Purgatory And Prayers For The Dead.

[BobRyan]

RileyG said:
Praying for the dead has always been part of Christianity.

It will be interesting if there is a reply considering that doctrine is no where to be found in the NT but rather just found in the musings of Rome and Salt Lake City

agreed.

Isaiah 8 says not to petition the dead on behalf of the living.

Salt Lake City? What?

Scripture was already cited. 2 Maccabees 12:43-46. Since you don't accept the Deutero-Canonical books, I don't expect you to accept this answer.

The problem is that the text you reference above (2 Macc 12) a text you are also not quoting does not say that those prayers do the dead any good at all apart from being bodily resurrected.

It is missing the critical part of the purtatory/indulgences argument where the dead are supposedly benefited - while dead - by prayers for the dead.

This means that even if it were in the OT or NT - it would not help the case for indulgences or Purgatory.

Also, the earliest Christians, as Jews, would have prayed for the dead. It was part of their tradition.

No text says that.

I do not accept sola scriptura.

apparently not.

 

[BobRyan]

Great question! At every single Mass and Vespers (Evening Prayer of the Church) the faithful departed are prayed for.

Blessings

no such thing as purgatory if one is looking in the Bible to find it.

 

[RileyG]

It will be interesting if there is a reply considering that doctrine is no where to be found in the NT but rather just found in the musings of Rome and Salt Lake City

You're referring to Mormonism, correct?

Also, ALL Apostolic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East) and some traditional high Church Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans also pray for the dead.

You are misinformed.

 

[RileyG]

no such thing as purgatory if one is looking in the Bible to find it.

are you so sure?

trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible...but it's still there....

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
no such thing as purgatory if one is looking in the Bible to find it.

are you so sure?

Simply quoting a reference to it in the Bible would have been a good option just then.

trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible...but it's still there....

We do have this --
"One God" Deut 6:4
In three persons Matt 28:19

A lot of people accept that as the Trinity teaching in the Bible.

===============

But even so -- your response appears to be of the form "Yes I admit purgatory is not in the Bible but in my POV that is also true of the Trinity yet we all still believe in it. This shows we can believe doctrine not in the Bible".

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong at that point - in stating what I am reading as your argument in your post.

 

[RileyG]

BobRyan said:
no such thing as purgatory if one is looking in the Bible to find it.

Simply quoting a reference to it in the Bible would have been a good option just then.

We do have this --
"One God" Deut 6:4
In three persons Matt 28:19

A lot of people accept that as the Trinity teaching in the Bible.

===============

But even so -- your response appears to be of the form "Yes I admit purgatory is not in the Bible but in my POV that is also true of the Trinity yet we all still believe in it. This shows we can believe doctrine not in the Bible".

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong at that point - in stating what I am reading as your argument in your post.

It IS in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 3:15

I never said it wasn't.

Matthew 12:32 also refers to forgiveness of sins after death.

The WORD isn't there, BUT the CONCEPT is.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Isaiah 8 says not to petition the dead on behalf of the living.

Just as Christ is not dead so too the saints in heaven are not dead. Christians petition the saints for prayers, and they petition Christ for everything.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

no such thing as purgatory if one is looking in the Bible to find it.

Christians teach that there is a transition from sin-prone human nature to sinless human nature that happens to every Christian after their earthly life is finished. Catholics call that transition purgatory.

 

[Rose_bud]

When we think of Scripture as a unified body of documents like the Bible, we're being anachronistic. Paul and Jesus' understanding of Scripture wouldn't have been "the OT" because the OT wasn't compiled and canonized until sometime after the fall of the temple in 70 AD, in fact there was a major debate whether Scripture was just the 5 books of Moses or if it included the Prophets(books like Judges, Kings, and such) and the Writings(what we think of as prophetic books and wisdom books)...instead they were a part of an active tradition that included both written and unwritten material. Both of them referenced both Scripture and the wider Pharisaical tradition in their establishment of Christ, but the majority of what they referred to got codified into our Scriptures because they were used in such a manner not the other way around. So while there certainly was a new dynamic that developed, it was embedded within an ongoing tradition and what we now think of distinctly "Jewish" traditions are only thought of as such because our traditions have veered in another direction. It's ahistorical to think of Scripture outside of tradition, because it is within the flow of tradition that Scripture came to be defined not the other way around. The Bible didn't descend from heaven one day fully intact, but was formed as an ongoing conversation within the people of God that stretches back to Adam and the incarnation serves as the central defining moment.

Thank you for clarifying what you mean by anachronistic.

I should have been more clear, when I referred to the OT. My reference was to the Second Temple Jewish texts, the Jews had in their possession and used during Jewish worship. Or what was commonly referred to as the Tanakh.

Furthermore, regarding your point that Paul and Jesus understanding of Scripture wouldn't have been "the OT" because it wasn't compiled and canonized until sometime after the fall of the temple in 70 AD. I understand the complexity.
However given the existence of the Septuagint, it's plausible that a relatively standardized Hebrew/Aramaic text existed during Jesus and Paul's time. Although, the process of canonization was ongoing,

I agree the Hebrew Scriptures originated orally before being committed to writing.

Additionally, I find it interesting though, you appear to be saying, Lukes account of Jesus Emmaus appearance (Luke 24:13-35) is not anachronistic. This presents an interpretive challenge, Luke is also dependent on eye witness accounts possibly the account of the two, who are presenting Jesus statement as fulfilling Moses and the Prophets. Would this narrative be a reflection of a reference to standardized text or Lukes interpretive framework or both? I'm inclined to view it as both.

Moreover, Jesus engagement with Pharisaical and Sadducean interpretations (Matthew 22:23-33) demonstrates his intent to reinterpret their understanding of the Scripture at the time, but also the interpretive frame of Matthew to identify Jesus as the one the known text identified as the Messiah/the Son of God. Paul similarly leveraged scriptural divisive interpretations to advance his arguments
(Acts 23). The resurrection debate, a contentious issue within Jewish tradition, exemplifies this hermeneutical dynamic. In addition even between these sects one major difference is their view of authority of Hebrew Scripture (written law only or oral and written law) although modern scholars indicate that this view is not entirely the case, in some aspects.

Also, although I am inclined to agree with the view that "it was embedded" in Jewish tradition. Early Christianity was more distinct and also largely radical to Jewish ways, to the point of persecution...The day of Pentecost an unprecedented pivotal moment in the Jewish faith.

As a consequence, I don't think Scripture outside of tradition. However I also do not elevate it above. For as much as it is "within the flow of the tradition it was defined". It not only emerged from tradition but also informed it. i.e much more cyclic.
I infact do not hold to a view of Scripture "falling from the sky", rather for an authorship acknowledging both human and divine agency. The perspective that recognizes God's inspiration working through the personalities, experiences, and editorial processes of the human authors. Jeremiah's redacted writings (Jeremiah 36) amongst others illustrate this collaborative process.

 

[Fervent]

Thank you for clarifying what you mean by anachronistic.

I should have been more clear, when I referred to the OT. My reference was to the Second Temple Jewish texts, the Jews had in their possession and used during Jewish worship. Or what was commonly referred to as the Tanakh.

Furthermore, regarding your point that Paul and Jesus' understanding of Scripture wouldn't have been "the OT" because it wasn't compiled and canonized until sometime after the fall of the temple in 70 AD. I understand the complexity.
However given the existence of the Septuagint, it's plausible that a relatively standardized Hebrew/Aramaic text existed during Jesus and Paul's time. Although, the process of canonization was ongoing,

I agree the Hebrew Scriptures originated orally before being committed to writing.

Additionally, i find it interesting though, you appear to be saying, Lukes account of Jesus Emmaus appearance (Luke 24:13-35) is not anachronistic. This presents an interpretive challenge, Luke is also dependent on eye witness accounts possibly the account of the two, who are interpreting Jesus statement as fulfilling Moses and the Prophets. Would this narrative be a reflection of a reference to standardized text or Lukes interpretive framework or both? I'm inclined to view it as both.

Moreover, Jesus engagement with Pharisaical and Sadducean interpretations (Matthew 22:23-33) demonstrates his intent to reinterpret their understanding of the Scripture at the time, but also the interpretive frame of Matthew to identify Jesus as the one the known text identified as the Messiah. Paul similarly leveraged scriptural divisive interpretations to advance his arguments
(Acts 23). The resurrection debate, a contentious issue within Jewish tradition, exemplifies this hermeneutical dynamic. In addition even between these sects one major difference is their view of authority of Hebrew Scripture (written law only or oral and written law) although modern scholars indicate that this view is not entirely the case, in some aspects.

Also, although I am inclined to agree with the view that "it was embedded" in Jewish tradition. Early Christianity was more distinct and also largely radical to Jewish ways, to the point of persecution...The day of Pentecost an unprecedented pivotal moment in Christianity.

As a consequence, I don't think Scripture outside of tradition. However I also do not elevate it above. For as much as it is "within the flow of the tradition it was defined". It not only emerged from tradition but also informed it. i.e much more cyclic.
I infact do not hold to a view of Scripture "falling from the sky", rather for an authorship acknowledging both human and divine agency. The perspective that recognizes God's inspiration working through the personalities, experiences, and editorial processes of the human authors. Jeremiah's redacted writings (Jeremiah 36) amongst others illustrate this collaborative process.

I agree that it is more of a cyclical thing, and the canonical Scriptures are the normative portion of the larger tradition. I'm not Orthodox or Catholic, though I am highly sympathetic to the Orthodox. What I was mostly hoping to identify is that while there was a body of documents floating around as Scripture, it was a highly debated topic even in the time of Jesus and Paul. So while the Tanakh came to be the official position landed on by Jews, it wasn't a universally accepted position and the scope of that work wasn't always clear. Conservatives of the day saw Scripture as only being the 5 books of Moses, while the rest of the Jewish fold recognized a larger tradition that went along with and was added to in the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim. And even among the Pharisees there was greater acceptance of the Nevi'im than the Ketuvim which was really being defined.

And inter-sect violence wasn't an unusual occurrence, even within the same sect such as the Pharisees there often broke out violent episodes and periods of persecution as the various groups wrestled for power. The school of Shammai murdered the school of Hillel, the Zealots murdered the Essenes, the Sadducees murdered Pharisees and vice versa. But when we speak of the early traditions of the church, even going as late as the 4th or 6th century where Orthodox tradition really solidified into what we have today there was a heritage to most of these traditions that informed how the Scriptures were interpreted rather than the interpretations of Scripture leading. The tradition of the church gives us the context for Scriptural interpretation, even to this very day, so that we can't neatly cut the knot between them. So while it can be important to identify texts that inform a given tradition, those Scriptural references tend to be more about describing/giving evidence to the tradition rather than providing the logic for engaging in the practices.

 

[RileyG]

Just as Christ is not dead so too the saints in heaven are not dead. Christians petition the saints for prayers, and they petition Christ for everything.

Amen

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

However given the existence of the Septuagint, it's plausible that a relatively standardized Hebrew/Aramaic text existed during Jesus and Paul's time. Although, the process of canonization was ongoing,

I think that may be a mistaken perspective given that the Sadducees in the scriptures rejected angels, the resurrection, and spirits and that is said to be linked to their canon being restricted to the books of Moses alone - which is interesting since the Samaritans of today also reject everything but the books of Moses albeit their version differs from the Hebrew text we have from the Masoretic text. And the Septuagint as we have it from 4th century sources, has a larger selection of books than the Masoretic text. So, no accurate conclusions can be drawn from the Septuagint regarding the Hebrew that was used by the Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, or Essenes who lived in the Judea of Jesus' era.

 

[Rose_bud]

I agree that it is more of a cyclical thing, and the canonical Scriptures are the normative portion of the larger tradition. I'm not Orthodox or Catholic, though I am highly sympathetic to the Orthodox. What I was mostly hoping to identify is that while there was a body of documents floating around as Scripture, it was a highly debated topic even in the time of Jesus and Paul. So while the Tanakh came to be the official position landed on by Jews, it wasn't a universally accepted position and the scope of that work wasn't always clear. Conservatives of the day saw Scripture as only being the 5 books of Moses, while the rest of the Jewish fold recognized a larger tradition that went along with and was added to in the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim. And even among the Pharisees there was greater acceptance of the Nevi'im than the Ketuvim which was really being defined.

And inter-sect violence wasn't an unusual occurrence, even within the same sect such as the Pharisees there often broke out violent episodes and periods of persecution as the various groups wrestled for power. The school of Shammai murdered the school of Hillel, the Zealots murdered the Essenes, the Sadducees murdered Pharisees and vice versa. But when we speak of the early traditions of the church, even going as late as the 4th or 6th century where Orthodox tradition really solidified into what we have today there was a heritage to most of these traditions that informed how the Scriptures were interpreted rather than the interpretations of Scripture leading. The tradition of the church gives us the context for Scriptural interpretation, even to this very day, so that we can't neatly cut the knot between them. So while it can be important to identify texts that inform a given tradition, those Scriptural references tend to be more about describing/giving evidence to the tradition rather than providing the logic for engaging in the practices.

Thanks so if you are not Orthodox or Catholic which faith group do you belong to?

I agree, Christianitys Jewish roots, while rich in spiritual heritage, also inherited complex dynamics of violence and power struggles. Jesus and Paul confronted these issues, instituting a shift from ungodly practices to Christian values of humility, service, and loving one another. A redemption and reorientation of God's original core principles.

Scripture and tradition are intertwined and interconnected. A balance is achieved when traditions/ceremonies/rituals/ practices are performed in the Spirit in which they were intended.

As I mentioned earlier, I partially agree with your statement, regarding tradition leading rather than Scripture leading. The texts that existed before Christians were called Christians in Antioch were the Scriptures used for teaching in synagogues. For unprecedented events, these were writings were used to validate the authenticity of the experience. Some examples would be, Peter citing Joel to explain the occurrence of the outpouring of the Spirit. Stephens speech to the Sanhedrin, drew from his knowledge of Scripture through the Spirit, learned in the synagogue or due to his religious upbringing. The Bereans with nobility of character examined Scripture to verify Pauls "new" teachings.

If by "tradition" you mean the rituals, ceremonies, and practices of the church, then it is but one element that provides context for Scriptural interpretation.

However, not all traditions are inherently positive or worthy of continuation. Consider the transition period before the Temple's destruction in AD 70, which rendered certain ceremonies and sacrifices obsolete or Jesus reinterpretation of texts. Paul continued the temple traditions until he couldn't. In addition, his purpose for doing so was strategic.

Christian church governance traditions, developed in response to specific situations, such as the appointment of deacons to address disagreements among believers regarding food for the widows and to limit the burden on those "sent" and preaching. The qualifications for the seven was that they were filled with the Spirit and wisdom(Acts 6:1-7). Paul later instructed Timothy and detailed the requirements for selection based on the Ephesian context (1 Timothy 3:1-13).

Also communion, originated from Jesus work amongst and for His people. In this case, the ceremony informs Scripture.

Yet, even these elements have roots in Hebrew Scriptural practices. The Passover meal, reinterpreted in Christian contexts, exemplifies this continuity. Interestingly, the Passover itself originated from oral instructions, later documented and observed as a remembrance.

Interpreting Scripture in light of tradition isn't entirely new. The narratives in the Tanakh all point to Jews performing ceremonies to remember what God had said and done. However, within these same narratives, Israelite apostasy occurred when Scripture/the Law wasn't being read and upheld (Shema - Deuteronomy 6:6-9). Later, the Prophetic books contain an indictment of their failure to apply the Scriptures requirements. Therefore, it hasn't always been a linear and static process, but rather cyclical and dynamic.

Another dynamic is God as the source and originator of Scripture (ie. His Word spoken, His Word accomplished, His Word remembered - ceremony/tradition, His Word applied.

 

[Fervent]

Thanks so if you are not Orthodox or Catholic which faith group do you belong to?

I belong to Christ, though as I am neither a member of the Orthodox church or the Catholic church I think by default I am a generic protestant.

I agree, Christianitys Jewish roots, while rich in spiritual heritage, also inherited complex dynamics of violence and power struggles. Jesus and Paul confronted these issues, instituting a shift from ungodly practices to Christian values of humility, service, and loving one another. A redemption and reorientation of God's original core principles.

Scripture and tradition are intertwined and interconnected. A balance is achieved when traditions/ceremonies/rituals/ practices are performed in the Spirit in which they were intended.

Agreed with all of this.

As I mentioned earlier, I partially agree with your statement, regarding tradition leading rather than Scripture leading. The texts that existed before Christians were called Christians in Antioch were the Scriptures used for teaching in synagogues. For unprecedented events, these were writings were used to validate the authenticity of the experience. Some examples would be, Peter citing Joel to explain the occurrence of the outpouring of the Spirit. Stephens speech to the Sanhedrin, drew from his knowledge of Scripture through the Spirit, learned in the synagogue or due to his religious upbringing. The Bereans with nobility of character examined Scripture to verify Pauls "new" teachings.

Yes, we do need to maintain an adherence to the Scriptures for normativity and that being primarily the established canon. But when I speak of tradition, I think of it as an Orthodox believer might. That is, I see tradition as the life of the Holy Spirit within the church. It's not merely a set of practices and rituals handed down with no thought, but the history of interpretation of the Scriptures and even the Scripture itself. Where Scripture gets its authority is from being canonized within that tradition. So it can be admirable to examine traditional practices in the light of Scriptures, the traditional practices are also very informative on how to best understand passages of Scripture.

If by "tradition" you mean the rituals, ceremonies, and practices of the church, then it is but one element that provides context for Scriptural interpretation.

I mean far more than that, as I am including historic Scriptural commentary and accompanying elements to the Scripture. One thing that is easy to miss about a letter like Romans, for example, is that it wasn't written to be read by individuals and passed from person to person the way we might read the Bible privately today. It was given to a specific messenger with instructions on where to make emphasis, how to answer questions that might arise and need clarification, and was generally performative. All of that isn't captured in the text, but it is possible to keep such things alive in an oral tradition even after the specific details are lost to time. These types of things are part of the tradition of the church and are crucial aspects of context in order to properly interpret the letters and books.

However, not all traditions are inherently positive or worthy of continuation. Consider the transition period before the Temple's destruction in AD 70, which rendered certain ceremonies and sacrifices obsolete or Jesus reinterpretation of texts. Paul continued the temple traditions until he couldn't. In addition, his purpose for doing so was strategic.

Yes, not all traditions are positive...and I think a lot of this comes down to a view of tradition as being necessarily historic rather than being an ongoing reality. The historic church must always interpret the tradition, as the Holy Spirit continues to lead the Church down the ages.

Christian church governance traditions, developed in response to specific situations, such as the appointment of deacons to address disagreements among believers regarding food for the widows and to limit the burden on those "sent" and preaching. The qualifications for the seven was that they were filled with the Spirit and wisdom(Acts 6:1-7). Paul later instructed Timothy and detailed the requirements for selection based on the Ephesian context (1 Timothy 3:1-13).

Also communion, originated from Jesus work amongst and for His people. In this case, the ceremony informs Scripture.

Yet, even these elements have roots in Hebrew Scriptural practices. The Passover meal, reinterpreted in Christian contexts, exemplifies this continuity. Interestingly, the Passover itself originated from oral instructions, later documented and observed as a remembrance.

Interpreting Scripture in light of tradition isn't entirely new. The narratives in the Tanakh all point to Jews performing ceremonies to remember what God had said and done. However, within these same narratives, Israelite apostasy occurred when Scripture/the Law wasn't being read and upheld (Shema - Deuteronomy 6:6-9). Later, the Prophetic books contain an indictment of their failure to apply the Scriptures requirements. Therefore, it hasn't always been a linear and static process, but rather cyclical and dynamic.

Another dynamic is God as the source and originator of Scripture (ie. His Word spoken, His Word accomplished, His Word remembered - ceremony/tradition, His Word applied.

Yes, all of this I am in agreement with. What often gets left off is that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead the body of Christ, as Christ is not absent from His church. There is a habit among protestants of failing to recognize that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is an ecclesial reality in favor of a highly individualistic view. We are part of tradition, not just recipients of it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks so if you are not Orthodox or Catholic which faith group do you belong to?

I agree, Christianitys Jewish roots, while rich in spiritual heritage, also inherited complex dynamics of violence and power struggles. Jesus and Paul confronted these issues, instituting a shift from ungodly practices to Christian values of humility, service, and loving one another. A redemption and reorientation of God's original core principles.

Scripture and tradition are intertwined and interconnected. A balance is achieved when traditions/ceremonies/rituals/ practices are performed in the Spirit in which they were intended.

As I mentioned earlier, I partially agree with your statement, regarding tradition leading rather than Scripture leading. The texts that existed before Christians were called Christians in Antioch were the Scriptures used for teaching in synagogues. For unprecedented events, these were writings were used to validate the authenticity of the experience. Some examples would be, Peter citing Joel to explain the occurrence of the outpouring of the Spirit. Stephens speech to the Sanhedrin, drew from his knowledge of Scripture through the Spirit, learned in the synagogue or due to his religious upbringing. The Bereans with nobility of character examined Scripture to verify Pauls "new" teachings.

If by "tradition" you mean the rituals, ceremonies, and practices of the church, then it is but one element that provides context for Scriptural interpretation.

However, not all traditions are inherently positive or worthy of continuation. Consider the transition period before the Temple's destruction in AD 70, which rendered certain ceremonies and sacrifices obsolete or Jesus reinterpretation of texts. Paul continued the temple traditions until he couldn't. In addition, his purpose for doing so was strategic.

Christian church governance traditions, developed in response to specific situations, such as the appointment of deacons to address disagreements among believers regarding food for the widows and to limit the burden on those "sent" and preaching. The qualifications for the seven was that they were filled with the Spirit and wisdom(Acts 6:1-7). Paul later instructed Timothy and detailed the requirements for selection based on the Ephesian context (1 Timothy 3:1-13).

Also communion, originated from Jesus work amongst and for His people. In this case, the ceremony informs Scripture.

Yet, even these elements have roots in Hebrew Scriptural practices. The Passover meal, reinterpreted in Christian contexts, exemplifies this continuity. Interestingly, the Passover itself originated from oral instructions, later documented and observed as a remembrance.

Interpreting Scripture in light of tradition isn't entirely new. The narratives in the Tanakh all point to Jews performing ceremonies to remember what God had said and done. However, within these same narratives, Israelite apostasy occurred when Scripture/the Law wasn't being read and upheld (Shema - Deuteronomy 6:6-9). Later, the Prophetic books contain an indictment of their failure to apply the Scriptures requirements. Therefore, it hasn't always been a linear and static process, but rather cyclical and dynamic.

Another dynamic is God as the source and originator of Scripture (ie. His Word spoken, His Word accomplished, His Word remembered - ceremony/tradition, His Word applied.

You wrote:​

However, not all traditions are inherently positive or worthy of continuation. Consider the transition period before the Temple's destruction in AD 70, which rendered certain ceremonies and sacrifices obsolete or Jesus reinterpretation of texts. Paul continued the temple traditions until he couldn't. In addition, his purpose for doing so was strategic.​

​

​

Jesus reinterpreted noting; He did not have to, they are His own words in the first place:

John 1

English Standard Version Anglicised

​

The Word Became Flesh​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Rose_bud]

I think that may be a mistaken perspective given that the Sadducees in the scriptures rejected angels, the resurrection, and spirits and that is said to be linked to their canon being restricted to the books of Moses alone - which is interesting since the Samaritans of today also reject everything but the books of Moses albeit their version differs from the Hebrew text we have from the Masoretic text. And the Septuagint as we have it from 4th century sources, has a larger selection of books than the Masoretic text. So, no accurate conclusions can be drawn from the Septuagint regarding the Hebrew that was used by the Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, or Essenes who lived in the Judea of Jesus' era.

Hi

You may be right here Xeno, no accurate conclusions can be drawn. However I remain persuaded, that it is more plausible that a set of documents existed common to all, but not necessarily revered by all and not canonized.
As pointed out in the previous post, several examples support this.
Peter referencing Joel (Acts 2:16-21), Stephen summarizing the Pentateuch (Acts 7:2-53). The noble Bereans examining Scripture (Acts 17:10-12). In addition Philip and the eunuch reading from an Isaiah scroll (Acts 8:26-40), and Jesus famous reading from a synagogue scroll, fulfilling its prophecy (Luke 4:16-21)

Although not a formal canon as we understand it today but a common textual foundation.

Most scholars note the distinction between Sadducees and Pharisees lies in their view of what is authorative. Sadducees adhered strictly to the Torah, rejecting oral traditions and rabbinic interpretations as having the same authority. In contrast, Pharisees accepted both Torah and oral traditions, embracing the authority of rabbinic commentary.

Although some note that Sadducees had interpretations of their own which they equally elevated as authorative. Interestingly, the Torah mentions angels (Genesis 16, 22), possibly interpreted as "messengers" rather than celestial beings.
The Sadducees rejection of angels likely stemmed from this understanding.
Or as some note, the rejection is not against angels but rather spirits (evil or demon).

As the saying goes, "there's nothing new under the sun." This concept of what books are authoratative persists through the ages.

Regarding the Masoretic Text, my understanding is that this revision targeted grammatical precision to preserve original meaning and content. Yet, human error is inevitable. Words has the propensity to reinvent itself. For example, If the context for this phrase is not known, Moses broke the "tablet", it would have a different meaning for this generation, . ie was it an Apple, iPhone or Samsung.

With all translation, some differences likely creep in inadvertantly.

 

[Rose_bud]

I belong to Christ, though as I am neither a member of the Orthodox church or the Catholic church I think by default I am a generic protestant.

Yes, we do need to maintain an adherence to the Scriptures for normativity and that being primarily the established canon. But when I speak of tradition, I think of it as an Orthodox believer might. That is, I see tradition as the life of the Holy Spirit within the church. It's not merely a set of practices and rituals handed down with no thought, but the history of interpretation of the Scriptures and even the Scripture itself. Where Scripture gets its authority is from being canonized within that tradition. So it can be admirable to examine traditional practices in the light of Scriptures, the traditional practices are also very informative on how to best understand passages of Scripture.

Thank you for clarifying what you mean by tradition. So you distinguish between tradition and Holy Tradition. Although not adhering to the Holy Tradition as the Orthodox would, rather your view of interpreting Scripture is in a similar manner?

I think I understand now what you mean by tradition, it is similar to how theological Scriptural research is done, integrating biblical, historical, philosophical, and practical perspectives etc. to provide a more holistic understanding.

I can agree that Scripture is firstly rooted in the inspiration of the Spirit, recognized by the community of believers who experienced the authority of the words, not only accepting but applying it to practice both individually and communally.

I mean far more than that, as I am including historic Scriptural commentary and accompanying elements to the Scripture. One thing that is easy to miss about a letter like Romans, for example, is that it wasn't written to be read by individuals and passed from person to person the way we might read the Bible privately today. It was given to a specific messenger with instructions on where to make emphasis, how to answer questions that might arise and need clarification, and was generally performative. All of that isn't captured in the text, but it is possible to keep such things alive in an oral tradition even after the specific details are lost to time. These types of things are part of the tradition of the church and are crucial aspects of context in order to properly interpret the letters and books.

I agree with this, therefore since Phoebe being a letter carrier and expositor of the text would have surely been allowed to speak in the church and not be silent as Paul indicates in other epistles. Yet, this aspect is not recognized amongst proponents of the traditional church.

Yes, not all traditions are positive...and I think a lot of this comes down to a view of tradition as being necessarily historic rather than being an ongoing reality. The historic church must always interpret the tradition, as the Holy Spirit continues to lead the Church down the ages.

Agree

Yes, all of this I am in agreement with. What often gets left off is that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead the body of Christ, as Christ is not absent from His church. There is a habit among protestants of failing to recognize that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is an ecclesial reality in favor of a highly individualistic view. We are part of tradition, not just recipients of it.

Agree. Some individuals prioritize the timeless wisdom of the historical Church, yet inadvertently diminish the Holy Spirit's ongoing guidance in the present, neglecting the modern experiences and insights that continue to shape the Church. Acknowledging the Spirit's work in the historical Church, yet assuming His activity ceased after the Canon's formation.

The irony is that their is also a habit among the Catholic and Orthodox of failing to recognize that the guidance of the Spirit is also an individual reality in favor of an highly ecclesial view. We are recipients of tradition not just a part of it.

A balance is needed. May God provide the wisdom to discern the whisper of the Spirit in how we benefit from both, the richness of historic tradition and community and embracing the individual experience (as a son and daughter with the Father in a personal relationship with Jesus)

I appreciate your thoughtful insights brother. Be blessed.

 

[Rose_bud]

You wrote:​

​

​

Jesus reinterpreted noting; He did not have to, they are His own words in the first place:

John 1​

​

English Standard Version Anglicised​

​

​

The Word Became Flesh​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Hi
You may have missed the context of the phrase you highlighted.

It was in relation to Jesus reinterpretation of certain understandings of the text for his audience. For example his engagement with the Pharisees on marriage, the resurrection and also the sermon on the Mount.

 

[Fervent]

Thank you for clarifying what you mean by tradition. So you distinguish between tradition and Holy Tradition. Although not adhering to the Holy Tradition as the Orthodox would, rather your view of interpreting Scripture is in a similar manner?

I think I understand now what you mean by tradition, it is similar to how theological Scriptural research is done, integrating biblical, historical, philosophical, and practical perspectives etc. to provide a more holistic understanding.

I can agree that Scripture is firstly rooted in the inspiration of the Spirit, recognized by the community of believers who experienced the authority of the words, not only accepting but applying it to practice both individually and communally.

Yes, this is a pretty accurate to my own viewpoint. Recognizing the importance of tradition both in Scriptural authority and in its application, but not putting it on a pedestal and making it unassailable. I like to call my approach Christian pragmatism, because I think of things in a fairly fluid way and focus on the process more than the end result and constantly try to improve my process.

I agree with this, therefore since Phoebe being a letter carrier and expositor of the text would have surely been allowed to speak in the church and not be silent as Paul indicates in other epistles. Yet, this aspect is not recognized amongst proponents of the traditional church.

Yes, and these are issues that require frequent visitation as tradition is prone to culture creep and syncretization.

Agree

Agree. Some individuals prioritize the timeless wisdom of the historical Church, yet inadvertently diminish the Holy Spirit's ongoing guidance in the present, neglecting the modern experiences and insights that continue to shape the Church. Acknowledging the Spirit's work in the historical Church, yet assuming His activity ceased after the Canon's formation.

The irony is that their is also a habit among the Catholic and Orthodox of failing to recognize that the guidance of the Spirit is also an individual reality in favor of an highly ecclesial view. We are recipients of tradition not just a part of it.

A balance is needed. May God provide the wisdom to discern the whisper of the Spirit in how we benefit from both, the richness of historic tradition and community and embracing the individual experience (as a son and daughter with the Father in a personal relationship with Jesus)

I appreciate your thoughtful insights brother. Be blessed.

Agreed, which is precisely why I don't subscribe to one of the traditional churches. The movement of the Holy Spirit is both an ecclesial reality and an individual one, and the ecclesial aspect is beyond the bounds of any single division or faction. Which is another distinction I make for tradition, as I see it as continually in development and include the schisms as part of an overall Christian tradition. The way I see it, we have 3 expressions of the church in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism. A church in captivity, a church in power, and a church in rebellion. And all of them have important things that we can learn from them and incorporate into our own journey.

I appreciiate the discussion, and your thoughtful insights as well brother(or sister?). Be blessed as well.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes, this is a pretty accurate to my own viewpoint. Recognizing the importance of tradition both in Scriptural authority and in its application, but not putting it on a pedestal and making it unassailable. I like to call my approach Christian pragmatism, because I think of things in a fairly fluid way and focus on the process more than the end result and constantly try to improve my process.

Yes, and these are issues that require frequent visitation as tradition is prone to culture creep and syncretization.

Agreed, which is precisely why I don't subscribe to one of the traditional churches. The movement of the Holy Spirit is both an ecclesial reality and an individual one, and the ecclesial aspect is beyond the bounds of any single division or faction. Which is another distinction I make for tradition, as I see it as continually in development and include the schisms as part of an overall Christian tradition. The way I see it, we have 3 expressions of the church in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism. A church in captivity, a church in power, and a church in rebellion. And all of them have important things that we can learn from them and incorporate into our own journey.

I appreciiate the discussion, and your thoughtful insights as well brother(or sister?). Be blessed as well.

Sounds more like people wanting to scratch their own itchy ears. Self centered is not Christ centred.