to offer support to the specific point that the doctrine of a world between death and resurrection/judgement itself was believed by the early Judao-Christians and they would have interpreted scriptures with this context of belief.

Clearly
vidractwkn “

****************** END OF MY POSTING SUPPORTING THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY****



ABRAHAMIST –

I hope this example makes clear that Historical data can be a great boon to the multiple accurate catholic traditions such as “purgatory” and there is a great deal of “decensus” literature as well that support these catholic traditions against the protestants (who are often, completely unaware of such authentic Judao-christian traditions in any detail.) THESE correct traditions ARE an advantage to roman catholic interpretation of texts. I apologize if it has seemed like we’ve simply concentrated on the incorrect and unauthentic roman catholic traditions.

Clearly
twtzeifuhj

 

[Albion]

There is no such thing as a "Roman Catholic" church. However, there is the Holy Catholic Church, the bride of Jesus Christ, the only church created by Jesus Christ. As a member of the Holy Catholic Church I am just "Catholic".

Ran

Except that the legal name of your church is not "Holy Catholic Church"--that's a description, not a name--and it does include the word "Roman." Sorry.

 

[Clearly]

To the historians among the participants :

Though it's a bit silly for abrahamist to theorize that significant data doesn't exist and then dismiss it when given as "too much to read". However, I think abrahamist probably correct that non-historians are not to be blamed for not caring to take the time to read much that is outside their interest.

However, for those with enough historical interest to read, it becomes quite obvious that there are many early Judao-Christian texts that describe multiple early traditions in great detail. Some will confirm areas of religious similarity between the later roman catholicism and some will demonstrate areas where the roman congregation departed from the earliest forms of Judao-Christian tradition.

It is the increasing amounts of early textual discoveries that are allowing greater definition of new traditions which were started by the roman congregation in the early stages when they were vying for pre-eminence among the early Christian congregations; they show us the early versions of traditions which the roman congregation passed on in changed forms; and they demonstrate the early versions of early Judao-Christian traditions which the later Roman Catholics have abandoned (lost, came to disbelie e, etc).

clearly
twtzviviti

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has been cleaned up.
Please be civil and stop the flaming.
Thanks

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Except that the legal name of your church is not "Holy Catholic Church"--that's a description, not a name--and it does include the word "Roman." Sorry.

There is no legal name for the RCC

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

To the historians among the participants :

Though it's a bit silly for abrahamist to theorize that significant data doesn't exist and then dismiss it when given as "too much to read". However, I think abrahamist probably correct that non-historians are not to be blamed for not caring to take the time to read much that is outside their interest.

However, for those with enough historical interest to read, it becomes quite obvious that there are many early Judao-Christian texts that describe multiple early traditions in great detail. Some will confirm areas of religious similarity between the later roman catholicism and some will demonstrate areas where the roman congregation departed from the earliest forms of Judao-Christian tradition.

It is the increasing amounts of early textual discoveries that are allowing greater definition of new traditions which were started by the roman congregation in the early stages when they were vying for pre-eminence among the early Christian congregations; they show us the early versions of traditions which the roman congregation passed on in changed forms; and they demonstrate the early versions of early Judao-Christian traditions which the later Roman Catholics have abandoned (lost, came to disbelie e, etc).

clearly
twtzviviti

The Early Church does not stand above the RCC...

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

MOD HAT

This thread has been cleaned up.
Please be civil and stop the flaming.
Thanks

Thanks for the fitness tracker. I am adding to mine.

 

[Clearly]

After giving a 3 post example of similarities and differences between roman catholic religion and tradition versus the earlier judao-christian tradition :

Clearly said “..... that there are many early Judao-Christian texts that describe multiple early traditions in great detail. Some will confirm areas of religious similarity between the later roman catholicism and some will demonstrate areas where the roman congregation departed from the earliest forms of Judao-Christian tradition.

It is the increasing amounts of early textual discoveries that are allowing greater definition of new traditions which were started by the roman congregation in the early stages when they were vying for pre-eminence among the early Christian congregations; they show us the early versions of traditions which the roman congregation passed on in changed forms; and they demonstrate the early versions of early Judao-Christian traditions which the later Roman Catholics have abandoned (lost, came to disbelieve, etc). P 13 #125


Pfaffenhofen responds “The Early Church does not stand above the RCC...” Pg 13, # 128






Since the roman catholic church is a different set of christian traditions than the earliest judao-christian traditions (e.g. first and second centuries), some comparisons between their differences are difficult to classify as “superior” or not. You were not specific in your statement but perhaps this new claim of yours deserves deeper examination. For example :


CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN CONGREGATIONS’ RELIGION VERSUS THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN CHURCHES’ RELIGION.

Comparisons between the two types of christianities (i.e roman congregation traditions vs original Judao-christian traditions) may reveal some roman superiorities, but not in principles of salvational import.

For examples :
1) the modern roman catholic type of christianity may have superior numbers but on the other hand, even the pagans also outnumbered christians anciently.

2) The modern roman catholic type of christianity may claim superior riches and a more mature organisation than the early type of christianity achieved, but, on the other hand, even irreligious organizations such as ford motor or the american fruit company may claim this.

3) The modern roman catholic type of christianity may claim superior influence on a large portion of the modern world but, on the other hand, so may microsoft and apple computer and other religions such as islam.


None of these type of “superiorities” are of salvational import (which is the purpose of authentic religion).




THE EARLIER, AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS ARE SUPERIOR TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CONGREGATIONS’ RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS

I believe that there are many ways in which the early Judao-Christian religious traditions we’ve described and discussed are superior to the traditions created by the Roman Catholic Congregation. As a basic example :

Authentic religious traditions declared by Prophets and Apostles are superior to the Roman Catholic religious traditions created by theologians.

Though the majority of Prophets and their doctrines are generally not well received in their own time periods, I believe that their revealed truths are more coherent, most often more logical in original context; more reasonable; and more just than the religious traditions created by the roman catholic congregations theologians and its “descendant” traditions.

Coherency : The purpose of creation in early christian tradition is more coherent and logical and superior in depth of detail and clarity than the later religious traditions created by the Roman Catholic theologians.

Reasonable and logical : The actual creation; conduct and plan of God the Father is more reasonable and logical in the early christian religious traditions as compared to the religious traditions created by the Roman Catholic Theologians.

Fairness; morality, and justice : I believe that the early christian traditions and practices were more fair; more moral and more just than the religious traditions created by the Roman Catholic Theologians.

In the context of "tradition vs sola scriptura vs revelation", The ability to receive revelation, which was the underlying source of scripture itself, is superior to a man-made Roman Catholic interpretations of sacred texts.

The prophets and apostles, understood their own intent and meaning of their own words (or subsequent versions of them) better than the later theologians as the theologians attempted to interpret what the earlier prophets and apostles meant.

I believe that if we start to analyze deeply differences between the Early Judao-Christian religion and it’s traditions, we will find that the early judao-christian religion with it's traditions stands well above the Roman Catholic religion and the traditions the RCC created.

Clearly
twvitzsiir

 

[Root of Jesse]

The early Church had two types of Christians. Those who believed all Christ taught and said, and those who didn't. Those who didn't, like those in John 6 who found the teaching too hard, and went back to their former ways of life, believed in a different Jesus than the one Jesus himself taught. Some believed he wasn't human, some believed he wasn't divine, some believed he was a ghost. Catholics believed he was 100% human, and 100% divine. They debated it, certainly, and came to that conclusion. Those who dissented left and formed their own sect. Later on, and skipping over a lot, came the issue of Mary being the Mother of God. Some believed she was virgin before, during and after giving birth to Jesus, some believed it was true before, but not during and after, and there were other levels of belief. The Church debated it, and came to the conclusion that Mary was the Mother of God, Theotokos, and that she was Ever-Virgin. Those who dissented left and formed their own sect. And so on and so forth. All of those who don't believe what Catholics believe left the Catholic Church to form their own sects and denominations. The Catholic Church kept the faith of Christ pure by the strength and spirit of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

The early Church had two types of Christians. Those who believed all Christ taught and said, and those who didn't. Those who didn't, like those in John 6 who found the teaching too hard, and went back to their former ways of life, believed in a different Jesus than the one Jesus himself taught. Some believed he wasn't human, some believed he wasn't divine, some believed he was a ghost. Catholics believed he was 100% human, and 100% divine. They debated it, certainly, and came to that conclusion. Those who dissented left and formed their own sect. Later on, and skipping over a lot, came the issue of Mary being the Mother of God. Some believed she was virgin before, during and after giving birth to Jesus, some believed it was true before, but not during and after, and there were other levels of belief. The Church debated it, and came to the conclusion that Mary was the Mother of God, Theotokos, and that she was Ever-Virgin. Those who dissented left and formed their own sect. And so on and so forth. All of those who don't believe what Catholics believe left the Catholic Church to form their own sects and denominations. The Catholic Church kept the faith of Christ pure by the strength and spirit of the Holy Spirit.

Clear as water.
I, myself, who am very, very, very intelligent , (!) could not have said better !

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Tradition: Catholic and Protestant.


Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL to it.

The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connecated and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95


Realize, too, that this Holy Scripture which is equal to the Tradition as the RCC itself alone as chosen as it itself alone interprets, is....

Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or tomes... Catholic Catechism # 113




Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and often Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several way:

1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confessions." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination. For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions. The Lutheran Book of Concord (unchanged since 1580 - with no additions, revisions, developments or expansions) begins with the 3 ecumenical creeds - in a category unto themselves, then addresses the Lutheran Confessions.

3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The early Church had two types of Christians. Those who believed all Christ taught and said, and those who didn't.

I see your point....

Some today believe what Jesus said and others just embrace with docility whatever their denomination says.

You maybe have a point.





.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Tradition: Catholic and Protestant.


Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL to it.

The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connecated and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95


Realize, too, that this Holy Scripture which is equal to the Tradition as the RCC itself alone as chosen as it itself alone interprets, is....

Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or tomes... Catholic Catechism # 113




Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and often Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several way:

1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confessions." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination. For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions. The Lutheran Book of Concord (unchanged since 1580 - with no additions, revisions, developments or expansions) begins with the 3 ecumenical creeds - in a category unto themselves, then addresses the Lutheran Confessions.

3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community.



.

I think you made a good summary.
A few points need to be clarified. the thing is that in the RCC Tradition we think that Scriptures were written by the community, so they are part of the TrADITION. With great value because they were written and what is told flies, what is written remains. It is a written document of great value.

Now, as it was written expressing the thought and feelings of the Community, it is in the Community that must be interpreted. But Community we understand all the Christians from point zero to today, connected with the Pope. It is a whole set of interpretations that gave rise to a core of interpretations that we call dogma that we ascertain for certains and others which are open to discussion and interpretation.

 

[Albion]

I think you made a good summary.
A few points need to be clarified. the thing is that in the RCC Tradition we think that Scriptures were written by the community, so they are part of the TrADITION. With great value because they were written and what is told flies, what is written remains. It is a written document of great value.

Now, as it was written expressing the thought and feelings of the Community, it is in the Community that must be interpreted.

That's a good start, but here's where it falters. The Community does not make our religion what it is. We believe what we believe only because we are persuaded that it is from God, regardless of how we think it has been transmitted to us. Some of us trust the Bible, some direct inspiration from God, and some....Community. But unless the Community can be shown to be conveying something that is of God, not just of itself, we don't have anything.

But Community we understand all the Christians from point zero to today, connected with the Pope.

Some Christians think that way, but we consider it to be a superfluous concept at best, with no warrant from Scripture, Tradition, direct inspiration, or the Community. Because the bishops of Rome were the primary promoters of the idea, we have a good idea where this particular concept came from and how valid it is.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

That's a good start, but here's where it falters. The Community does not make our religion what it is. We believe what we believe only because we are persuaded that it is from God, regardless of how we think it has been transmitted to us. Some of us trust the Bible, some direct inspiration from God, and some....Community. But unless the Community can be shown to be conveying something that is of God, not just of itself, we don't have anything.



Some Christians think that way, but we consider it to be a superfluous concept at best, with no warrant from Scripture, Tradition, direct inspiration, or the Community. Because the bishops of Rome were the primary promoters of the idea, we have a good idea where this particular concept came from and how valid it is.

Some of us trust the Bible, some direct inspiration from God, and some....Community.

Then whom trust? the Bible, the direct inspiration from God (to whom?) or the Community?
I agree with you. It is the Community, only if inspired by God. We do not believe in the writings of a group of bandits.

The promoter of the Union with the Pope was Jesus Christ. Were not for Him, I would not trust Papacy at all, with all its faults and weaknesses. Jesus Christ was crystal clear all over His mission on Earth that He entrusted His Church to Peter.

 

[Albion]

Then whom trust? the Bible, the direct inspiration from God (to whom?) or the Community?

At that point in my post I was just listing the different views Christians are known to take when it comes to discerning God's revelation to us. Personally, I trust the Bible.

I agree with you. It is the Community, only if inspired by God. We do not believe in the writings of a group of bandits.

You agree with me that some Christians trust the Community. I would hope that they couple that trust with the assumption that God has spoken through the Community, although that trust doesn't prove that He has.

The promoter of the Union with the Pope was Jesus Christ.

Now you're back to a personal theory, not history or scripture. So while I recognize it I cannot agree with it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Tradition: Catholic and Protestant.


Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151

You should not believe non-Catholic sources about what Catholics believe. It's the Holy Spirit who teaches us what is to be accepted and rejected as Apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition)

2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85

Correct. Endowed by the Holy Spirit.

3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL to it.

The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connecated and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95

Well, since it's the Holy Spirit choosing and teaching, it is God being accountable to God...and speaking through chosen, inspired, men. Hey! That's what Scripture is, too!

Realize, too, that this Holy Scripture which is equal to the Tradition as the RCC itself alone as chosen as it itself alone interprets, is....

Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or tomes... Catholic Catechism # 113




Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and often Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several way:

1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confessions." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination. For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions. The Lutheran Book of Concord (unchanged since 1580 - with no additions, revisions, developments or expansions) begins with the 3 ecumenical creeds - in a category unto themselves, then addresses the Lutheran Confessions.

3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community.



.

Great! So...all this to say "Protestants and Catholics disagree." Marvelous. You've helped the 'dialog' marvelously.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Tradition: Catholic and Protestant.



Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL to it.

The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connecated and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95


Realize, too, that this Holy Scripture which is equal to the Tradition as the RCC itself alone as chosen as it itself alone interprets, is....

Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or tomes... Catholic Catechism # 113




Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and often Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several way:

1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confessions." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination. For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions. The Lutheran Book of Concord (unchanged since 1580 - with no additions, revisions, developments or expansions) begins with the 3 ecumenical creeds - in a category unto themselves, then addresses the Lutheran Confessions.

3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community.



.

You should not believe non-Catholic sources about what Catholics believe. It's the Holy Spirit who teaches us what is to be accepted and rejected as Apostolic Tradition (Sacred Tradition)Correct. Endowed by the Holy Spirit. Well, since it's the Holy Spirit choosing and teaching, it is God being accountable to God...and speaking through chosen, inspired, men. Hey! That's what Scripture is, too!Great! So...all this to say "Protestants and Catholics disagree." Marvelous. You've helped the 'dialog' marvelously.

I revealed what Catholic Tradition is... from verbatim, Catholic sources, you denied not a single word of it - suggesting you agree.


I revealed what Protestant Tradition is...




.