GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Sacred Tradition  (Read 31100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #245 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 10:01:16 »
Quote
In Sacred Scripture it teaches us that there is a specifically chosen college of teachers that the Holy Spirit preserves as infallible administers of orthodoxy. Christ gave us 82 teachers, with 12 apostolic overseers and 1 rock among them to be weilded by the Holy Spirit as a lynchpin. They are the ones who the Holy Spirit used to write the NT and they are the ones who interpreted and taught. They chose others after  them to do the same.

lighthammer,

Huh? Never heard of that one. I guess that is in one of those old timey Catholic Bibles. Certainly not in the newer New Jerusalem Bible like I read. Peace, JohnR

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #245 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 10:01:16 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #246 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 10:26:54 »
Quote
In Sacred Scripture it teaches us that there is a specifically chosen college of teachers that the Holy Spirit preserves as infallible administers of orthodoxy. Christ gave us 82 teachers, with 12 apostolic overseers and 1 rock among them to be weilded by the Holy Spirit as a lynchpin. They are the ones who the Holy Spirit used to write the NT and they are the ones who interpreted and taught. They chose others after  them to do the same.

lighthammer,

Huh? Never heard of that one. I guess that is in one of those old timey Catholic Bibles. Certainly not in the newer New Jerusalem Bible like I read. Peace, JohnR

Uh huh.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #246 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 10:26:54 »

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #247 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 10:49:31 »
Quote
Uh huh.

lighthammer,

So you DID get that from one of those old timey Catholic bibles? You need to modernize and use the New Jersalem Bible. I is a much better and more accurate translation.

It does not translate elders as priests whereas the older ones did that. It will help get your history straight.

Peace, JohnR

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #248 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 16:16:01 »
Quote
Uh huh.

lighthammer,

So you DID get that from one of those old timey Catholic bibles? You need to modernize and use the New Jersalem Bible. I is a much better and more accurate translation.

It does not translate elders as priests whereas the older ones did that. It will help get your history straight.

Peace, JohnR

1. lol What? Which part of what I said has to do with translation? Last time I checked even the Reformation Fathers failed to remove books from the New Testament even though they tried.

2. You have a tendency to try and take issues and cross them through different topics in your quips. While I have no issue with your quips try to orient them to topics relative to the thread you are actually posting in. Mentioning other topics will have to be moderated out to keep topics from spilling out of their original threads.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #248 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 16:16:01 »

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #249 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 20:44:17 »
Quote
1. You are the one claims scripture interpreting scripture is biblical. It's your responsibility to validate your point.

2. How exactly do I provide a bible verse that proves you carry an incomplete canon? I mean I can do that if you like but it would only fall in deaf ears.


My point was that I do not need tradition to interpret scripture,and my question was,provide me a verse that I needed tradition to interpret...........

So again, no one has provided it....

And I stand by what I said,scripture is the only thing that can interpret scripture!!!

Stand by it all you want. You have to provide any source from the Bible that says it will interpret itself so IMO your point is moot. You are making your feelings the standard and what sounds good the measuring tape. People who cry "scripture interprets scripture" sound like indviduals looking from the outside in trying their utmost to piece together something that is foreign to them.

In Sacred Scripture it teaches us that there is a specifically chosen college of teachers that the Holy Spirit preserves as infallible administers of orthodoxy. Christ gave us 82 teachers, with 12 apostolic overseers and 1 rock among them to be weilded by the Holy Spirit as a lynchpin. They are the ones who the Holy Spirit used to write the NT and they are the ones who interpreted and taught. They chose others after  them to do the same.

Again this is not rock science, if the Bible interprets itself then there is no need for a teacher. Christ would've made a printing press Himself and popped out millions of Bibles in the hundreds of languages instead of waiting for a German Catholic to do so in 1411.



And what may I ask do these adminstrators use to interpret scripture.....Give example .....

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #249 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 20:44:17 »



Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #250 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 20:46:11 »
And still no verse,wow!!!!!!

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #251 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 21:01:05 »
Quote
1. lol What? Which part of what I said has to do with translation? Last time I checked even the Reformation Fathers failed to remove books from the New Testament even though they tried.

lighthammer,

The bible is still the same as the Reformers saw before Trent. If they tried too take some out they did not try very hard since there was no one to stop them.
(why are you changing the topic of this thread? Perhaps you should moderate out your own post?)

2. You have a tendency to try and take issues and cross them through different topics in your quips. While I have no issue with your quips try to orient them to topics relative to the thread you are actually posting in. Mentioning other topics will have to be moderated out to keep topics from spilling out of their original threads.

You seem to want to moderate out what you cannot refute and you are welcome to anytime. I stay on topic of course.
You just dont like the line of argument. Peace, JohnR

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #252 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 00:59:39 »
Quote
1. lol What? Which part of what I said has to do with translation? Last time I checked even the Reformation Fathers failed to remove books from the New Testament even though they tried.

lighthammer,

The bible is still the same as the Reformers saw before Trent. If they tried too take some out they did not try very hard since there was no one to stop them.
(why are you changing the topic of this thread? Perhaps you should moderate out your own post?)

2. You have a tendency to try and take issues and cross them through different topics in your quips. While I have no issue with your quips try to orient them to topics relative to the thread you are actually posting in. Mentioning other topics will have to be moderated out to keep topics from spilling out of their original threads.

You seem to want to moderate out what you cannot refute and you are welcome to anytime. I stay on topic of course.
You just dont like the line of argument. Peace, JohnR


1. Nope the Bible is short several books thanks to your Reformers and thank God they weren't allowed to completely ravage the canon or we would missing about 8 books from the NT too.

2. Stop trying to make yourself feel good. Your pety quip about translations was meant to be provocative. That's totally fine with me just keep it in the thread it was actually related to.


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #253 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 01:05:26 »
Quote
1. You are the one claims scripture interpreting scripture is biblical. It's your responsibility to validate your point.

2. How exactly do I provide a bible verse that proves you carry an incomplete canon? I mean I can do that if you like but it would only fall in deaf ears.


My point was that I do not need tradition to interpret scripture,and my question was,provide me a verse that I needed tradition to interpret...........

So again, no one has provided it....

And I stand by what I said,scripture is the only thing that can interpret scripture!!!

Stand by it all you want. You have to provide any source from the Bible that says it will interpret itself so IMO your point is moot. You are making your feelings the standard and what sounds good the measuring tape. People who cry "scripture interprets scripture" sound like indviduals looking from the outside in trying their utmost to piece together something that is foreign to them.

In Sacred Scripture it teaches us that there is a specifically chosen college of teachers that the Holy Spirit preserves as infallible administers of orthodoxy. Christ gave us 82 teachers, with 12 apostolic overseers and 1 rock among them to be weilded by the Holy Spirit as a lynchpin. They are the ones who the Holy Spirit used to write the NT and they are the ones who interpreted and taught. They chose others after  them to do the same.

Again this is not rock science, if the Bible interprets itself then there is no need for a teacher. Christ would've made a printing press Himself and popped out millions of Bibles in the hundreds of languages instead of waiting for a German Catholic to do so in 1411.



And what may I ask do these adminstrators use to interpret scripture.....Give example .....

They study the scriptures themselves and seek out understanding from the Holy Spirit in a disciplined communion with the rest of their fellow bishops.

Read Acts. The Council of Jerusalem is the blueprint.

Secondly what exactly are you asking me to quote a verse in regards to?

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #254 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 03:22:58 »
Quote
They study the scriptures themselves and seek out understanding from the Holy Spirit in a disciplined communion with the rest of their fellow bishops.

Read Acts. The Council of Jerusalem is the blueprint.

Secondly what exactly are you asking me to quote a verse in regards to?


Im asking you to quote a verse in scripture that I can't interpret with scripture.......

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #255 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 04:22:25 »
And I stand by what I said,scripture is the only thing that can interpret scripture!!!

How do you personally decide which piece of scripture to use to interpret scripture?

No reply to my question? WOW!

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #256 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 04:29:24 »
 
And I stand by what I said,scripture is the only thing that can interpret scripture!!!

You claim is clear:
scripture is the only thing that can interpret scripture!!!

But now you have changed your claim:

Im asking you to quote a verse in scripture that I can't interpret with scripture.......

You are admitting that it’s not scripture that interprets scripture but YOU that interprets scripture using scripture.

It's back to personal interpretation of scripture.

Thanks for admitting it.

Case closed.

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #257 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 05:14:05 »
And I stand by what I said,scripture is the only thing that can interpret scripture!!!

How do you personally decide which piece of scripture to use to interpret scripture?

No reply to my question? WOW!

It's called,searching!!!!!

Quote
You are admitting that it’s not scripture that interprets scripture but YOU that interprets scripture using scripture.

It's back to personal interpretation of scripture.

Thanks for admitting it.

Case closed.

You funny,but it's all good.........

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #258 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 05:22:06 »
And I stand by what I said,scripture is the only thing that can interpret scripture!!!

How do you personally decide which piece of scripture to use to interpret scripture?

No reply to my question? WOW!

It's called,searching!!!!!

Quote
You are admitting that it’s not scripture that interprets scripture but YOU that interprets scripture using scripture.

It's back to personal interpretation of scripture.

Thanks for admitting it.

Case closed.

You funny,but it's all good.........

In other words you are stumped.

OK.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #259 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 06:50:17 »
Quote
They study the scriptures themselves and seek out understanding from the Holy Spirit in a disciplined communion with the rest of their fellow bishops.

Read Acts. The Council of Jerusalem is the blueprint.

Secondly what exactly are you asking me to quote a verse in regards to?


Im asking you to quote a verse in scripture that I can't interpret with scripture.......

What can negative is that? I have already shown how the Ethiopian tried that and couldn't. 

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #260 on: Thu May 03, 2012 - 19:07:16 »
Quote
They study the scriptures themselves and seek out understanding from the Holy Spirit in a disciplined communion with the rest of their fellow bishops.

Read Acts. The Council of Jerusalem is the blueprint.

Secondly what exactly are you asking me to quote a verse in regards to?


Im asking you to quote a verse in scripture that I can't interpret with scripture.......

What can negative is that? I have already shown how the Ethiopian tried that and couldn't. 

I think your missing my point,I never said we don't need teacher's,however when one is being taught, it is from scripture,using scripture to interpret scripture.....

What did Phillip teach the Eunuch,that wasn't in scripture.?.......Answer,nothing!!!

The Eunuch was reading from the book of Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth."

Isaiah 53:8 "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare His generation? for He was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of My people was He stricken."

This was prophesied in Daniel 9:26

Daniel prophecied that sixty two weeks of years after the Jews returned to rebuild the city streets and walls of Jerusalem, which took place in 444 B.C. the Messiah would be cut off, but not for Himself. He would gladly go to the cross for all those that would believe on Him and repent in His name. This date is fixed and recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8.

Nehemiah 2:1 "And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artazerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it to the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence."

This fixes the exact date for the starting time to the coming of the messiah for we see in the eighth verse that the permission was given to go ahead with the rebuilding of the streets and walls of Jerusalem.

Nehemiah 2:8 "And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into." And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me."

By using the Jewish calendar and knowing the exact date that Jesus Christ was "cut off" [died], we can see the prophecy was on the day before the Passover sabbath. By calculation it comes to a 483 year period. which is 173,880 Jewish calendar days, which is 176,426.85 Solar calendar day. We find a difference of 7 years and 25 days. Then adjusting for the fact that there is only a one year period recorded for the time from 1 B.C to 1 A.D, the date of the cut off of Messiah would fall on what is know as "Palm Sunday". We read of this day in Matthew 21:7-9.

Again,nothing outside of scripture........

Acts 8:34 "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"

Acts 8:35 "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."

Phillip,preached unto him,Jesus.....From where? Scripture!!!!!

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #261 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 04:24:29 »

Acts 8:34 "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"

Acts 8:35 "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."

Phillip,preached unto him,Jesus.....From where? Scripture!!!!!


What scripture? NT Scripture which hadn't yet been written?  ::doh::

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #262 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 11:13:27 »
Quote
You are admitting that it’s not scripture that interprets scripture but YOU that interprets scripture using scripture.

It's back to personal interpretation of scripture.

winsome,

I thought the RCC encouraged its members to interprete scripture. So whats wrong with it?

"The Roman Catholic church has rarely, if ever, defined what a text meant to the person who wrote it.
The church encourages interpreters of Scripture to discover with all the sholarly means available to them
what individual passages meant when they were written and encourages all its members to read the Bible
for spiritual nourishment. Church interpretation for Catholics deals primarily, not with what the biblical
text meant when it was written, but with what it means for the life of the Christian community in
subsequant eras."
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers To The Bible. page 120 Imprimatur

Peace, JohnR

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #263 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 14:28:16 »
Quote
They study the scriptures themselves and seek out understanding from the Holy Spirit in a disciplined communion with the rest of their fellow bishops.

Read Acts. The Council of Jerusalem is the blueprint.

Secondly what exactly are you asking me to quote a verse in regards to?


Im asking you to quote a verse in scripture that I can't interpret with scripture.......

What can negative is that? I have already shown how the Ethiopian tried that and couldn't. 

I think your missing my point,I never said we don't need teacher's,however when one is being taught, it is from scripture,using scripture to interpret scripture.....

What did Phillip teach the Eunuch,that wasn't in scripture.?.......Answer,nothing!!!

The Eunuch was reading from the book of Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth."

Isaiah 53:8 "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare His generation? for He was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of My people was He stricken."

This was prophesied in Daniel 9:26

Daniel prophecied that sixty two weeks of years after the Jews returned to rebuild the city streets and walls of Jerusalem, which took place in 444 B.C. the Messiah would be cut off, but not for Himself. He would gladly go to the cross for all those that would believe on Him and repent in His name. This date is fixed and recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8.

Nehemiah 2:1 "And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artazerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it to the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence."

This fixes the exact date for the starting time to the coming of the messiah for we see in the eighth verse that the permission was given to go ahead with the rebuilding of the streets and walls of Jerusalem.

Nehemiah 2:8 "And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into." And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me."

By using the Jewish calendar and knowing the exact date that Jesus Christ was "cut off" [died], we can see the prophecy was on the day before the Passover sabbath. By calculation it comes to a 483 year period. which is 173,880 Jewish calendar days, which is 176,426.85 Solar calendar day. We find a difference of 7 years and 25 days. Then adjusting for the fact that there is only a one year period recorded for the time from 1 B.C to 1 A.D, the date of the cut off of Messiah would fall on what is know as "Palm Sunday". We read of this day in Matthew 21:7-9.

Again,nothing outside of scripture........

Acts 8:34 "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"

Acts 8:35 "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."

Phillip,preached unto him,Jesus.....From where? Scripture!!!!!


Phillip preached Jesus from the oral teaching he received, not  the written. 

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #264 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 14:33:14 »
Quote
You are admitting that it’s not scripture that interprets scripture but YOU that interprets scripture using scripture.

It's back to personal interpretation of scripture.

winsome,

I thought the RCC encouraged its members to interprete scripture. So whats wrong with it?

"The Roman Catholic church has rarely, if ever, defined what a text meant to the person who wrote it.
The church encourages interpreters of Scripture to discover with all the sholarly means available to them
what individual passages meant when they were written and encourages all its members to read the Bible
for spiritual nourishment. Church interpretation for Catholics deals primarily, not with what the biblical
text meant when it was written, but with what it means for the life of the Christian community in
subsequant eras."
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers To The Bible. page 120 Imprimatur

Peace, JohnR

You thought wrong and Mr. Browns words are in error. The Scriptures are interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. Contrary to what Raymond Brown writes, personal interpretation is frowned upon. Yes, the individual is encouraged to read the Scriptures, but for clarification the religious authority  which God has placed over us must be consulted.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #265 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 15:56:48 »
Quote
You are admitting that it’s not scripture that interprets scripture but YOU that interprets scripture using scripture.

It's back to personal interpretation of scripture.

winsome,

I thought the RCC encouraged its members to interprete scripture. So whats wrong with it?

"The Roman Catholic church has rarely, if ever, defined what a text meant to the person who wrote it.
The church encourages interpreters of Scripture to discover with all the sholarly means available to them
what individual passages meant when they were written and encourages all its members to read the Bible
for spiritual nourishment. Church interpretation for Catholics deals primarily, not with what the biblical
text meant when it was written, but with what it means for the life of the Christian community in
subsequant eras."
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers To The Bible. page 120 Imprimatur

Peace, JohnR

You thought wrong and Mr. Browns words are in error. The Scriptures are interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. Contrary to what Raymond Brown writes, personal interpretation is frowned upon. Yes, the individual is encouraged to read the Scriptures, but for clarification the religious authority  which God has placed over us must be consulted.

Don't misunderstand Raymond Brown Big Brother. He's not saying what I believe highrigger is implying. He is not suggesting that Catholics are encouraged to go out and make their own brand of Truth with the Bible as the Protetsants do. He is stating that the Church encourages individual and group Bible studies to grow in understanding.

This is not the same as setting yourself up as the authoritative interpreter of the Bible equal or higher than the College of the Magisterium as I think highrigger may be trying to present. Bible study by its nature does mean interpreting Sacred Scripture (as it does with reading anything). However the Churh teaches that study and growing in understanding within the scholarship and fidleity of the Church is encouraged.

In my Bible there is a citation that says an indulgence is awarded for every thirty minutes spent in Bible study.

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #266 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 20:28:10 »
Quote
Phillip preached Jesus from the oral teaching he received, not  the written. 


And what may I ask is this oral teaching,and where,as I would love to hear it also?

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #267 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 22:00:19 »

Acts 8:34 "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"

Acts 8:35 "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."

Phillip,preached unto him,Jesus.....From where? Scripture!!!!!


What scripture? NT Scripture which hadn't yet been written?  ::doh::

Try reading post # 260 again,and you will see it was from the OT.....

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #268 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 22:49:31 »

Acts 8:34 "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"

Acts 8:35 "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."

Phillip,preached unto him,Jesus.....From where? Scripture!!!!!


What scripture? NT Scripture which hadn't yet been written?  ::doh::

Try reading post # 260 again,and you will see it was from the OT.....

Yes, you are correct, the confirmation of Christ is from the OT. I guess we are thinking about the gospel preached by Christ, heard by the Apostles, and then they in turn went out and preached the message - in an oral fashion. A long time passed before the good news was set in printed form as we know it. Pehaps we just misunderstood each other here.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #269 on: Fri May 04, 2012 - 22:53:30 »
Quote
You are admitting that it’s not scripture that interprets scripture but YOU that interprets scripture using scripture.

It's back to personal interpretation of scripture.

winsome,

I thought the RCC encouraged its members to interprete scripture. So whats wrong with it?

"The Roman Catholic church has rarely, if ever, defined what a text meant to the person who wrote it.
The church encourages interpreters of Scripture to discover with all the sholarly means available to them
what individual passages meant when they were written and encourages all its members to read the Bible
for spiritual nourishment. Church interpretation for Catholics deals primarily, not with what the biblical
text meant when it was written, but with what it means for the life of the Christian community in
subsequant eras."
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers To The Bible. page 120 Imprimatur

Peace, JohnR

You thought wrong and Mr. Browns words are in error. The Scriptures are interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. Contrary to what Raymond Brown writes, personal interpretation is frowned upon. Yes, the individual is encouraged to read the Scriptures, but for clarification the religious authority  which God has placed over us must be consulted.

Don't misunderstand Raymond Brown Big Brother. He's not saying what I believe highrigger is implying. He is not suggesting that Catholics are encouraged to go out and make their own brand of Truth with the Bible as the Protetsants do. He is stating that the Church encourages individual and group Bible studies to grow in understanding.

This is not the same as setting yourself up as the authoritative interpreter of the Bible equal or higher than the College of the Magisterium as I think highrigger may be trying to present. Bible study by its nature does mean interpreting Sacred Scripture (as it does with reading anything). However the Churh teaches that study and growing in understanding within the scholarship and fidleity of the Church is encouraged.

In my Bible there is a citation that says an indulgence is awarded for every thirty minutes spent in Bible study.

Yes, I stand informed. Highrigger reads Raymond Brown and sees one thing, you (or I) could see another. I guess it's all about......interpretation?

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #270 on: Sat May 05, 2012 - 12:29:52 »
Quote
Yes, I stand informed. Highrigger reads Raymond Brown and sees one thing, you (or I) could see another. I guess it's all about......interpretatio n?

Ladonia,

Raymond Brown plainly says that the RCC is not concerned from a dogma point of view on what the apostles actually intended by their writings. That should not be interpretation. Otherwise what do you think he meant?

It is of upmost importance to protestancs of what the apostles actually meant by what they wrote.
That is what guides protestant doctrine and practice. That difference was what initiated the Reformation in the first place.

Peace, JohnR

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #271 on: Sat May 05, 2012 - 12:41:49 »
Quote
Don't misunderstand Raymond Brown Big Brother. He's not saying what I believe highrigger is implying. He is not suggesting that Catholics are encouraged to go out and make their own brand of Truth with the Bible as the Protetsants do. He is stating that the Church encourages individual and group Bible studies to grow in understanding.

This is not the same as setting yourself up as the authoritative interpreter of the Bible equal or higher than the College of the Magisterium as I think highrigger may be trying to present. Bible study by its nature does mean interpreting Sacred Scripture (as it does with reading anything). However the Churh teaches that study and growing in understanding within the scholarship and fidleity of the Church is encouraged.

In my Bible there is a citation that says an indulgence is awarded for every thirty minutes spent in Bible study.

lighthammer,

Good try but that is not what he says. Here it is with some more to help you get it.

He plainly says you should "discover with all scholarly means available to them what individual passages meant when they were written.."

"The Roman Catholic church has rarely, if ever, defined what a text meant to the person who wrote it.
The church encourages interpreters of Scripture to discover with all the sholarly means available to them
what individual passages meant when they were written and encourages all its members to read the Bible
for spiritual nourishment. Church interpretation for Catholics deals primarily, not with what the biblical
text meant when it was written, but with what it means for the life of the Christian community in
subsequant eras."
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers To The Bible. page 120 Imprimatur

"In terms of what we might call the literal sense of Scripture, ie, what a verse meant when it was first
written, it is doubtful that the Roman Catholic Church has ever defined the meaning of any passage. The
church has defined that some ot its doctrines are related to scriptural passages, but not necessarily that
those doctrines were in the minds of the poeple who wrote the passages. Thus, a conflict between private
interpretation and church doctrine based on scripture is really not relevant to the type of commentary help
That I have been describing.
  I remember with sad amusement the observation made by a reviewer in a popular evaluation of a long
commentary I had done. He stated he was grateful that he did not have to bother with my opinions or
those of others since he preached only what the Catholic Church taught about this particular book.
Since the church had never interpreted the literal meaning of any passage in that book, I wondered
exactly what he found to preach. What he really meant, I am sure, is that he preached the opinions
about the book that he had been taught when he was in the seminary, and he did not want to bother
seeing whether those opinions still represented where most scholars stood today."
Raymond Brown, Q15 - 101 Questions and Answers to the Bible. Page 25. Imprimatur

He clearly points out here that scholars are determining what is taught  about scriptural intent of the apostles.
Why do you deny his plain words? You may disagree but you should not contort his words to mean something that plainly is not intended.

It is a disappointment you want to turn his words upside down. If you dont agree why not just say so?
(or tell me he is a dissident like most Catholics like to do)

Peace, JohnR

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #272 on: Sat May 05, 2012 - 22:33:58 »
Okay let's get to where the rubber meets the road.......Where is there a list of these sacred traditions,or does one just take the word of the church?


If you say they are just as important as scripture,than I should be able to read them.......

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #273 on: Sat May 05, 2012 - 22:51:14 »
Quote
Yes, I stand informed. Highrigger reads Raymond Brown and sees one thing, you (or I) could see another. I guess it's all about......interpretatio n?

Ladonia,

Raymond Brown plainly says that the RCC is not concerned from a dogma point of view on what the apostles actually intended by their writings. That should not be interpretation. Otherwise what do you think he meant?

It is of upmost importance to protestancs of what the apostles actually meant by what they wrote.
That is what guides protestant doctrine and practice. That difference was what initiated the Reformation in the first place.

Peace, JohnR

I thought LH made a good point concerning what you say Raymond Brown means. Is Mr Brown always right in his assessment of things? You seem to believe he always is, I'm not.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #274 on: Sat May 05, 2012 - 22:58:34 »
Okay let's get to where the rubber meets the road.......Where is there a list of these sacred traditions,or does one just take the word of the church?


If you say they are just as important as scripture,than I should be able to read them.......

Well, being that we Catholics believe that authority was given to the Catholic church by Christ, I have no problem in taking the word of the Church.  As for the sacred traditions, I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church would probably be a good place to start.

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #275 on: Sat May 05, 2012 - 23:23:54 »
Okay let's get to where the rubber meets the road.......Where is there a list of these sacred traditions,or does one just take the word of the church?


If you say they are just as important as scripture,than I should be able to read them.......

Well, being that we Catholics believe that authority was given to the Catholic church by Christ, I have no problem in taking the word of the Church.  As for the sacred traditions, I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church would probably be a good place to start.

So would it be fair to say that the catechism is equal to scripture and that the oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles can be found within it's pages?

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #276 on: Sun May 06, 2012 - 02:53:49 »
Quote
Don't misunderstand Raymond Brown Big Brother. He's not saying what I believe highrigger is implying. He is not suggesting that Catholics are encouraged to go out and make their own brand of Truth with the Bible as the Protetsants do. He is stating that the Church encourages individual and group Bible studies to grow in understanding.

This is not the same as setting yourself up as the authoritative interpreter of the Bible equal or higher than the College of the Magisterium as I think highrigger may be trying to present. Bible study by its nature does mean interpreting Sacred Scripture (as it does with reading anything). However the Churh teaches that study and growing in understanding within the scholarship and fidleity of the Church is encouraged.

In my Bible there is a citation that says an indulgence is awarded for every thirty minutes spent in Bible study.

lighthammer,

Good try but that is not what he says. Here it is with some more to help you get it.

He plainly says you should "discover with all scholarly means available to them what individual passages meant when they were written.."

"The Roman Catholic church has rarely, if ever, defined what a text meant to the person who wrote it.
The church encourages interpreters of Scripture to discover with all the sholarly means available to them
what individual passages meant when they were written and encourages all its members to read the Bible
for spiritual nourishment. Church interpretation for Catholics deals primarily, not with what the biblical
text meant when it was written, but with what it means for the life of the Christian community in
subsequant eras."
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers To The Bible. page 120 Imprimatur

"In terms of what we might call the literal sense of Scripture, ie, what a verse meant when it was first
written, it is doubtful that the Roman Catholic Church has ever defined the meaning of any passage. The
church has defined that some ot its doctrines are related to scriptural passages, but not necessarily that
those doctrines were in the minds of the poeple who wrote the passages. Thus, a conflict between private
interpretation and church doctrine based on scripture is really not relevant to the type of commentary help
That I have been describing.
  I remember with sad amusement the observation made by a reviewer in a popular evaluation of a long
commentary I had done. He stated he was grateful that he did not have to bother with my opinions or
those of others since he preached only what the Catholic Church taught about this particular book.
Since the church had never interpreted the literal meaning of any passage in that book, I wondered
exactly what he found to preach. What he really meant, I am sure, is that he preached the opinions
about the book that he had been taught when he was in the seminary, and he did not want to bother
seeing whether those opinions still represented where most scholars stood today."
Raymond Brown, Q15 - 101 Questions and Answers to the Bible. Page 25. Imprimatur

He clearly points out here that scholars are determining what is taught  about scriptural intent of the apostles.
Why do you deny his plain words? You may disagree but you should not contort his words to mean something that plainly is not intended.

It is a disappointment you want to turn his words upside down. If you dont agree why not just say so?
(or tell me he is a dissident like most Catholics like to do)

Peace, JohnR

Why do you keep quoting Raymond Brown?

I've quoted this twice before. It is one of the main dogmatic statements from Vatican II and therefore what the Catholic Church and that is what matters, not what Raymond Brown says.


However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.

Dei Verbum, para 12 (my emboldening)

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #277 on: Sun May 06, 2012 - 07:44:24 »
Okay let's get to where the rubber meets the road.......Where is there a list of these sacred traditions,or does one just take the word of the church?


If you say they are just as important as scripture,than I should be able to read them.......

Well, being that we Catholics believe that authority was given to the Catholic church by Christ, I have no problem in taking the word of the Church.  As for the sacred traditions, I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church would probably be a good place to start.

So would it be fair to say that the catechism is equal to scripture and that the oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles can be found within it's pages?

No and Yes. Let me give you my understanding.


Neither Jesus nor the apostles wrote books of dogmatic theology. Jesus taught directly and in parables. The apostles in their turn taught what they themselves had been taught, and also their own reflections and deepening understanding of these truths. They and others wrote some of this down as instruction or correction in letters and other writings.

All of this is what the Catholic Church calls the Deposit of Faith. It includes those writings that later were discerned to be specially inspired by the Holy Spirit and were canonised as Sacred Scripture. The rest is called Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox call it all Sacred Tradition.

The various doctrines of the Church were formulated from this Deposit of Faith. Since the doctrines and Scripture come from the same source there is no (and cannot be) any conflict. But the Church does not formulate it’s doctrines from Scripture alone. The Church teaches from all that has been passed to it by the apostles.

Protestants on the other hand have rejected much of  Tradition and the doctrines that the Church has formulated and invented their own doctrines from Scripture alone. They seem to start as though with just Scripture and a blank piece of paper.

You ask where can we find this Tradition? It was passed down, first orally of course, but then gradually became written down in the writings of the early fathers, the various creeds, in liturgies and ancient prayers and catechetical writings.

Tradition helps us to understand how particular passages of scripture should be interpreted and to refute heretical interpretations. So although it may be possible to argue a particular doctrine from Scripture, once you have the doctrine, we know that the scripture supports the doctrine from Tradition.

Let me give you examples of that.
A disputed text is Jn 3:3-5. Some now say that water here refers to amniotic fluid, some say the Spirit (living water) but we know that it is normal H2O from Tradition.

Can baptism (with water) be by pouring as well as immersion? Again this is disputed but we know that it can be by both from Tradition.

The Catechism is a compilation of Church teaching. As that teaching draws on the one Deposit of Faith, expressed in Scripture and Tradition, we cannot easily say this bit comes from Scripture, this bit comes from Tradition.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #278 on: Sun May 06, 2012 - 09:41:04 »
Okay let's get to where the rubber meets the road.......Where is there a list of these sacred traditions,or does one just take the word of the church?


If you say they are just as important as scripture,than I should be able to read them.......

Well, being that we Catholics believe that authority was given to the Catholic church by Christ, I have no problem in taking the word of the Church.  As for the sacred traditions, I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church would probably be a good place to start.

So would it be fair to say that the catechism is equal to scripture and that the oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles can be found within it's pages?

I would say that the catechism is at the very least an addendum of the Holy Scriptures. Like Winsome has said, within it's pages the Bilble is expounded upon.

Before you asked, where is the list of these sacred tradions. They are found within the pages of the Scriptures. You know, things like Holy Communion, Baptism, Christian marriage, etc. All these "traditions" of life passed down to us in the present day. You may not agree with the Church's interpretation of these things, but they are there.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Sacred Tradition
« Reply #279 on: Sun May 06, 2012 - 12:53:46 »
Quote
Well, being that we Catholics believe that authority was given to the Catholic church by Christ, I have no problem in taking the word of the Church.  As for the sacred traditions, I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church would probably be a good place to start.


Ladonia,

You need to check the real Catholic teachings those Sacred Traditions are specifically defiined as Scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives. These are known as Sacred Traditions and the Word of God.

The Catechism is NOT defined as Sacred Tradition. Catholic tradition ok but not Sacred Tradition.  If you think so please show me. It is remarkable to me how many Catholics dont really know what they should about the Catholic faith. Catholic tradition is not the same as Sacred Tradition. Vatican II explains that. Here is a link for you to study. It is not easy to sort it out but it can be done.

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-tradition.html

Some relevant parts are as follows:

Vatican II's Dei Verbum speaks of "a close connection and communication between sacred
tradition and Sacred Scripture": "both of them... [flow] from the same divine wellspring."

It says that "Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing
under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God
entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their
successors in its full purity." The Church, "led by the light of the Spirit of truth, ...
may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more
widely known." (Dei Verbum, 9)

Note that scripture is the Word of God. Your CCC is NOT the Word of God so is inferior to Sacred Tradition.

Raymond Brown explains it more fully here.

"The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that its past Magesterial statments have
been enunciated in 'the changeable conceptions of a given epoch.'
Note 9 - Mysterium ecclesiae, a declaration of the Roman Doctrinal Congregation
(1973).
Note 10 - Theologically the Bible outranks the magesterial statments (since no one
claims  they are the word of God)"
Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.

So as I understand Brown and the Vatican II statements, neither the Magisterium nor infallible Papal edicts carry the same weight as Scripture.

Peace, JohnR
« Last Edit: Sun May 06, 2012 - 13:00:19 by highrigger »