20 Years without one iota of New Testament Scripture?

Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "What you don't realize is that the Apostles were teaching the same things by word or by epistle which is why both were to be accepted. They wrote down their tradition so that we would know the certainty of what we have been taught orally. The tradition of the Apostles is testified to by scripture, the tradition of the Roman church is a convenient excuse to support unbiblical practices."

The Apostles never gave us a table of contents for the New Testament. This table of contents is not testified to by Scripture. You accept the table of contents from where? Who gave it to you? Certainly not Scripture. If not Scripture, then where does your datum come from? You attack Tradition while simultaneously lean upon it.

Hi Psalm,

You wrote, "In 2thess 2:15 where Paul talks about tradition it is nothing more that two different modes of getting out the same message."

Where does Paul say this? Or, are you assuming what you are asserting?

Someone please.. please show me.. please demonstrate where Scripture tells me that 2 Peter, 2 John, Hebrews, James, Revelation, and 3 John are Scripture while the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache), the Apostolic Constitutions, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Epistle of Clement, III Corinthians, the Apocalypse of St Peter, and Acts of St Paul are not Scripture.

Where does Scripture say this? Or, is it by Tradition that you accept 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, Hebrews, and Revelation while rejecting the other titles?

Where are you reaching? Scripture or Tradition?

Be careful not to undercut the foundation of the very content of your Bible.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber

 

Apparently, the post that began this thread has not been answered.

The first Christian churches, for at least 20 years - according Raymond E. Brown who speaks of the consensus of today's best scholars in his Introduction to the New Testament - were without one iota of New Testament Scripture.

In fact, we have no witness of Christ writing anything (besides scribbing in some dirt on the ground in John 8) or commanding for anything to be written. Any accounts of Christ show him instructing orally and appointing apostles.

The Apostles then spoke the Word of God received from the person of Christ in his words and deeds in their evangelization. In other words, Tradition clearly preceded New Testament Scripture by two decades. If Jesus Christ ascended to heaven in 1983, by analogy, not a single word of Scripture would have been written down by today's date.

How can Christians today rely completely upon New Testament Scripture and deny Tradition outright as the Word of God when Tradition was all that the first Christians knew and, simultaneously, were completely ignorant of any and all New Testament Scripture?

Or, even more so, how could that early Christian church founded with the Tradition of the Apostles as the Word of God come to reject Tradition altogether?

There's something to think about.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber

[ September 18, 2002, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Abiyah,

You wrote, "Not all believers of today rely solely upon the Apostolic Writings. Just as the early believers had the Tanakh, we have the Tanakh, which speaks clearly of our Lord. Furthermore, these believers, while some will want to dispute this, still met in the synagogues of the day as well as in the Temple."

The retention of the Torah, Nebiim, and Ketubim goes without saying. I'm referring to the new divine revelation that emerged with the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah.

You wrote, "had they not been a sect of Judaism, they would have been required to
make these sacrifices, which would have been
against all our Lord stood for. The believers,
then, had all they needed."

This provides for political protection, but the question that begins this thread is quite separate from any political necessity. The necessity entails a source to turn to in transmitting the words and deeds of the Messiah.

You wrote, "Or are you saying that today's gatherings reject RCatholic traditions? Of what value are these to non-Catholic congregations?"

Catholic traditions are of great value instrinsically to non-Catholic congregations while simultaneously are denied by these self-same communities. The example par excellence entails that of the canon of New Testament Scripture.

You wrote, "They had the teachings in the
synagogues, in houses, and upon the hillsides."

You hit the nail right on the head!

Hi Dualhunter,

You wrote, "Building on what Abiyah said, Philip converted the Ethiopian eunuch using Isaiah."

Philip converted the Ethiopian using the divine revelation granted him through Jesus Christ, which unveils the hidden meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures (Or as Abiyah refers to them: the TaNaK).

The mode of transmission of this new divine revelation is what is the central aspect of our discussion. This new revelation granted through the deeds and words of the Incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is not contained in Isaiah. Did Philip resort to his New Testament?

God bless,

Carson

[ September 18, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Colin,

You wrote, "Do you believe that church tradition is of equal authority as the Scripture?"

It depends on what you mean by "Church tradition". There is Tradition, and then there are traditions. I'm speaking of the former.

You wrote, "Do you believe that everything that the Church Fathers wrote (every word and phrase) is as eternally true and pure and inspired and authoritative as the Bible?"

Absolutely not.

To bring you up to speed, I would suggest reviewing this link:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

God bless,

Carson

 

Philip was an eye-witness

You mean.. Philip learned this new divine revelation directly from Christ as he taught and instructed Philip.

And so I'll bet that you have Philip's Gospel or at least one of his epistles in your New Testament, right? Jesus did found his Church on 12 Apostles, didn't he?

God bless,

Carson

[ September 19, 2002, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

12 Apostles, all with the same Gospel which is why we do not require all of them to give an account, they were teaching the same things.

Then why do you have 4 Gospels in your Bible?

It sure does seem superfluous to instruct 12 disciples to teach when all one needs is a single perpetual written account upon which for Christianity to be based (one that doesn't even begin to exist for 2 decades).

[ September 19, 2002, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

the message is still the same though unless you think there each Apostle had his own Gospel.

Oh no. I think they all preach the same Gospel. The question is how that Gospel in its integrity is transmitted to us.

If it's only through Scripture, then it was quite superfluous for Jesus to spend a couple of years with these guys teaching and instructing them, when all he had to do was construct the Christian version of the Qumran.

 

Hi Abiyah,

You wrote, "Tradition has No Value Whatsoever unless it is spelled out explicitly in the Bible."

Scripture disagrees with your assertion.

Paul commands us, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15)

Paul seems to have a higher regard for Tradition than you do.

In the years before the Synod of Hippo, the canon of Scripture varied from place to place. Certain books were universally accepted (e.g., Genesis, Isaiah, Ephesians, the Gospel of John), but others were disputed (e.g., Esther, Tobit, Hebrews, 2 Peter). For example, as late as A.D. 324, the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote,

"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon ... Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3:3:1, 3:25:3)

Now, Abiyah, do you accept James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John as Scripture? Many early Christians disputed these writings, most especially 2 Peter in the early Church. What makes you so firm as to accept them as Scripture?

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber

[ September 19, 2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "If so, recognize that there are about 87 different sects of Islam."

And there are about 30,000 sects of Christianity, all drawing from the same text.

You wrote, "The fanatics like Osama Ben Laden have there own interpretation, which is different than the Sunnis, different again from the Shiites. The Qu’ran is open for interpretation."

This seems like analogous to Post-"Reformation" Christianity, doesn't it?

You quoted, "Jesus, at the time of his ascension into Heaven, gave the Great Commission to eleven disciples. “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even unto the end of world, Amen.” (Mat.28:19,20)"

Jesus commands to teach what Jesus has commanded his Apostles. This involves oral instruction.

You wrote, "He gave no backup plan. This was his only plan. He committed the salvation of the entire world into the hands of these eleven men."

Jesus gave the world eleven men, and the Catholic Church today is the apostolic fruit of those men, wherein the Bible has its place. The Bible, however, was written by few of those original apostles.

You quoted, "Paul said to Timothy: “The things which thou has heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” (2Tim.2:2)

Paul gives Timothy his teaching and gives him the authority to teach others. This fits the Catholic paradigm perfectly.

You wrote, "Paul taught Scripture, not tradition. He preached the Word, Christ crucified, the gospel, NOT tradition."

Contrast what you've just written with what Paul says himself, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15)

Scripture contradicts word-for-word exactly what you wrote.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber