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.
I said most of the NT books. The gospels all end with by the Resurrection, so we wouldn't expect them to include events that happened decades later.
Albion, please. I understand that someone may have said something about Protestants, without putting a qualifier like "many," or "some".It's only "Holy Tradition" that is opposed to Sola Scriptura (our topic here).
I want to thank everyone for not answering any of my questions. This blog seems to be a Babylon of people who have all of the answers. I confess that I have no answers only questions. This may not register but I will repeat it anyway: "piety and arrogance are not virtues".
I went back and looked at your first post in this thread, and you seem to expect to criticised, so why should I disappoint you?
"The Bible is an historical document commisioned by, and edited to, satisfy Helena Augusta (the mother of Roman Emporer Constantine). Helena directed and funded the building of many churchs and the preservation of religious artifacts.
Most of the books of the new testament were written by Paul, who was not an Apostle and who I consider a false (selfproclaimed) profit. The purpose of Pauls letters to the churches seems to be to promote the authority and organization of the male leaders of the church."
All of the texts in the New Testament were written in the first century. We know that because they were being quoted in the second century. By the time the fourth century came along, there would have been far too many manuscripts in circulation, throughout the Empire, for anybody to successfully gather them together and edit them, even if they wanted to.
Paul wrote 13 of the 27books of the New Testament. Although he had his disagreements with the other apostles, there is no indication that they resented him calling himself an apostle. To expect to find women's lib in first century Palestine is at best a bit naive.
That is the standard response of Catholics of whatever denomination or communion. However, it's not accurate.Albion, please. I understand that someone may have said something about Protestants, without putting a qualifier like "many," or "some".
But Holy Tradition is NOT against the Bible. Holy Tradition is the Bible and other writings that the early Church Fathers have preached.
Right. And I'm glad to have you say that because most of the other Catholics here insist that this kind of stuff is what we're talking about.Holy Tradition is not about what color cope a bishop is to wear for a particular service, or how many bells are on an Eastern censer. It is also not about what that nasty Counter-Reformation did to silence Martin Luther, or about the various bad decision made by Pope and Prelates.
Because if that doctrine is so important that the Pope lays it down as something Catholics must believe, you would think that the divine author of the Bible would arrange for at least a mention of it to appear somewhere - and before the fourth century.
The role of the Church is to separate true doctrine from false doctrine. That's why Jesus gave the Church his authority and the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them in all truth.
Tell me what Jesus taught during these 40 days:
Acts 1:3.... He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
Thank you for noticing me. In the first century I would have just been stoned.
When john the Elder referenced " a book"; what book was he referring to? In 90 AD there was no uniformity among the churches, the new testament wasn't even an idea yet,it was just a scattered and disorganized pile of letters hoarded by churches and followers.
Can't speak to that specifically, since the Orthodox don't have the same concept of "dogma". However, if there was no controversy or disagreement regarding the belief, there would not be any need to write it down. Those within the Church would hear about it as part of the regular teachings in the liturgical life of the Church; those outside the Church would need to be brought inside before it had any relevance to them.
... then we are using the same language to convey radically different understandings.
Tell me, why were the gospels written? After all, they could just have been handed down orally, couldn't they?
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
Chances are you won't believe any historical data relating to the Catholic Church but here you go none the less:Please show where Rome has dogmatically defined the books of the Bible.
Martin Luther...actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."
With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.
With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.
Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.
Catholics arguing against SS seem to be pushing the idea that the Bible is like a Rorschach test, that if ten people read it for themselves, they'll come away with ten different interpretations. That hasn't been my experience reading it over the years. Peter mentions some of Paul's letters that are hard to understand, and the book of Revelation is a fireworks display of symbolism; but those are the exceptions, not the rule. The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.
And when I consider the worship of Mary, how does that square with the first commandment as well as "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" as Christ quoted to the devil?
I also understand that the Mass is the dispensing of salvation little by little, in instalments. How does that go with what's taught in Hebrews about Christ offering himself up as the final sacrifice for all time?
And for some number of years - probably 20-35 years after the Crucifixion - they were. Or to be more precise, the stories of what Christ said and did were. The first Gospels were likely written somewhere in the 55-70 AD timeframe.
I believe Luke 1:1-4 holds the key as to why they were written (emphases mine):
Theophilus could be a pun. Φιλος Θεου means friend of God. In any case, it seems likely that the Gospel writers had an audience greater than their immediate audiences in mind when they wrote.
Mark's Gospel is generally dated to 65-70, but we have no knowledge of what written sources might have been available to him.
A few decades of oral transmission, with eye witnesses still around, is not the same thing as 2,000 years. One motive for the composition of the gospels is likely to have been a growing realisation that the Parousia wouldn't be any time soon, and there was a need to preserve a record of events for future generations.
This ^, however, is not about Sola Scriptura, which is the topic of the thread. Even if it were intended as some sort of rebuttal, no one in later times such as our own can make much of a case in favor of "traditions" that are not known to them or verifiable. Simply to insist that there were some is of little value when it comes to what the church teaches its members and requires them to believe.But aside from that, the culture in the Levant in the first century was strongly oral. We err if we impose our print-centric views on a culture that did not share them. The Church maintained and passed down the teachings and traditions, and even where those were written down the transmission was primarily oral (both due to the culture and because literacy was not universal). Today we seem to think that something is not truly "real" unless and until it has been put in print; they did not share that view.
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?