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.
Assuming that you are referring to the book mentioned in Revelation 5, it is a symbol or metaphor for the world's destiny, and its contents are revealed subsequently as each of the seven seals are broken.
Besides, they actually were more "print centric" than we are.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.
Sounds like one of the best defenses of SS I've heard.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):
I would infer from this passage that many "Gospels" were being written at that time, and that, even if they were being undertaken with good intent, there were apparently some degree of inaccuracies represented among them. So Luke is writing Theophilus saying, in effect, "You have already been informed of these things, but I want to make sure that what you know about them is the truth, so I have compiled for you an accurate account."
BTW, I don't know that there is any Orthodox "doctrine" on this point - I've never heard an explication of "why" regarding the Gospels being written at the time they were written. This is just what I infer from Luke. There may additionally be liturgical reasons - the Gospels have a central place in the Divine Liturgy - but I haven't done much research on that.
I moved this out of order because your previous statement - about not knowing what written sources might have been available to Mark - can also apply to those things where the earliest written record came around 400 years later (where'd 2,000 come from?). We don't know if there were earlier written manuscripts they were based off of or copied from. That possibility tends to get consideration for things we accept, but dismissed for things we do not 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.
In your original post. John 20:30-31.
"30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
Is john referring to prophecies in the Septuagint?
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.
Same thing applies. Why isn't there a peep in the historical record about the supposed assumption of Mary until the fourth century? Why no mention of something so apparently important to Catholics and Orthodox? It is as if their had been no mention of Paul's row with Peter at Antioch, until an account of it suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the fourth century. How much historical veracity would historians then attach to that?
Does anyone consider that believing this historical tidbit--or disbelieving it, either--affects his prospects of salvation? If the answer is "no," then it's not relevant to this discussion.How much veracity do they give to the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down? I rarely hear any serious doubters, yet as far as I can find we do not see that detail mentioned in writing until Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century.
But, honestly, this whole line of debate is a sideshow. If one trusts that the Church has faithfully maintained what was entrusted to her, whether by written word, oral tradition, hymnography, or any other means, then "why wasn't it written down earlier?" is no more than a question of idle curiosity.
How much veracity do they give to the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down? I rarely hear any serious doubters, yet as far as I can find we do not see that detail mentioned in writing until Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century. Perhaps that one is simply safer to accept since it doesn't challenge any beliefs?
But, honestly, this whole line of debate is a sideshow. If one trusts that the Church has faithfully maintained what was entrusted to her, whether by written word, oral tradition, hymnography, or any other means, then "why wasn't it written down earlier?" is no more than a question of idle curiosity. If one does not have that trust, it becomes another bit of evidence for suspicion. You and I can debate possible reasons - obviously from opposite sets of assumptions - but we have no proof either way. And mere speculation will not change any minds.
Some inherent flaws:I never stated otherwise, what I am talking about is not Scripture, but the concept of Sola Scriptura which are not the same.
No, Rob. There are two uses, in scripture, of that word. In the Gospel of John, the "Word" is identified as Jesus of Nazareth and the reference is not to language (as in "the spoken word," for instance).Some inherent flaws:
John tells us that the Word (AKA scripture) became flesh and dwelt among us. Scripture= Messiah and Messiah=Scripture
No Albion.No, Rob. There are two uses, in scripture, of that word. In the Gospel of John, the "Word" is identified as Jesus of Nazareth and the reference is not to language (as in "the spoken word," for instance).
No Albion.
You are looking at this from a Hellenistic, Gentiles mind. John was a Jew. John's use of the word translated from Greek Logo's is the TORAH.
I have studied it in depth.... We will agree to disagree....Read the passage--all of it--then get back to me.
I have studied it in depth.... We will agree to disagree....
Very well. If you won't, allow me to point to the verse in which the Word becomes flesh and ask if you believe that the Torah became flesh or if "John bore witness of him" refers to the Torah.
No Albion.
You are looking at this from a Hellenistic, Gentiles mind. John was a Jew. John's use of the word translated from Greek Logo's is the TORAH.
Which is exactly what the Torah is. It is a widely held view based upon scripture among rabbi's that creation occurred through and with the Torah.....We find allusions to this in the writings namely proverbs and the psalms.The Greek word is logos, without the apostrophe, which forms no part of Greek punctuation. John is using an idea from Greek philosophy as a means of communicating Jesus' significance to a Gentile audience. Logos can be translated many ways, one of which is word. John is using it in a way borrowed from the Stoics, to mean a divine creative force which pervades the universe.
The theory of "Holy Tradition" is that there's a second stream of (unwritten) revelation from God that is the equal in authority to Scripture, but only if it's the mind of the whole church and has been so from the beginning.
Among the elements which make up the Holy Tradition of the Church, the Bible holds the first place. Next comes the Church’s liturgical life and its prayer, then its dogmatic decisions and the acts of its approved churchly councils, the writings of the church fathers, the lives of the saints, the canon laws, and finally the iconographic tradition together with the other inspired forms of creative artistic expression such as music and architecture. All of the elements of Holy Tradition are organically linked together in real life. None of them stands alone. None may be separated or isolated from the other or from the wholeness of the life of the Church. All come alive in the actual living of the life of the Church in every age and generation, in every time and place. As the Church continues to live by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Tradition of the Church will continue to grow and develop. This process will go on until the establishment of the Kingdom of God at the end of the ages.
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?