Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why? Is the canon of Scripture defined by something besides Tradition?That all sounds sort of hokey to me
stick to the topic and all will be wellThis is getting so far offtopic....what else is new...diversion to cloud the topic
There just comes a time when the cabbage is all chewed upstick to the topic and all will be well
Why? Is the canon of Scripture defined by something besides Tradition?
There just comes a time when the cabbage is all chewed up
I had a very enjoyable lunch with no cabbage.There just comes a time when the cabbage is all chewed up
haha, that used to be my saying before coming to cf, "I don't chew my cabbage twice", but that's not how it works around here. It's the long winded ones that think they have the final word. lol ... anyway, g'night ya'll, I'm glad you enjoyed your lunch w/o cabbage today MCI had a very enjoyable lunch with no cabbage.
If one is all chewed up then time to stop chewing
Stapler?The one with the stapler gets to decide what we believe
Stapler?
It doesn't matter that the canon is a tradition because the canon was based on its content and the content is only scripture.This question is hard to answer. I and others have determined that they knew what constituted Scripture by means of Tradition in the form of canon. Others seem to acknowledge that they knew because of the canon but refuse to acknowledge that the canon is in itself Tradition.
Content can be easily forged, and there are many such examples of non-canonical writings from the early days which do not offer any immediate or apparent conflict with the canon of Scripture. There is more to a particular writing than its contents. The declaration that 'such and such letter is authentic and authored originally by Paul, as handed down and copied along' is a Tradition.It doesn't matter that the canon is a tradition because the canon was based on its content and the content is only scripture.
Of course; there are many writings and many canons surrounding many writings, and many traditions which form canons of writings or otherwise produce various doctrines.At least it is supposed to be, but there is more than one canon, so tradition as a test, fails at least as much as different interpretations fail.
Why would you say something like this to me?Maybe you would like bhuddism better.
On one hand, false prophets may write things blindly which could come true. Should we then count those as Scripture?
Prophets were OT. Apostles are NT. See ephesians for example.On another hand, we have Paul's letter to Philemon, which contained no prophecies.
Need I also point out that 'the bible' as 'a book' did not exist until those writings were compiled?
No one knows what Scripture is or where it comes from without some Tradition that describes it, and no one knows what that Tradition is or where it comes from except by Tradition, and that is where our faith lies: in the Tradition handed down to us, whether in word or in letter.
That Jesus was resurrected is a Tradition that so happens to be recorded in several writings which we regard as Scripture, and we regard those particular writings as Scripture because we have accepted an ancient Tradition that declares them so.
It is written in the case of Bereans, Philip/Eunich, John/Revelation, Paul/Galatians. Whether there was a finalized canon by Polycarp's time (which is debatable) or not has nothing to do with apostolic authority (NT) and prophetic authority (OT). For example, RC thought for a time that there were 28 NT books, but that doesn't change the authority.The people of Christ's day did not have the New Testament compiled as we do now. So, then, how was it then that they understood what Scripture was, for them to use it as either their 'only' or 'most supreme' 'measure of doctrine'?
It doesn't matter that the canon is a tradition because the canon was based on its content and the content is only scripture.
At least it is supposed to be, but there is more than one canon, so tradition as a test, fails at least as much as different interpretations fail.
Maybe you would like bhuddism better.
Content can be easily forged, and there are many such examples of non-canonical writings from the early days which do not offer any immediate or apparent conflict with the canon of Scripture. There is more to a particular writing than its contents. The declaration that 'such and such letter is authentic and authored originally by Paul, as handed down and copied along' is a Tradition.
I am asking how one should know what constitutes Scripture in order to use it as any sort of rule or measure.
Paul as a Jew had the hand me down traditions downs of his fathers as he says here
Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Paul (former Pharisee) was more exceedingly zealous of these
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
They would transgress the commandment by their tradition
Which is commandment is shown in the next verse
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother:
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Then in Mark
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Yes, thank God for the Church, who listens to Him-not popular opinion.It is true that the Catholic "tradition" of including the apocrypha as if it were OT scripture is rejected by both Jews and Christians who are not Catholic -
Yes, thank God for the Church, who listens to Him-not popular opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?