|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 9, 2018 4:24:48 GMT
The Pharisees and the Sadducees were two BIG religious sects. They were telling people how to be saved and they were basically the authority. People admired them and thought highly of them. Their major differences were in TRADITION. Here's how Jesus judges them and predicts their destiny from all that tradition they followed.
Matthew 16 1.Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. 6.Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 12.Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees
Matthew 23 13.“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14.Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
So, as the verses above state they do not enter the kingdom of heaven and those who follow them don't enter either. So Jesus told them they will go to hell. But why? Let's look at the next verses.
Mark 7 5.Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” 6.He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7.And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8.For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” 9.He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 13.making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down.And many such things you do.”
So they don't go to heaven because they chose to follow the traditions the elders in the synagogues told people to do instead of doing what it says in scripture.
Christinity also has 2 very big sects or denominations which follow tradition over scripture and will go to hell. Who are the 2 big sects of the Pharisees and the Sadducees in Christianity today? 2 biggest denominations teaching tradition....who are they? Who's doctrine does Jesus not want us to follow?
|
|
omega103
New Member
Posts: 18
Likes: 14
Ethnicity: Indonesian
Location: Canada
Politics: RWA
Religion: Protestant
Philosophy: West & East
|
Post by omega103 on Jun 9, 2018 4:54:04 GMT
I would actually say that not all of tradition is necessarily bad. As a matter of fact, I believe that some traditions were created in order to honor God itself. However, the changing landscape of the society is what renders them worthless. Many have succumbed to believing that tradition is simply a ritual that will work in their favor of some type, whether it be to be accepted in society, to please God so that they receive what they want, or even to pass down values to their descendants. The Pharisees, on the other hand, has an obviously selfish motive to follow tradition in order to compare how holy they are to others instead of actually being a true role model like Jesus.
In one of Paul's letters (Ephisians, I believe), he once rebuked both the followers of tradition and free will of the church he wrote to. If I am correct, he saw that those who abode by the law had the intention to purify the church, but it creates a tendency for the legalistic members to compare themselves to others. Such can be an argument against tradition. On the other hand, he also said that one must not take free will for granted as it would lead to immorality. Nevertheless, both groups were prone to focus more on selfish motivations rather than God.
Ultimately, I don't believe that it isn't a matter of tradition. Some could actually help us get closer to God. Rather, it's a matter of one's heart.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 9, 2018 5:58:00 GMT
The Catholic and Orthodox churches.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 9, 2018 6:05:57 GMT
I would actually say that not all of tradition is necessarily bad. To whom? To Jesus they were bad. But Jesus rejected them. And it didn't please Him because they didn't follow what was written but followed the traditions they made. Here's how to please Him which was in origional post anyway. Shrug 1 John 3:22 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. He's pleased and happy when we keep His commandments only.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 9, 2018 6:14:23 GMT
I would actually say that not all of tradition is necessarily bad. As a matter of fact, I believe that some traditions were created in order to honor God itself. However, the changing landscape of the society is what renders them worthless. Many have succumbed to believing that tradition is simply a ritual that will work in their favor of some type, whether it be to be accepted in society, to please God so that they receive what they want, or even to pass down values to their descendants. The Pharisees, on the other hand, has an obviously selfish motive to follow tradition in order to compare how holy they are to others instead of actually being a true role model like Jesus. In one of Paul's letters (Ephisians, I believe), he once rebuked both the followers of tradition and free will of the church he wrote to. If I am correct, he saw that those who abode by the law had the intention to purify the church, but it creates a tendency for the legalistic members to compare themselves to others. Such can be an argument against tradition. On the other hand, he also said that one must not take free will for granted as it would lead to immorality. Nevertheless, both groups were prone to focus more on selfish motivations rather than God. Ultimately, I don't believe that it isn't a matter of tradition. Some could actually help us get closer to God. Rather, it's a matter of one's heart. “Some could actually help us get closer to God.” I’m sure that’s what the Pharisees told their constituents too. “I would actually say that not all of tradition is necessarily bad.” In the Bible it wasn’t a question of which tradition was good or bad, it was that the Pharisees weren’t following the scriptures and they rejected Christ.
|
|
omega103
New Member
Posts: 18
Likes: 14
Ethnicity: Indonesian
Location: Canada
Politics: RWA
Religion: Protestant
Philosophy: West & East
|
Post by omega103 on Jun 9, 2018 6:44:14 GMT
I believe that the traditions Jesus refers to are those created by man or those having lost their spirit and meaning at that time. An example of it could actually be seen today, such as in the Holy Communion. The Holy Communion, or the Last Supper, was originally meant to remind us of Jesus's sacrifice. However, not many people today take it seriously and instead only perceive it as a ritual without much meaning. This is a relatively common tendency of men, where they materialize their own perspective of what religion and rituals are without consulting the scripture. It is even possible that some approach it without taking heed the greatest commandment or truly regretting their actions.
With that said, the Holy Communion can be a time where one has an intimate encounter with God instead of being a mere ritual. This could also apply to the tradition of the Ten Commandments, where one might simply follow them without having their motives from God.
Anyways, what I was meant to say was that I completely agree that the scripture must be followed instead of traditions. The majority of traditions, which are created by men, are not really genuine towards God. However, it important to note that the other end of the spectrum without traditions would be free will. Such thought process also takes for granted the grace of God. Ultimately, I believe that the scripture, which is a God-inspired authority, triumphs both traditions and free will.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 9, 2018 7:13:31 GMT
I believe that the traditions Jesus refers to are those created by man or those having lost their spirit and meaning at that time. An example of it could actually be seen today, such as in the Holy Communion. The Holy Communion, or the Last Supper, was originally meant to remind us of Jesus's sacrifice. However, not many people today take it seriously and instead only perceive it as a ritual without much meaning. This is a relatively common tendency of men, where they materialize their own perspective of what religion and rituals are without consulting the scripture. It is even possible that some approach it without taking heed the greatest commandment or truly regretting their actions. With that said, the Holy Communion can be a time where one has an intimate encounter with God instead of being a mere ritual. This could also apply to the tradition of the Ten Commandments, where one might simply follow them without having their motives from God. Anyways, what I was meant to say was that I completely agree that the scripture must be followed instead of traditions. The majority of traditions, which are created by men, are not really genuine towards God. However, it important to note that the other end of the spectrum without traditions would be free will. Such thought process also takes for granted the grace of God. Ultimately, I believe that the scripture, which is a God-inspired authority, triumphs both traditions and free will. Then which traditions did Jesus make? In which verses? Because in the original post He was saying He only made commandments and people made traditions out of them and cancelled out His commandments to follow traditions. Like here... Mark 7 6 .....This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” So the commandments of men he calls traditions where they don't do His commandments but instead what they made up which means doing tradition while laying aside the real commandments and not following or pleasing Him Shrug
|
|
omega103
New Member
Posts: 18
Likes: 14
Ethnicity: Indonesian
Location: Canada
Politics: RWA
Religion: Protestant
Philosophy: West & East
|
Post by omega103 on Jun 9, 2018 7:27:50 GMT
Well, when you place it that way, I suppose that I got the terms 'commandments' and 'traditions' a bit mixed up in that context. Indeed, traditions in terms of the commandments of men are fallible one way or another, even those of the forefathers of Israel. On the other hand, His commandments are genuine as they seek Him and not the will of men, which is not perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jun 9, 2018 9:13:44 GMT
The Catholic and Orthodox churches. Protestants and neo-Protestants!
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jun 9, 2018 9:28:48 GMT
I believe that the traditions Jesus refers to are those created by man or those having lost their spirit and meaning at that time. An example of it could actually be seen today, such as in the Holy Communion. The Holy Communion, or the Last Supper, was originally meant to remind us of Jesus's sacrifice. However, not many people today take it seriously and instead only perceive it as a ritual without much meaning. This is a relatively common tendency of men, where they materialize their own perspective of what religion and rituals are without consulting the scripture. It is even possible that some approach it without taking heed the greatest commandment or truly regretting their actions. With that said, the Holy Communion can be a time where one has an intimate encounter with God instead of being a mere ritual. This could also apply to the tradition of the Ten Commandments, where one might simply follow them without having their motives from God. Anyways, what I was meant to say was that I completely agree that the scripture must be followed instead of traditions. The majority of traditions, which are created by men, are not really genuine towards God. However, it important to note that the other end of the spectrum without traditions would be free will. Such thought process also takes for granted the grace of God. Ultimately, I believe that the scripture, which is a God-inspired authority, triumphs both traditions and free will. Then which traditions did Jesus make? In which verses? Because in the original post He was saying He only made commandments and people made traditions out of them and cancelled out His commandments to follow traditions. Like here... Mark 7 6 .....This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” So the commandments of men he calls traditions where they don't do His commandments but instead what they made up which means doing tradition while laying aside the real commandments and not following or pleasing Him -And he answered and said unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone(Bible), but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God- Mt. 4: 4 Protestants say : The Ancient Church was based only on Holy Scripture, while Tradition arose much later.For many Protestants - especially among evangelicals and charismatics - the word "tradition" is a disparaging shade, and to call anything relating to tradition is equivalent to calling it "carnal," "spiritually dead," "destructive" and (or) "legalistic". And when they read the New Testament, it seems obvious to them that the Bible sharply condemns tradition as something contrary to Scripture. Ancient Christians, in their understanding, are very reminiscent of evangelicals or charismatics of the 20th century. The fact that the Christians of the first century on the Nativity of Christ had liturgical worship or adhered to some tradition, it seems inconceivable to them, but it seems that such things entered the Church later, "when it was spoiled." When Protestants begin to seriously study the history of the Ancient Church and the writings of the ancient Christian fathers and see a substantially different picture than that they are accustomed to imagine, for them it is equivalent to a blow (as it was for me in due time). It turns out, for example, that the first Christians did not carry their Bible with them every Sunday to the temple for study; in fact, it was so difficult to get a copy of at least some of the Scriptures (because it took time and certain materials to make it!) that very few people had their own copies. Most often, individual copies of Scripture were kept by specially appointed members of the Church or at the place where the Church gathered for worship. Moreover, most churches did not have the full composition of the books of the Old Testament and even more so - the New Testament (which was not even completed almost until the end of the first century). This does not mean that the ancient Christians did not study the Scriptures. They studied it very seriously, but not individually, but together. And for most of the first century, Christians limited themselves to studying the Old Testament. But how did they recognize the gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, in general, Who is Christ, the order of worship, etc.? They had only oral tradition, which they received from the apostles. Of course, many in the Ancient Church heard these things directly from the apostles themselves, but there were many more who did not hear them, especially near the end of the first century, when all the apostles had already passed away. Later generations had access to the writings of the apostles through the medium of the New Testament, but as for the Christian faith, in this the Ancient Church relied almost entirely on oral tradition. This dependence on the Tradition is also evident in the New Testament writings themselves. For example, St.. The apostle Paul warns the Thessalonians: "Now, brothers, stand and hold the traditions that you have been taught by either a word or a message" (2 Thessalonians 2, 15). Here the word "traditions" is the translation of the Greek word "paradosiV", which, although differently translated in some Protestant versions of the Bible, is the same word used by Orthodox Greeks when they speak of Tradition, and only a few biblical scholars dispute this its meaning. The word literally means "what is transferred." This is the same word used in the negative sense when it comes to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7: 3, 5, 8), and also when it speaks of the authority of the Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 11, 2, 2 Fez. 2, 15). On the other hand, the Apostle Paul, speaking of the Christian Tradition, affirms: "I thank you, brethren, that you all remember me and keep the traditions (paradoseiV) as I gave (paredwka - the verb corresponding to the noun paradosiV) to you" (1 Cor. 11, 23). It is these words that the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the apostolic Tradition: "... for the faith that was once given to the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was handed to Him personally by the apostles through all that He said and did, and if to write about all this in detail, "then the world itself would not contain the books written" (John 21, 25). The apostles gave their knowledge to the whole Church, and the Church, being the guardian of this treasure, thus became "the pillar and the assurance of truth" (1 Tim 3, 15). The evidence of the New Testament leaves no doubt on this score: the ancient Christians had both oral and written traditions that they received from Christ through the apostles. As a written tradition, at first they had only its separate fragments: one local church had some message, the other, perhaps, the Gospel. Gradually, all these scriptures were joined together in one compilation and eventually formed the New Testament. But how did the ancient Christians know which books are genuine and which are not - for (as already noted) there were a large number of false messages and gospels, of which the heretics claimed that they were supposedly written by the apostles? It was the Apostolic Tradition that helped the Church make a choice. Protestants strongly oppose the Holy Tradition simply because the only form that they encountered is the perverted Tradition characteristic of Roman Catholicism. In contrast to the Roman Catholic point of view on Tradition, which for them is personified by the papacy and admits the introduction of new dogmas previously unknown to the Church (such as the infallibility of the pope - if one takes one of the most odious examples), the Orthodox do not believe that Tradition is growing or even Something changes. Of course, when the Church encounters heresy, it is forced to define more precisely the boundary between truth and error, but the Truth itself does not change. We can say that, in a sense, Tradition is expanding. Since the Church exists in history, it does not forget the experience it has accumulated on the historical path, remembers its saints and preserves the writings of those who were the exact spokesman of its faith; but the very faith was "once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). How can we know that the Apostolic Tradition was intact in the Church? It can be briefly answered that God saved him in the Church, because He promised to do it. Christ said that He will build His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16, 18). The head of the Church is Christ Himself (Eph 4:16), and the Church is His body (Ephesians 1, 22-23), and He promised to be with His Church "even until the end of the age" (Matthew 28, 20). Christ did not promise that His Church will always prosper or that it will be the most numerous; in fact, He promised absolutely the opposite (Matthew 7, 13-14, 10, 22, John 15, 20). Nor did Christ promise that there will be no sinners in the Church (Matthew 13: 24-30) or that she will not have to contend with false shepherds or wolves in sheep's clothing (John 10: 1-13, 7, 15). But He really promised the Church to be unshakable and ultimately triumphant, in which He will invariably be present and will be instructed "to all truth" by the Holy Spirit (John 16, 13). If the Church lost or distorted the Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease to be Truth - for the Church is the pillar and the affirmation of truth (1 Timothy 3, 15).
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 9, 2018 9:49:13 GMT
Then which traditions did Jesus make? In which verses? Because in the original post He was saying He only made commandments and people made traditions out of them and cancelled out His commandments to follow traditions. Like here... Mark 7 6 .....This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” So the commandments of men he calls traditions where they don't do His commandments but instead what they made up which means doing tradition while laying aside the real commandments and not following or pleasing Him -And he answered and said unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone(Bible), but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God- Mt. 4: 4 Protestants say : The Ancient Church was based only on Holy Scripture, while Tradition arose much later.For many Protestants - especially among evangelicals and charismatics - the word "tradition" is a disparaging shade, and to call anything relating to tradition is equivalent to calling it "carnal," "spiritually dead," "destructive" and (or) "legalistic". And when they read the New Testament, it seems obvious to them that the Bible sharply condemns tradition as something contrary to Scripture. Ancient Christians, in their understanding, are very reminiscent of evangelicals or charismatics of the 20th century. The fact that the Christians of the first century on the Nativity of Christ had liturgical worship or adhered to some tradition, it seems inconceivable to them, but it seems that such things entered the Church later, "when it was spoiled." When Protestants begin to seriously study the history of the Ancient Church and the writings of the ancient Christian fathers and see a substantially different picture than that they are accustomed to imagine, for them it is equivalent to a blow (as it was for me in due time). It turns out, for example, that the first Christians did not carry their Bible with them every Sunday to the temple for study; in fact, it was so difficult to get a copy of at least some of the Scriptures (because it took time and certain materials to make it!) that very few people had their own copies. Most often, individual copies of Scripture were kept by specially appointed members of the Church or at the place where the Church gathered for worship. Moreover, most churches did not have the full composition of the books of the Old Testament and even more so - the New Testament (which was not even completed almost until the end of the first century). This does not mean that the ancient Christians did not study the Scriptures. They studied it very seriously, but not individually, but together. And for most of the first century, Christians limited themselves to studying the Old Testament. But how did they recognize the gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, in general, Who is Christ, the order of worship, etc.? They had only oral tradition, which they received from the apostles. Of course, many in the Ancient Church heard these things directly from the apostles themselves, but there were many more who did not hear them, especially near the end of the first century, when all the apostles had already passed away. Later generations had access to the writings of the apostles through the medium of the New Testament, but as for the Christian faith, in this the Ancient Church relied almost entirely on oral tradition. This dependence on the Tradition is also evident in the New Testament writings themselves. For example, St.. The apostle Paul warns the Thessalonians: "Now, brothers, stand and hold the traditions that you have been taught by either a word or a message" (2 Thessalonians 2, 15). Here the word "traditions" is the translation of the Greek word "paradosiV", which, although differently translated in some Protestant versions of the Bible, is the same word used by Orthodox Greeks when they speak of Tradition, and only a few biblical scholars dispute this its meaning. The word literally means "what is transferred." This is the same word used in the negative sense when it comes to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7: 3, 5, 8), and also when it speaks of the authority of the Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 11, 2, 2 Fez. 2, 15). On the other hand, the Apostle Paul, speaking of the Christian Tradition, affirms: "I thank you, brethren, that you all remember me and keep the traditions (paradoseiV) as I gave (paredwka - the verb corresponding to the noun paradosiV) to you" (1 Cor. 11, 23). It is these words that the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the apostolic Tradition: "... for the faith that was once given to the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was handed to Him personally by the apostles through all that He said and did, and if to write about all this in detail, "then the world itself would not contain the books written" (John 21, 25). The apostles gave their knowledge to the whole Church, and the Church, being the guardian of this treasure, thus became "the pillar and the assurance of truth" (1 Tim 3, 15). The evidence of the New Testament leaves no doubt on this score: the ancient Christians had both oral and written traditions that they received from Christ through the apostles. As a written tradition, at first they had only its separate fragments: one local church had some message, the other, perhaps, the Gospel. Gradually, all these scriptures were joined together in one compilation and eventually formed the New Testament. But how did the ancient Christians know which books are genuine and which are not - for (as already noted) there were a large number of false messages and gospels, of which the heretics claimed that they were supposedly written by the apostles? It was the Apostolic Tradition that helped the Church make a choice. Protestants strongly oppose the Holy Tradition simply because the only form that they encountered is the perverted Tradition characteristic of Roman Catholicism. In contrast to the Roman Catholic point of view on Tradition, which for them is personified by the papacy and admits the introduction of new dogmas previously unknown to the Church (such as the infallibility of the pope - if one takes one of the most odious examples), the Orthodox do not believe that Tradition is growing or even Something changes. Of course, when the Church encounters heresy, it is forced to define more precisely the boundary between truth and error, but the Truth itself does not change. We can say that, in a sense, Tradition is expanding. Since the Church exists in history, it does not forget the experience it has accumulated on the historical path, remembers its saints and preserves the writings of those who were the exact spokesman of its faith; but the very faith was "once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). How can we know that the Apostolic Tradition was intact in the Church? It can be briefly answered that God saved him in the Church, because He promised to do it. Christ said that He will build His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16, 18). The head of the Church is Christ Himself (Eph 4:16), and the Church is His body (Ephesians 1, 22-23), and He promised to be with His Church "even until the end of the age" (Matthew 28, 20). Christ did not promise that His Church will always prosper or that it will be the most numerous; in fact, He promised absolutely the opposite (Matthew 7, 13-14, 10, 22, John 15, 20). Nor did Christ promise that there will be no sinners in the Church (Matthew 13: 24-30) or that she will not have to contend with false shepherds or wolves in sheep's clothing (John 10: 1-13, 7, 15). But He really promised the Church to be unshakable and ultimately triumphant, in which He will invariably be present and will be instructed "to all truth" by the Holy Spirit (John 16, 13). If the Church lost or distorted the Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease to be Truth - for the Church is the pillar and the affirmation of truth (1 Timothy 3, 15).Yes, He said you don't live by food only but by following scripture. So throw away stupid man made traditions.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jun 9, 2018 9:57:33 GMT
Elizabeth Please read more carefully .. before responding to serious questions!All respect for womens
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 9, 2018 10:04:16 GMT
Then which traditions did Jesus make? In which verses? Because in the original post He was saying He only made commandments and people made traditions out of them and cancelled out His commandments to follow traditions. Like here... Mark 7 6 .....This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” So the commandments of men he calls traditions where they don't do His commandments but instead what they made up which means doing tradition while laying aside the real commandments and not following or pleasing Him -And he answered and said unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone(Bible), but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God- Mt. 4: 4 Protestants say : The Ancient Church was based only on Holy Scripture, while Tradition arose much later.For many Protestants - especially among evangelicals and charismatics - the word "tradition" is a disparaging shade, and to call anything relating to tradition is equivalent to calling it "carnal," "spiritually dead," "destructive" and (or) "legalistic". And when they read the New Testament, it seems obvious to them that the Bible sharply condemns tradition as something contrary to Scripture. Ancient Christians, in their understanding, are very reminiscent of evangelicals or charismatics of the 20th century. The fact that the Christians of the first century on the Nativity of Christ had liturgical worship or adhered to some tradition, it seems inconceivable to them, but it seems that such things entered the Church later, "when it was spoiled." When Protestants begin to seriously study the history of the Ancient Church and the writings of the ancient Christian fathers and see a substantially different picture than that they are accustomed to imagine, for them it is equivalent to a blow (as it was for me in due time). It turns out, for example, that the first Christians did not carry their Bible with them every Sunday to the temple for study; in fact, it was so difficult to get a copy of at least some of the Scriptures (because it took time and certain materials to make it!) that very few people had their own copies. Most often, individual copies of Scripture were kept by specially appointed members of the Church or at the place where the Church gathered for worship. Moreover, most churches did not have the full composition of the books of the Old Testament and even more so - the New Testament (which was not even completed almost until the end of the first century). This does not mean that the ancient Christians did not study the Scriptures. They studied it very seriously, but not individually, but together. And for most of the first century, Christians limited themselves to studying the Old Testament. But how did they recognize the gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, in general, Who is Christ, the order of worship, etc.? They had only oral tradition, which they received from the apostles. Of course, many in the Ancient Church heard these things directly from the apostles themselves, but there were many more who did not hear them, especially near the end of the first century, when all the apostles had already passed away. Later generations had access to the writings of the apostles through the medium of the New Testament, but as for the Christian faith, in this the Ancient Church relied almost entirely on oral tradition. This dependence on the Tradition is also evident in the New Testament writings themselves. For example, St.. The apostle Paul warns the Thessalonians: "Now, brothers, stand and hold the traditions that you have been taught by either a word or a message" (2 Thessalonians 2, 15). Here the word "traditions" is the translation of the Greek word "paradosiV", which, although differently translated in some Protestant versions of the Bible, is the same word used by Orthodox Greeks when they speak of Tradition, and only a few biblical scholars dispute this its meaning. The word literally means "what is transferred." This is the same word used in the negative sense when it comes to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7: 3, 5, 8), and also when it speaks of the authority of the Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 11, 2, 2 Fez. 2, 15). On the other hand, the Apostle Paul, speaking of the Christian Tradition, affirms: "I thank you, brethren, that you all remember me and keep the traditions (paradoseiV) as I gave (paredwka - the verb corresponding to the noun paradosiV) to you" (1 Cor. 11, 23). It is these words that the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the apostolic Tradition: "... for the faith that was once given to the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was handed to Him personally by the apostles through all that He said and did, and if to write about all this in detail, "then the world itself would not contain the books written" (John 21, 25). The apostles gave their knowledge to the whole Church, and the Church, being the guardian of this treasure, thus became "the pillar and the assurance of truth" (1 Tim 3, 15). The evidence of the New Testament leaves no doubt on this score: the ancient Christians had both oral and written traditions that they received from Christ through the apostles. As a written tradition, at first they had only its separate fragments: one local church had some message, the other, perhaps, the Gospel. Gradually, all these scriptures were joined together in one compilation and eventually formed the New Testament. But how did the ancient Christians know which books are genuine and which are not - for (as already noted) there were a large number of false messages and gospels, of which the heretics claimed that they were supposedly written by the apostles? It was the Apostolic Tradition that helped the Church make a choice. Protestants strongly oppose the Holy Tradition simply because the only form that they encountered is the perverted Tradition characteristic of Roman Catholicism. In contrast to the Roman Catholic point of view on Tradition, which for them is personified by the papacy and admits the introduction of new dogmas previously unknown to the Church (such as the infallibility of the pope - if one takes one of the most odious examples), the Orthodox do not believe that Tradition is growing or even Something changes. Of course, when the Church encounters heresy, it is forced to define more precisely the boundary between truth and error, but the Truth itself does not change. We can say that, in a sense, Tradition is expanding. Since the Church exists in history, it does not forget the experience it has accumulated on the historical path, remembers its saints and preserves the writings of those who were the exact spokesman of its faith; but the very faith was "once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). How can we know that the Apostolic Tradition was intact in the Church? It can be briefly answered that God saved him in the Church, because He promised to do it. Christ said that He will build His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16, 18). The head of the Church is Christ Himself (Eph 4:16), and the Church is His body (Ephesians 1, 22-23), and He promised to be with His Church "even until the end of the age" (Matthew 28, 20). Christ did not promise that His Church will always prosper or that it will be the most numerous; in fact, He promised absolutely the opposite (Matthew 7, 13-14, 10, 22, John 15, 20). Nor did Christ promise that there will be no sinners in the Church (Matthew 13: 24-30) or that she will not have to contend with false shepherds or wolves in sheep's clothing (John 10: 1-13, 7, 15). But He really promised the Church to be unshakable and ultimately triumphant, in which He will invariably be present and will be instructed "to all truth" by the Holy Spirit (John 16, 13). If the Church lost or distorted the Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease to be Truth - for the Church is the pillar and the affirmation of truth (1 Timothy 3, 15). the essay you copy and pasted says the apostles used scripture as their authority facepalm
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jun 9, 2018 10:13:33 GMT
You are an preconceived person, with whom it makes no sense to talk. You just understand that this is beneficial to you ... but not all of the Truth. Verdict you do not believe the Scriptures fully!
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 9, 2018 10:46:10 GMT
Elizabeth Please read more carefully .. before responding to serious questions!All respect for womens I read it. God said that you need food on Earth to live and word of God/scripture. Satan tried to tempt Him to eat since He was hungry and Jesus said He also needs scripture to live too not just food. Shrug
|
|