HisServant
New member
That pretty much describes the RCC in a nutshell.
ECT NO, THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN'S ONLY AUTHORITY
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
That pretty much describes the RCC in a nutshell.
Cruciform
New member
Feel free, then, to post your proof.
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Doesn't it, though. Here you have a Catholic calling the scripture gospel account of Jesus Christ and His apostles a recently invented faith. It's just a ludicrous, embarrassing statement. If this were a courtroom, all one would have to do is let them finish running their mouths, then declare, "I rest my case."
Again? Why bother since you didn't read it in the first place.
Cruciform
New member
Simply untrue:
So, then, does a parlor game prove that the oral tradition about Jesus cannot be trusted? No, in fact, it actually helps to illustrate why we can put trust in the process by which the sayings of Jesus were passed on orally. I say this for several reasons:
First, Telephone only works in a culture that is not like the oral culture of the first century A.D. People in an oral culture become quite proficient at remembering and passing on oral material.
Admittedly, we’re not very good at listening, remembering, and passing on things accurately. That’s what makes Telephone fun. But if this game were to be played in an oral culture, I imagine that it wouldn’t really work, because the players would do a much better job with accurate transmission of information.
I can’t prove this. (Well, I could prove it, actually, if I had enough time and money to do studies in the oral cultures that still exist today. But I don’t have the time or the money.) But I can provide a couple of analogous illustrations. First, consider the case of remembering phone numbers. When I was younger, in an age before phones with computer-chips, I had memorized many phone numbers. I wouldn’t be surprised if I once knew 25 numbers by heart. Now I’ll bet I can’t come up with more than five. What explains the difference, apart from the aging of my brain? Necessity and practice. When I needed to memorize numbers, I did. And as I did this, I became good at it. A second example comes from the days when my wife was training to be a psychotherapist. After her sessions with clients, she was expected to write out a “verbatim” of the sessions, an accurate transcript of what was discussed. In time, she became quite proficient at this. Why? Again, it was a matter of necessity and practice. So, it seems logical that when people have a need to remember sayings or stories, and when they practice remembering and repeating them, they get good at it. We should expect the earliest followers of Jesus to be so good at playing Telephone that the game would be quite boring.
Second, Telephone works because the message is passed around secretly, without accountability or the possibility of correction. Early Christian tradition, on the contrary, was almost always passed on in corporate settings where accountability was provided and corrections could be made.
I’m sure there were times when followers of Jesus told others what Jesus said in private conversations. But the process of tradition was something that found its home in the early Christian communities. Studies of oral cultures have shown that these cultures allow for a measure of freedom in the passing on of traditional material, but only within certain limits. The community self corrects as necessary, guaranteeing that the stories and sayings are passed on with a high level of accuracy.
Back to the Telephone example, suppose the rules of the game were different, and the communications weren’t secret. If one person made a mistake in passing on the message, others would be there to correct the mistake. What a dull game it would be if the group could make sure that what was passed on was accurate.
Third, Telephone works because the message is relatively unimportant, if not absurd. The players have no strong reason to guarantee the accuracy of the transmission process. The early Christians, on the contrary, had strong reasons to preserve what Jesus actually did and said.
Most of the earliest followers of Jesus believed that He was the messiah of Israel. Soon, in fact, He was believed to be the Lord Himself. His teachings were regarded as divinely-inspired and, indeed, the ultimate source of divine guidance for living, not to mention salvation. Thus there would have been strong reason to transmit the sayings of Jesus with considerable accuracy. (Ironically, if Jesus had really been only the reticent sage “discovered” by the Jesus Seminar, it’s likely that nobody would have bothered to remember his peculiar sayings.)
Again, consider the case of Telephone. Suppose, instead of saying something trivial or silly, the first speaker delivers a bit of news worth remembering, something like: “Tomorrow, at 8:30 a.m. exactly, at the corner of State and Main, a man will be giving out $100 bills.” I’ll bet that the transmission of this information would be much more reliable than when the statement is just for fun.
So, the Telephone game turns out, upon inspection, to highlight reasons for believing that the early followers of Jesus passed on His words with a high level of accuracy. Here are some relevant conclusions to this conversation.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/
First, Telephone only works in a culture that is not like the oral culture of the first century A.D. People in an oral culture become quite proficient at remembering and passing on oral material.
Admittedly, we’re not very good at listening, remembering, and passing on things accurately. That’s what makes Telephone fun. But if this game were to be played in an oral culture, I imagine that it wouldn’t really work, because the players would do a much better job with accurate transmission of information.
I can’t prove this. (Well, I could prove it, actually, if I had enough time and money to do studies in the oral cultures that still exist today. But I don’t have the time or the money.) But I can provide a couple of analogous illustrations. First, consider the case of remembering phone numbers. When I was younger, in an age before phones with computer-chips, I had memorized many phone numbers. I wouldn’t be surprised if I once knew 25 numbers by heart. Now I’ll bet I can’t come up with more than five. What explains the difference, apart from the aging of my brain? Necessity and practice. When I needed to memorize numbers, I did. And as I did this, I became good at it. A second example comes from the days when my wife was training to be a psychotherapist. After her sessions with clients, she was expected to write out a “verbatim” of the sessions, an accurate transcript of what was discussed. In time, she became quite proficient at this. Why? Again, it was a matter of necessity and practice. So, it seems logical that when people have a need to remember sayings or stories, and when they practice remembering and repeating them, they get good at it. We should expect the earliest followers of Jesus to be so good at playing Telephone that the game would be quite boring.
Second, Telephone works because the message is passed around secretly, without accountability or the possibility of correction. Early Christian tradition, on the contrary, was almost always passed on in corporate settings where accountability was provided and corrections could be made.
I’m sure there were times when followers of Jesus told others what Jesus said in private conversations. But the process of tradition was something that found its home in the early Christian communities. Studies of oral cultures have shown that these cultures allow for a measure of freedom in the passing on of traditional material, but only within certain limits. The community self corrects as necessary, guaranteeing that the stories and sayings are passed on with a high level of accuracy.
Back to the Telephone example, suppose the rules of the game were different, and the communications weren’t secret. If one person made a mistake in passing on the message, others would be there to correct the mistake. What a dull game it would be if the group could make sure that what was passed on was accurate.
Third, Telephone works because the message is relatively unimportant, if not absurd. The players have no strong reason to guarantee the accuracy of the transmission process. The early Christians, on the contrary, had strong reasons to preserve what Jesus actually did and said.
Most of the earliest followers of Jesus believed that He was the messiah of Israel. Soon, in fact, He was believed to be the Lord Himself. His teachings were regarded as divinely-inspired and, indeed, the ultimate source of divine guidance for living, not to mention salvation. Thus there would have been strong reason to transmit the sayings of Jesus with considerable accuracy. (Ironically, if Jesus had really been only the reticent sage “discovered” by the Jesus Seminar, it’s likely that nobody would have bothered to remember his peculiar sayings.)
Again, consider the case of Telephone. Suppose, instead of saying something trivial or silly, the first speaker delivers a bit of news worth remembering, something like: “Tomorrow, at 8:30 a.m. exactly, at the corner of State and Main, a man will be giving out $100 bills.” I’ll bet that the transmission of this information would be much more reliable than when the statement is just for fun.
So, the Telephone game turns out, upon inspection, to highlight reasons for believing that the early followers of Jesus passed on His words with a high level of accuracy. Here are some relevant conclusions to this conversation.
• Unlike Telephone players, the first Christians lived in an oral culture that had trained them to be proficient at passing on stories and sayings.
• Unlike Telephone secrecy, the passing on of the traditions about Jesus occurred primarily in public settings that ensured the basic integrity of the transmission.
• Unlike Telephone sentences, the sayings of Jesus were believed by those who passed them on to be the most important words ever spoken, essential for salvation and for abundant living. Thus the early Christians had strong reason to remember and to repeat the sayings (and stories) of Jesus accurately.
• Unlike Telephone secrecy, the passing on of the traditions about Jesus occurred primarily in public settings that ensured the basic integrity of the transmission.
• Unlike Telephone sentences, the sayings of Jesus were believed by those who passed them on to be the most important words ever spoken, essential for salvation and for abundant living. Thus the early Christians had strong reason to remember and to repeat the sayings (and stories) of Jesus accurately.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/
Every appeal to Scripture is in fact an appeal to some human being's interpretation of Scripture.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Dona Bate
New member
"Bible (alone) faith" ...never heard of that one before. Scripture and verse?
You DO know there is a difference between believing what is written in the Bible alone and faith in the Bible alone?
"Bible (alone) faith" we can add this to the many many millions (and counting) of different and competing man made erronious doctrines of the many millions of protestant popes within Protestantism.
Catholic's believe in the Bible which teaches our faith in Jesus Christ and His Church. Jesus Christ is both God and the Church. The Church is both Jesus Christ and the Church of God as taught in scripture.
"He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." Acts 9:4
How could Paul persecute Jesus whom he never even met?
"For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." 1 Cor 15:9
Ah! Paul was persecuting the Church of God. Jesus tells us that He is the Church and Jesus also says that He is God. I wonder do protestants know that they persecute God every time that they persecute His Church?
NB: Jesus did not say: "I am the Bible whom you are persecuting" in verse 9:4. Nor did Paul say: "I persecuted the Bible of God." in verse 15:9.
Matthew 27:35 says: "And when they had crucified him (Jesus)..."
Matthew 27:35 most definitely does not say: "And when they had crucified the Bible.."
In the same way 1 Peter 3:21 says:
"And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you..."
1 Peter 3:21 most definitely does not say: "And the Bible, which this prefigured, now saves you..."
So much for the new and recently invented "Bible (alone) faith" nonsense.
God Bless!
Cruciform
New member
You've rationally proven your claim concerning me, that "Your logic is pathetic"? Post number, please.
Cruciform
New member
Meaning...?
Cruciform
New member
Indeed? How exactly did this work, given that the Bible was not even canonized until the 4th century A.D.?
Here you merely place your ignorance of ecclesiastical history on public display. The Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.
...according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. In any case, please go ahead and post an example of such a supposed "deceptive and twisted argument."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
What if no interpretation is offered?
Or what if the person is simply saying they would not know the truth of God in specific to what they are saying apart from scripture? Should they then be faulted because they turn to Biblical revelation or the revelation of scripture before a different Theological position or pursuit?
Absent definitions for General and Specific Revelation.
Cruciform
New member
That pretty much describes HS's ignorance of the Catholic Church in a nutshell.
Post #209.
Cruciform
New member
Merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part. Rather, your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect is a recently-invented group. Big difference there.
wonderingjew
New member
All Authority in Heaven and Earth
All Authority in Heaven and Earth
Pip Pip Pizah! Thank you Untellectual! Well said.
Mark 13:34 contains three characters; servants, men, and porters. Each of these is given authority by Messiah but that does not give any character the right to usurp or use authority to reign over each other or force their doctrine or religion upon the people. It is so filthy what has been done in the authority (so called) by men one to another.
Messiah allows us authority but it is HIS none the less and we are deceiving ourselves if we think different. Remember the Messiah said to be the SERVANT not the ruler or authority over the people since these are PAGAN practices!
All Authority in Heaven and Earth
Pip Pip Pizah! Thank you Untellectual! Well said.
Mark 13:34 contains three characters; servants, men, and porters. Each of these is given authority by Messiah but that does not give any character the right to usurp or use authority to reign over each other or force their doctrine or religion upon the people. It is so filthy what has been done in the authority (so called) by men one to another.
Messiah allows us authority but it is HIS none the less and we are deceiving ourselves if we think different. Remember the Messiah said to be the SERVANT not the ruler or authority over the people since these are PAGAN practices!
Claiming that Paul necessarily taught as tradition that which would not exist for another 1000 years certainly is an illogical claim. Find the post number yourself if you are truly interested.
Cruciform
New member
Once again you cannot even manage to accurately represent my actual statement. I said nothing whatsoever about Paul TEACHING such subsequent traditions, only that Paul's reference to "traditions" includes the reality and apostolicity of later traditional teachings. Nothing "illogical" about it. Try again.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
Actually, this is the reference by Paul that includes the reality of later traditional teachings from the Roman Catholic sect:
Colossians 2:8 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. |
You can spin it anyway you wish but the fact remains, it is not logical to state that Paul's reference to tradition necessarly includes ALL traditions that Rome would introduce over the following centuries.
Dona Bate
New member
Actually Not!
The Greek word for “philosophy,” philosophia, literally means “love of wisdom”. Paul is not talking about "traditions" in the plural. If GO had even bothered to check Colossians 2:8 he would have noticed that it clearly states "tradition" singular and NOT "traditions " plural.GO's other major error is that he applies this to the Catholic Church while Paul is clearly talking about the secular philosophy which itself erroniously teaches that humans have all the essentials they need on earth for self-sufficiency*without a need for God.
GO's interpretation of Colossians 2:8 is a cheap foolish attempt to ridicule the Catholic Church. His woefull* interpretation of verse 2:8 practically murdered the scripture. All for a cheap thrill for which he 'thinks' there are no consequences.
If GO, checks Psalm 101:7 and Proverbs 6:16-19, he will see that there are consequences for "a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren". That is, if he believes the Bible!?
God Bless!
Cruciform
New member
Now that you've (finally) stated my position more or less accurately (I said nothing whatsoever about "Rome"), go ahead and post your supposed proof for the above unsubstantiated assertion.
Prove the necisity to us of Paul's inclusion do all future traditions. You made a positve assertive statement so it is up to prove your position. Surly as a philosopher you understand why it s up to you to do this.