-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
20 Years without one iota of New Testament Scripture?
- Thread starter Carson Weber
- Start date
Bible-belted
New Member
Ahh, abiyah, let the young lad have fun. He cant find this kind of lively intelligent debate on any Catholic webites, so they all come here.</font>[/QUOTE]I do not regard Carson as an apologist, but rather a controversalist. He is here to stir up controversy, and, if he can, use that to lead someone to shipwreck their faith.
That is the main reason he comes here IMO. Can't covert the choir!
Can you name me one positive thing Jesus had to say about tradition?
Scripture is not to be judged by tradition because it is scripture that is God-Breathed, not tradition.
The whole Roman Church is built up on the paradigm of Pharisaical tradition, and the Lord Jesus repudiated it and accused it of "shutting up the kindom of heaven against men".
One question for you Carson. I quote 2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Can you tell me what the traditions taught by word, Paul was referring to in this passage? I would assume the "church" has preserved them, right?
Scripture is not to be judged by tradition because it is scripture that is God-Breathed, not tradition.
The whole Roman Church is built up on the paradigm of Pharisaical tradition, and the Lord Jesus repudiated it and accused it of "shutting up the kindom of heaven against men".
One question for you Carson. I quote 2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Can you tell me what the traditions taught by word, Paul was referring to in this passage? I would assume the "church" has preserved them, right?
L
LaRae
Guest
Really Lateria? I take it then you never post on forums that are outside your chosen faith?
Afterall it's not right that you try to shipwreck someone's faith is it.
LaRae
Afterall it's not right that you try to shipwreck someone's faith is it.
LaRae
I cannot answerr for Latreia, but I will answer your
question for myself. Ii have been on forums
belonging to other faiths, and no, I have not! When
I go to such forums, it is to learn, not to be their
critic. I will not hesitate to state what I believe, but
it is not my job to convict--that job wholly belongs
to the Holy Spirit, Who will convict, in His time,
whom He will.
Bible-belted
New Member
As a matter of fact I don't.
I've lurked. (That's how, for example, I know who you are. Steve Ray's board, right?) But I've never posted.
Not that I have a problem with posting on the boards of other faiths per se. I see great value in constructive dialogue. But that isn't what you and yours are after IMO.
If you want to go to a general interest board, like yahoo's reliigion board or whatever, go for it. On such a board one may reasonably posit that they are seeking for answers about RCism. This however is, by name, the baptist board. You can't make that same reasonable claim.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Sherrie,
You wrote, "In the New Testement...Doesn't Jesus tell the pepole not to be concerned with tradition. It may take me a few...but I will look it up and find scripture."
The Bible makes it clear that Jesus did not condemn all tradition, but merely those “traditions of men” that nullified God’s word.
The Pharisees created the “Quorban” tradition, for example, wherein they would make a pretended donation to the temple to avoid having to support their parents in their old age. Thus, by their tradition they nullified the Word of God, which said, “Honor your father and mother.”
However, there were other traditions that Jesus upheld. For example, in Matthew 23:2-3, we read, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”
The Old Testament never mentions Moses’ seat, but it was common knowledge in Israel that the authoritative teaching office of Moses was passed on to his successors. Thus, the Pharisees held a legitimate teaching office, and they must be obeyed, but not imitated.
"As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abote indicates, the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets and those of the great Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 15:21). The Scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative tradition and as such their teaching deserved to be respected." (L. Sabourin, The Gospel According to St. Matthew {Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1982}, vol. 2, 793.)
Jesus upheld the legitimacy of the Pharisees’ teaching office based on Tradition, not Scripture.
Of course Jesus limited his statement to “mere human traditions.” What other kind are there? Only divine traditions, and Jesus certainly wouldn’t condemn those. Also, it’s important to understand that He did not condemn the traditions of the Pharisees merely because they were human in origin, He condemned them because they nullified the Word of God. There’s nothing inherently wrong with human traditions. Many families have distinctive traditions with which they celebrate the holidays, for example. And Jesus certainly wasn’t condemning the oral Tradition of the apostles, which came from God, and which Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, commanded people to retain (2 Thess. 2:15) and propagate (2 Tim. 2:2).
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson Weber
You wrote, "In the New Testement...Doesn't Jesus tell the pepole not to be concerned with tradition. It may take me a few...but I will look it up and find scripture."
The Bible makes it clear that Jesus did not condemn all tradition, but merely those “traditions of men” that nullified God’s word.
The Pharisees created the “Quorban” tradition, for example, wherein they would make a pretended donation to the temple to avoid having to support their parents in their old age. Thus, by their tradition they nullified the Word of God, which said, “Honor your father and mother.”
However, there were other traditions that Jesus upheld. For example, in Matthew 23:2-3, we read, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”
The Old Testament never mentions Moses’ seat, but it was common knowledge in Israel that the authoritative teaching office of Moses was passed on to his successors. Thus, the Pharisees held a legitimate teaching office, and they must be obeyed, but not imitated.
"As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abote indicates, the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets and those of the great Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 15:21). The Scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative tradition and as such their teaching deserved to be respected." (L. Sabourin, The Gospel According to St. Matthew {Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1982}, vol. 2, 793.)
Jesus upheld the legitimacy of the Pharisees’ teaching office based on Tradition, not Scripture.
Of course Jesus limited his statement to “mere human traditions.” What other kind are there? Only divine traditions, and Jesus certainly wouldn’t condemn those. Also, it’s important to understand that He did not condemn the traditions of the Pharisees merely because they were human in origin, He condemned them because they nullified the Word of God. There’s nothing inherently wrong with human traditions. Many families have distinctive traditions with which they celebrate the holidays, for example. And Jesus certainly wasn’t condemning the oral Tradition of the apostles, which came from God, and which Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, commanded people to retain (2 Thess. 2:15) and propagate (2 Tim. 2:2).
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson Weber
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Keith,
You asked, "My question is why did the RCC, when listing the canonical OT books, canonize books that were not part of the Hebrew canon. It was 300 years after pentecost that Bishops began to concider the apocryphal books anymore than good devotional material."
The Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly writes, "The Old Testament always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books ... In the first two centuries ... the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas ... Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache cites Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, {New York: Harper & Row, 1960}, 53-4.)
You also asked, "If the tradition according to the EO and RCC churches is so important then why didn't the apostle's write it down like they did with books and letters we now call scripture?"
Tradition, by nature, is not written. Over time, part of the content of Tradition is eventually written down, and we know of this as Sacred Scripture. Tradition is also attested to in the writings of individuals within the Church throughout her history, and these writings are not part of Scripture yet attest to the Tradition. However, Tradition, as such, continues to exist up to the present day. Vatican II is part of the Church's Tradition.
The prime example that I can bring forward is the canon of Scripture. The canon is not itself inspired, of course, because there is not a golden table of contents in the Bible. Yet, the canon attests to the Tradition. As we have it now, the canon was eventually formulated four centuries after the Apostles.
"It was not until the year A.D. 393 that a church council first listed the 27 New Testament books now universally recognized. There was thus a period of about 350 years during which the New Testament Canon was in process of being formed." (David F. Payne, “The Text and Canon of the New Testament,” International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, {Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986}, 1005.)
If the canon is so important, why didn't the Apostles write it down?
Any worthwhile Introduction to the New Testament will attest to the necessity of the Church's Tradition in the formulation of the canon.
Protestants must accept Tradition as valid until A.D. 393 due to their acceptance of the New Testament canon. This isn't even up for debate. It's already a reality.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson Weber
You asked, "My question is why did the RCC, when listing the canonical OT books, canonize books that were not part of the Hebrew canon. It was 300 years after pentecost that Bishops began to concider the apocryphal books anymore than good devotional material."
The Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly writes, "The Old Testament always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books ... In the first two centuries ... the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas ... Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache cites Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, {New York: Harper & Row, 1960}, 53-4.)
You also asked, "If the tradition according to the EO and RCC churches is so important then why didn't the apostle's write it down like they did with books and letters we now call scripture?"
Tradition, by nature, is not written. Over time, part of the content of Tradition is eventually written down, and we know of this as Sacred Scripture. Tradition is also attested to in the writings of individuals within the Church throughout her history, and these writings are not part of Scripture yet attest to the Tradition. However, Tradition, as such, continues to exist up to the present day. Vatican II is part of the Church's Tradition.
The prime example that I can bring forward is the canon of Scripture. The canon is not itself inspired, of course, because there is not a golden table of contents in the Bible. Yet, the canon attests to the Tradition. As we have it now, the canon was eventually formulated four centuries after the Apostles.
"It was not until the year A.D. 393 that a church council first listed the 27 New Testament books now universally recognized. There was thus a period of about 350 years during which the New Testament Canon was in process of being formed." (David F. Payne, “The Text and Canon of the New Testament,” International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, {Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986}, 1005.)
If the canon is so important, why didn't the Apostles write it down?
Any worthwhile Introduction to the New Testament will attest to the necessity of the Church's Tradition in the formulation of the canon.
Protestants must accept Tradition as valid until A.D. 393 due to their acceptance of the New Testament canon. This isn't even up for debate. It's already a reality.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson Weber
Hello to All;
This thread has been interesting to say the least. The questions that have been raised are not hard ones to answer as some seem to think.
Q: How did the first century saints follow God without the completed New Testament in written form?
A: The Bible says, in Romans 10:17," So then fatih cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Christians and sinners a like responded to the word spoken. If this were not possible, many saved and in eternity would not be such.On the day of Pentecost the gospel was preached without the completed written New Testament. Yet, the same day the gospel was heard three thousand souls were added to the Lord. Acts 2:38,40,41,47. In short, men can be saved by hearing and repsonding to the truth without reading it. The Eunoch READ Isaiah 53 and HEARD the message of Jesus by the mouth of Philip. He responded and was saved. Acts 8:36-40.
Men could not only respond to the oral word they could know the will of heaven by the written word. In Eph. 3;3,4, the Bible says," How that by revelation he made known unot me the mystery; ( as I WROTE afore in a few WORDS, Wherby,when YE READ, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." Paul proclaimed the whole or all the counsel of God and wrote it down for permanence. Acts 20;27,Eph. 3;3,4. Men could hear and read to understand the mind of God. Moreover, the wriiten word was passed from one congregation to another. I Thes. 5;27, Col. 4;16. While Catholicism asserts men cannot know the truth without their self proclaimed successors, the Bible teaches us we can. John 8:32. In fact, the inspired John teaches us we must hear the apostles to know God. I John 4: 6,"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth US; he that is not of God heareth NOT US. Hereby we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." It is the height of absudity and arrogance to teach someone must adhere to what the magisterium teaches. God said to hear the apostles, not the magisterium.
The real tough question is, if the catholics have modern day succesors, why don't they say what Peter, Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers say? If they have the same Holy Spirit, why don't they do what the apostles did? If the rcc says the miraculous credentials are not a part of the teaching office today, WHO CHANGED IT? AND HOW DO WE KNOW? The apostles of the Lord VERIFIED AUTHENTICATED, and CONFIRMED the word with the miraculous. Mk. 16:17-20 II Cor. 12:12. Why don't the catholic successors do the same? Is it a different spirit?
The real tough question is why does the rcc violate the inspired teachings of God as it pertains to elders or bishops. I Tim. 3:2 plainly teaches as plain as the word plain could be that the bishop MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE. Why do they call men unauthorized names. Jesus said, in Mat. 23:9, " call no man your father on the earth: for there is one who is your Father which is in heaven." Why do theyviolate I Tim 4:3, " forbidding to marry, and comanding to abstain form meats which God hath vreated to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
The answer is simple. Catholicism uses the heremeneutic principle of 1. Pope. 2. Magisterium. 3. Tradition. 4. Bible.
The real tough question is why is not the all sufficient word of God good enough for the rcc? IITim. 3:16,17.
Jesus always appealed to the word of God for his authority for what he taught and lived on this earth. Mat. 4:4,7,11. He taught the traditons of men were USELESS. Mat. 15:8,9. The real tough question is why does the rcc practice and teach contrary to the will of Christ?
Let us remember God has magnified his word above his name. Psalms 138:2. I believe that would include pope, magisterium and any traditon.
This thread has been interesting to say the least. The questions that have been raised are not hard ones to answer as some seem to think.
Q: How did the first century saints follow God without the completed New Testament in written form?
A: The Bible says, in Romans 10:17," So then fatih cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Christians and sinners a like responded to the word spoken. If this were not possible, many saved and in eternity would not be such.On the day of Pentecost the gospel was preached without the completed written New Testament. Yet, the same day the gospel was heard three thousand souls were added to the Lord. Acts 2:38,40,41,47. In short, men can be saved by hearing and repsonding to the truth without reading it. The Eunoch READ Isaiah 53 and HEARD the message of Jesus by the mouth of Philip. He responded and was saved. Acts 8:36-40.
Men could not only respond to the oral word they could know the will of heaven by the written word. In Eph. 3;3,4, the Bible says," How that by revelation he made known unot me the mystery; ( as I WROTE afore in a few WORDS, Wherby,when YE READ, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." Paul proclaimed the whole or all the counsel of God and wrote it down for permanence. Acts 20;27,Eph. 3;3,4. Men could hear and read to understand the mind of God. Moreover, the wriiten word was passed from one congregation to another. I Thes. 5;27, Col. 4;16. While Catholicism asserts men cannot know the truth without their self proclaimed successors, the Bible teaches us we can. John 8:32. In fact, the inspired John teaches us we must hear the apostles to know God. I John 4: 6,"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth US; he that is not of God heareth NOT US. Hereby we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." It is the height of absudity and arrogance to teach someone must adhere to what the magisterium teaches. God said to hear the apostles, not the magisterium.
The real tough question is, if the catholics have modern day succesors, why don't they say what Peter, Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers say? If they have the same Holy Spirit, why don't they do what the apostles did? If the rcc says the miraculous credentials are not a part of the teaching office today, WHO CHANGED IT? AND HOW DO WE KNOW? The apostles of the Lord VERIFIED AUTHENTICATED, and CONFIRMED the word with the miraculous. Mk. 16:17-20 II Cor. 12:12. Why don't the catholic successors do the same? Is it a different spirit?
The real tough question is why does the rcc violate the inspired teachings of God as it pertains to elders or bishops. I Tim. 3:2 plainly teaches as plain as the word plain could be that the bishop MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE. Why do they call men unauthorized names. Jesus said, in Mat. 23:9, " call no man your father on the earth: for there is one who is your Father which is in heaven." Why do theyviolate I Tim 4:3, " forbidding to marry, and comanding to abstain form meats which God hath vreated to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
The answer is simple. Catholicism uses the heremeneutic principle of 1. Pope. 2. Magisterium. 3. Tradition. 4. Bible.
The real tough question is why is not the all sufficient word of God good enough for the rcc? IITim. 3:16,17.
Jesus always appealed to the word of God for his authority for what he taught and lived on this earth. Mat. 4:4,7,11. He taught the traditons of men were USELESS. Mat. 15:8,9. The real tough question is why does the rcc practice and teach contrary to the will of Christ?
Let us remember God has magnified his word above his name. Psalms 138:2. I believe that would include pope, magisterium and any traditon.
Ben Sira,4 QMMT, 1 Maccabees, and the Qumran(Dead Sea Scrolls) point to the OT Canon closing before 180 BC which is well before the writing of the apocryphal books. (Steinmann, A. The Oracles of God)
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who was the earliest Christian to list the OT canon Lists it as: The five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, The Twelve, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. Origen also follows the same OT canon listing.
It wasn't until Augustine that somebody suggested canonizing the apocryphal books and that was some 200 years after the first list.
Except for a few books James, Hebrews, and 2 Pt being the few I can remember off the top of my head the rest just fell into place no council determined their use, the council just made up a list of books that had already been universally accepted.
[ September 13, 2002, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who was the earliest Christian to list the OT canon Lists it as: The five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, The Twelve, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. Origen also follows the same OT canon listing.
It wasn't until Augustine that somebody suggested canonizing the apocryphal books and that was some 200 years after the first list.
Carson, that is no excuse. If this tradition was so important to the grand scheme of things why didn't God have it written down.
Except for a few books James, Hebrews, and 2 Pt being the few I can remember off the top of my head the rest just fell into place no council determined their use, the council just made up a list of books that had already been universally accepted.
[ September 13, 2002, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Keith,
This is what I've gleaned from my religion's encyclopedia:
"Coming down to the next age, that of the apologists, we find Baruch cited by Athenagoras as a prophet. St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews', and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect. The full realization of this truth came slowly, at least in the Orient, where there are indications that in certain quarters the spell of Palestinian-Jewish tradition was not fully cast off for some time. St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito's Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito's restricted canon is explicable on another ground. St. Irenæus, always a witness of the first rank, on account of his broad acquaintance with ecclesiastical tradition, vouches that Baruch was deemed on the same footing as Jeremias, and that the narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were ascribed to Daniel. The Alexandrian tradition is represented by the weighty authority of Origen. Influenced, doubtless, by the Alexandrian-Jewish usage of acknowledging in practice the extra writings as sacred while theoretically holding to the narrower Canon of Palestine, his catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures contains only the protocanonical books, though it follows the order of the Septuagint. Nevertheless Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon (see references in Cornely). In his Hexaplar edition of the Old Testament all the deuteros find a place. The sixth-century Biblical manuscript known as the "Codex Claromontanus" contains a catalogue to which both Harnack and Zahn assign an Alexandrian origin, about contemporary with Origen. At any rate it dates from the period under examination and comprises all the deuterocanonical books, with IV Machabees besides. St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees. For the West African Church the larger canon has two strong witnesses in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. All the deuteros except Tobias, Judith, and the addition to Esther, are Biblically used in the works of these Fathers."
You wrote, "If this tradition was so important to the grand scheme of things why didn't God have it written down."
Tradition, by nature, isn't written (no excuse necessary). It continues to this very day in the Church unwritten. And, it is attested to in the liturgy, the fathers, councils, etc. Its preservation is attributed to the animation of the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church.
"If Scripture is so important in the grand scheme of things, why didn't Jesus Christ command for it to be written - in fact, why didn't he write it himself - why did it take 20 years for the first letter to be written down?" Of course, I'm not downplaying Scripture. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your question.
You should be asking, "If Scripture commands us to keep tradition, why don't we?" (I'm speaking of St. Paul's command in 2 Thess 2:15) God felt that Tradition was important enough to command adherence to it within New Testament Scripture.
You wrote, "Except for a few books James, Hebrews, and 2 Pt being the few I can remember off the top of my head the rest just fell into place no council determined their use, the council just made up a list of books that had already been universally accepted."
How did these epistles "just fall into place"? Tradition! You rely upon their "falling into place" through the Tradition of the Church.
Sometimes I feel like a philosopher urging my peers to open their minds, "Take a look outside of the box!"
God bless,
Carson
This is what I've gleaned from my religion's encyclopedia:
"Coming down to the next age, that of the apologists, we find Baruch cited by Athenagoras as a prophet. St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews', and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect. The full realization of this truth came slowly, at least in the Orient, where there are indications that in certain quarters the spell of Palestinian-Jewish tradition was not fully cast off for some time. St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito's Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito's restricted canon is explicable on another ground. St. Irenæus, always a witness of the first rank, on account of his broad acquaintance with ecclesiastical tradition, vouches that Baruch was deemed on the same footing as Jeremias, and that the narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were ascribed to Daniel. The Alexandrian tradition is represented by the weighty authority of Origen. Influenced, doubtless, by the Alexandrian-Jewish usage of acknowledging in practice the extra writings as sacred while theoretically holding to the narrower Canon of Palestine, his catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures contains only the protocanonical books, though it follows the order of the Septuagint. Nevertheless Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon (see references in Cornely). In his Hexaplar edition of the Old Testament all the deuteros find a place. The sixth-century Biblical manuscript known as the "Codex Claromontanus" contains a catalogue to which both Harnack and Zahn assign an Alexandrian origin, about contemporary with Origen. At any rate it dates from the period under examination and comprises all the deuterocanonical books, with IV Machabees besides. St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees. For the West African Church the larger canon has two strong witnesses in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. All the deuteros except Tobias, Judith, and the addition to Esther, are Biblically used in the works of these Fathers."
You wrote, "If this tradition was so important to the grand scheme of things why didn't God have it written down."
Tradition, by nature, isn't written (no excuse necessary). It continues to this very day in the Church unwritten. And, it is attested to in the liturgy, the fathers, councils, etc. Its preservation is attributed to the animation of the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church.
"If Scripture is so important in the grand scheme of things, why didn't Jesus Christ command for it to be written - in fact, why didn't he write it himself - why did it take 20 years for the first letter to be written down?" Of course, I'm not downplaying Scripture. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your question.
You should be asking, "If Scripture commands us to keep tradition, why don't we?" (I'm speaking of St. Paul's command in 2 Thess 2:15) God felt that Tradition was important enough to command adherence to it within New Testament Scripture.
You wrote, "Except for a few books James, Hebrews, and 2 Pt being the few I can remember off the top of my head the rest just fell into place no council determined their use, the council just made up a list of books that had already been universally accepted."
How did these epistles "just fall into place"? Tradition! You rely upon their "falling into place" through the Tradition of the Church.
Sometimes I feel like a philosopher urging my peers to open their minds, "Take a look outside of the box!"
God bless,
Carson
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi DHK,
You wrote, "Notice the tradition is the Word of God. It is the truth. It came by word or by epistle. Many of those epistles became the Word of God. The tradition spoken of is truth."
You nailed it right on the head!
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson
You wrote, "Notice the tradition is the Word of God. It is the truth. It came by word or by epistle. Many of those epistles became the Word of God. The tradition spoken of is truth."
You nailed it right on the head!
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson
I guess my role on this board is for God to use me to point out where other's are wrong when presenting arguments that don't logically flow as that is what I have been doing for the past 2 months....
Anyway...on with it.
1.Tradition is also attested to in the writings of individuals within the Church throughout her history, and these writings are not part of Scripture yet attest to the Tradition.
Then, by your own words, tradition means nothing because you have father's in the church than don't agree on EVERY little detail. Unless every member of the church who is given weight agree's on every single subject matter completely, tradition, by what you just said, means nothing.
2. Tradition, by nature, is not written.
This would be a correct statement had it been written "Tradition doesn't have to be written down", but as you wrote it, it leads to some very sticky material. For instance, how do you know what the early church though or practiced if it wasn't written down? How do you know what they believed in 1400 if it wasn't written down. What you are saying is that it doesn't have to be written down to be Tradition, yet, the only Tradition you can use is that which is written down. Smacks of contradiction.
3. Over time, part of the content of Tradition is eventually written down, and we know of this as Sacred Scripture.
Written tradition isn't scripture, it is history, or as you call it, Tradition. You cannot call history Sacred Scripture without allowing contradictions and inconsitencies into Sacred Scripture, thereby making your religion false. I doubt you advocate this. I assume this was meant in another way....though, I can't figure out what you could have meant otherwise.
In Christ,
jason
Dualhunter
New Member
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.
Bible-belted
New Member
Is all that is the Word of God, tradition? Yes.
Is all that is tradition the Word of God? No.
Is all that is tradition the Word of God? No.
In 2thess 2:15 where Paul talks about tradition it is nothing more that two different modes of getting out the same message.
Carson,
I want to see how good your memory is. When you first came on this board, I posted a rather long post which, I admit, was copied and pasted, but you quoted something to me about "brevity". Do you remember what it was?
Carson,
I want to see how good your memory is. When you first came on this board, I posted a rather long post which, I admit, was copied and pasted, but you quoted something to me about "brevity". Do you remember what it was?