Peter Is Not The Rock!

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

when you write this, you claim too much for yourself.

On common sense. I have already shown that people can't even tell where they got their Tradition from.

You have shown no such thing; you have simply shown that you cannot understand what is being said to you about this. My Church traces its tradition right back to St. Mark in AD 58, who was the companion of St. Peter and who knew Our Saviour in the flesh. Indeed, he was the author of one of those gospels you think you understand better than the Church which received it. That is your prerogative, but please do not pretend that we do not know where our tradition comes from.

Whence does your own derive?

peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

when you write this, you claim too much for yourself.
[/size]
You have shown no such thing; you have simply shown that you cannot understand what is being said to you about this. My Church traces its tradition right back to St. Mark in AD 58, who was the companion of St. Peter and who knew Our Saviour in the flesh. Indeed, he was the author of one of those gospels you think you understand better than the Church which received it. That is your prerogative, but please do not pretend that we do not know where our tradition comes from.

Whence does your own derive?

peace,

Anglian

Hi Anglian,

I'm so pleased that you are courageous enough to take on the beamishboy. Most people tremble and pretend they didn't see my posts. Hehe.

I'll answer your question in the last line first: We do not believe in Oral Tradition. We believe in the sufficiency of Scriptures (the 39 Articles affirm this truth).

I will show you how dubious and ambiguous all claims to Oral Tradition are. You say your Oral Tradition comes from Mark. Precisely what did Mark specifically say to your church orally? Some have said that oral tradition can be reliable because ancient men used to memorise things and they could recite them from memory without much difficulty. If that is so, what poem or passages were memorised by your church and can I have a recital of it in written form now?

What I'm trying to say is this - it's very easy to use Oral Tradition" as a defence to any belief that is not in the Bible. But what is this Oral Tradition? You've told me your source - Mark. Now I want the substance of the Tradition - what was said exactly? If you can't be precise about it, it can't be reliable because how can one ensure the reliable transmission of something that nobody really knows its full ambit and parameters or even its substance?

 

[lionroar0]

I'll answer your question in the last line first: We do not believe in Oral Tradition. We believe in the sufficiency of Scriptures (the 39 Articles affirm this truth).

And who stated this? Who wrote the 39 articles? Where does this come from?

What are it's roots?

Peace

 

[beamishboy]

And who stated this? Who wrote the 39 articles? Where does this come from?

What are it's roots?

Peace

The 39 Articles are only important to Anglicans so that if one Anglican decides to follow Rome and talk about Oral Tradition, I can knock his head with the 39 Articles and tell him that Article 6 talks about the sufficiency of Scriptures. It's a rule book made by men for the regulation on earth of our conduct. You can throw it out of the window - it's not important in that sense. As long as people believe in the sufficiency of scriptures, you can flush the 39 Articles down the toilet.

But Oral Tradition is different. You can't say the same thing. But at the same time, you don't know its full implication, its full ambit and parameters; you don't know its full substance and what this tradition says exactly and you don't know the origin of each of its tradition. I'll tell you why it's such a mess. Many of the traditions crept in after 400AD or even later but they have all been bundled together as one Holy Oral Tradition.

 

[lionroar0]

The 39 Articles are only important to Anglicans so that if one Anglican decides to follow Rome and talk about Oral Tradition, I can knock his head with the 39 Articles and tell him that Article 6 talks about the sufficiency of Scriptures. It's a rule book made by men for the regulation on earth of our conduct. You can throw it out of the window - it's not important in that sense. As long as people believe in the sufficiency of scriptures, you can flush the 39 Articles down the toilet.

But Oral Tradition is different. You can't say the same thing. But at the same time, you don't know its full implication, its full ambit and parameters; you don't know its full substance and what this tradition says exactly and you don't know the origin of each of its tradition. I'll tell you why it's such a mess. Many of the traditions crept in after 400AD or even later but they have all been bundled together as one Holy Oral Tradition.

And where does the belief of the sufficiency of Scripture come from? What are it's roots.

Here is a bit of Oral Tradition.


Nicaea I (325)

{eace

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You continue to write about 'oral tradition' as though I had mentioned it; this is another example of how cursory reading by you can lead you into not understanding what is being written.

I referred to Holy Tradition. As has been explained to you at length, this refers to the four pillars upon which our understanding of the Faith 'once received' is based. This does not accord canonical roles to yourself or Prof. Metzger. The four pillars are:
- the Holy Scriptures as received in the Church and as recognised in the writings of:
- the ECFs, and
- the decisions of the Church Councils
alongside these, we also have the evidence constined in our liturgies which contain the full deposit of our theology. The Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils; where they are in accord, there we can rest knowing it is not upon our own prideful reading of what we think Scripture may mean.

There never was an heretic who did not turn to Scripture and claim his reading of it was obvious; that was the line Arius took, for example. There never was an heretic who could rest his heresy on the four pillars of the Faith. No 'oral' tradition here. Whoever you are having the discussion on oral tradition with, 'it ain't me babe', as the non-canonical Dylan once put it so eloquently.

peace,

Anglian

 

[lionroar0]

But Oral Tradition is different. You can't say the same thing. But at the same time, you don't know its full implication, its full ambit and parameters; you don't know its full substance and what this tradition says exactly and you don't know the origin of each of its tradition. I'll tell you why it's such a mess. Many of the traditions crept in after 400AD or even later but they have all been bundled together as one Holy Oral Tradition.

There are two kinds of Traditions. Oral Tradition, that is the faith that Jesus taught to the apostles and they taught others, then some of it was written down.

It's because of this Tradition the letters, books and gospels of the NT came from.

Here's a bit more on Oral Tradition.

Alexander of Alexandria [SAINT]
- Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Dear Beamishboy,

You continue to write about 'oral tradition' as though I had mentioned it; this is another example of how cursory reading by you can lead you into not understanding what is being written.

I referred to Holy Tradition. As has been explained to you at length, this refers to the four pillars upon which our understanding of the Faith 'once received' is based. This does not accord canonical roles to yourself or Prof. Metzger. The four pillars are:
- the Holy Scriptures as received in the Church and as recognised in the writings of:
- the ECFs, and
- the decisions of the Church Councils
alongside these, we also have the evidence constined in our liturgies which contain the full deposit of our theology. The Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils; where they are in accord, there we can rest knowing it is not upon our own prideful reading of what we think Scripture may mean.

There never was an heretic who did not turn to Scripture and claim his reading of it was obvious; that was the line Arius took, for example. There never was an heretic who could rest his heresy on the four pillars of the Faith. No 'oral' tradition here. Whoever you are having the discussion on oral tradition with, 'it ain't me babe', as the non-canonical Dylan once put it so eloquently.

peace,

Anglian

Sorry it's me but we also have Holy Tradition. Which encompasses everything you mentioned, then the Scriptures were written, which we call written Tradition then the rest falls under Oral Tradition.

Sorry for the confusion. Beamishboy and Anglian

Peace

 

[beamishboy]

And where does the belief of the sufficiency of Scripture come from? What are it's roots.

Sufficiency of scriptures comes from common sense. The writings of the Apostles must surely be the only truly reliable evidence for the teachings of the Apostles. What else is there? If you say Oral Tradition, I say rubbish because you can't even tell me what that is. Don't give me a write up of Oral Tradition from the Catholic encyclopaedia or the papal encyclical. You tell me what it is, if you can. Tell me its full meaning, its whole substance, its full parameters and the origin of its thread of the tradition for there must be many threads. If you can't, admit it.

 

[Anglian]

Dear lionroarO,

Thank you for the clarification. There is, however, nothing in your tradition which goes against anything written in the Holy Scriptures, I am sure.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Brennin]

Dear Beamishboy,

You continue to write about 'oral tradition' as though I had mentioned it; this is another example of how cursory reading by you can lead you into not understanding what is being written.

I referred to Holy Tradition. As has been explained to you at length, this refers to the four pillars upon which our understanding of the Faith 'once received' is based. This does not accord canonical roles to yourself or Prof. Metzger. The four pillars are:
- the Holy Scriptures as received in the Church and as recognised in the writings of:
- the ECFs, and
- the decisions of the Church Councils
alongside these, we also have the evidence constined in our liturgies which contain the full deposit of our theology. The Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils; where they are in accord, there we can rest knowing it is not upon our own prideful reading of what we think Scripture may mean.

There never was an heretic who did not turn to Scripture and claim his reading of it was obvious; that was the line Arius took, for example. There never was an heretic who could rest his heresy on the four pillars of the Faith. No 'oral' tradition here. Whoever you are having the discussion on oral tradition with, 'it ain't me babe', as the non-canonical Dylan once put it so eloquently.

peace,

Anglian

Arius could certainly rest his Christian theology on the four pillars of which you speak. Homoousios was condemned at the 3rd century council of Antioch, Arius appealed (successfully) to scripture and the theologians who preceded him. He could also appeal to earlier creeds.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

I have explained our understanding of Holy Tradition and how it ensures we never end up relying only on our own reading of Scripture. We, after all, are sinful. How do you ensure your own sinful nature does not infect your reading of the Holy Texts?

Our tradition goes back to St. mark. Your own goes back to whom?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Brennin]

There are two kinds of Traditions. Oral Tradition, that is the faith that Jesus taught to the apostles and they taught others, then some of it was written down.

It's because of this Tradition the letters, books and gospels of the NT came from.

Here's a bit more on Oral Tradition.

Alexander of Alexandria [SAINT]
- Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius


Peace

Alexander was a theological klutz. He referred to the "ungenerated generate" or some such nonsense. Arius cleaned his theological clock, which is why Alexander removed him from his position.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

You continue to write about 'oral tradition' as though I had mentioned it; this is another example of how cursory reading by you can lead you into not understanding what is being written.

I referred to Holy Tradition. As has been explained to you at length, this refers to the four pillars upon which our understanding of the Faith 'once received' is based. This does not accord canonical roles to yourself or Prof. Metzger. The four pillars are:
- the Holy Scriptures as received in the Church and as recognised in the writings of:
- the ECFs, and
- the decisions of the Church Councils
alongside these, we also have the evidence constined in our liturgies which contain the full deposit of our theology. The Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils; where they are in accord, there we can rest knowing it is not upon our own prideful reading of what we think Scripture may mean.

There never was an heretic who did not turn to Scripture and claim his reading of it was obvious; that was the line Arius took, for example. There never was an heretic who could rest his heresy on the four pillars of the Faith. No 'oral' tradition here. Whoever you are having the discussion on oral tradition with, 'it ain't me babe', as the non-canonical Dylan once put it so eloquently.

peace,

Anglian

Hold your horses, my dear Anglian. Let the beamishboy do battle with the Romans first. I've already got my lance pointing at the throat of their Oral Tradition and I can't let that go and deal with the Orthodox beliefs which the beamishboy knows very little about in the first place.

Allow me to continue with the Romans until I see a white flag above the Vatican. Then the beamishboy will turn his attention on Constantinople, Cairo and Moscow.

 

[beamishboy]

There are two kinds of Traditions. Oral Tradition, that is the faith that Jesus taught to the apostles and they taught others, then some of it was written down.

It's because of this Tradition the letters, books and gospels of the NT came from.

Tell me all about the unwritten Tradition? What was it? Was it in the form of a poem to aid memory? If not, was it properly memorised? The likelihood is it was something hazy that got added on and things got subtracted from. Is there a single person who can say what this Tradition is? Where each statement came from? You see, if the full ambit was not already fixed at the time of the Apostles, then that's very risky!!! It could grow with time and any new-fangled unapostolic teaching could easily have a corresponding "tradition" freshly cooked up. Nobody knows the full ambit anyway so who can tell?

 

[Anglian]

=beamishboy;48691721]

Hold your horses, my dear Anglian. Let the beamishboy do battle with the Romans first. I've already got my lance pointing at the throat of their Oral Tradition and I can't let that go and deal with the Orthodox beliefs which the beamishboy knows very little about in the first place.

Dear Beamishboy,

It was not thus that Our Lord adjured us to deal with each other.

A word to the wise: Alexandria is the place where our Patriarch has resided; they have been there since AD 58.

peace,

Anglian

 

[lionroar0]

. What else is there? If you say Oral Tradition, I say rubbish because you can't even tell me what that is. Don't give me a write up of Oral Tradition from the Catholic encyclopaedia or the papal encyclical. You tell me what it is, if you can. Tell me its full meaning, its whole substance, its full parameters and the origin of its thread of the tradition for there must be many threads. If you can't, admit it.

Anglain already answered it.

I referred to Holy Tradition. As has been explained to you at length, this refers to the four pillars upon which our understanding of the Faith 'once received' is based. This does not accord canonical roles to yourself or Prof. Metzger. The four pillars are:
- the Holy Scriptures as received in the Church and as recognised in the writings of:
- the ECFs, and
- the decisions of the Church Councils
alongside these, we also have the evidence constined in our liturgies which contain the full deposit of our theology. The Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils; where they are in accord, there we can rest knowing it is not upon our own prideful reading of what we think Scripture may mean.

Sufficiency of scriptures comes from common sense. The writings of the Apostles must surely be the only truly reliable evidence for the teachings of the Apostles

You state it's common sense. What evidence is there that it's common sense?

You state that the writings of the Apostles must surely be the only truly reliable source for the teachings of the Apotles. What is this based on?

How do you know that what is in the NT is written by the Apostles? Who said it was written by the Apostles? How do they know it is written by the Apostles?

How do you know it's the only reliable source? Who said it was the only reliable source? How do they know it's the only reliable source?

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Hold your horses, my dear Anglian. Let the beamishboy do battle with the Romans first. I've already got my lance pointing at the throat of their Oral Tradition and I can't let that go and deal with the Orthodox beliefs which the beamishboy knows very little about in the first place.

Allow me to continue with the Romans until I see a white flag above the Vatican. Then the beamishboy will turn his attention on Constantinople, Cairo and Moscow.

Not a chance.

Peace

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

I have explained our understanding of Holy Tradition ...

Hi Anglian,

As I understand from what you wrote, the Bible; the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Councils constitute Holy Tradition. I'll just pick an example: The Assumption of Mary came from which one of the four Holy Traditions? When did it happen? A rough date will do eg. 1870 AD

 

[beamishboy]

You state it's common sense. What evidence is there that it's common sense?

You state that the writings of the Apostles must surely be the only truly reliable source for the teachings of the Apotles. What is this based on?

How do you know that what is in the NT is written by the Apostles? Who said it was written by the Apostles? How do they know it is written by the Apostles?

How do you know it's the only reliable source? Who said it was the only reliable source? How do they know it's the only reliable source?

Peace

The reliability of the texts is attested to by early Christians. Not any institution but the early body of believers. This is the pre-RCC days when the arrogant bishops had not yet met - as Brennin so elegantly put it.

The early Christians already accepted the writings particularly of the four-fold gospels and the Pauline epistles from the very start.