FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
faith alone and no tradition?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Christianity
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
ibnishaq
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 155


Location: USA
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:38 pm    Post subject: faith alone and no tradition?  Reply with quote

how can one believe in sola scriptura when the bible itself was not canonized until council of niccea? also the first book of the bible to come out was not until 20 years after jesus. before then they relied on tradition (and then synoptic writers wrote down tradition as did john etc)

i took a class on the canon of the NT before i switched my minor. many christian writers denied 2 and 3 john as authoritive and james and hebrews and titus and jude(since jude quotes enoch) and revelation and some on phillipians and 1 and 2 timothy.

10 pauline writings were generally accepted, as were 4 gospels and acts. however pastoral and "catholic writings" were always disputed.

not to mention old testament. catholics that make up 1 billion christians have 7 extra books and orthodox that make up 350 million have 11 extra books then protestants while protestants use jewish canon even though some jews have disputed ecclesesties and song of solomon.

if i am wrong PLEASE correct me i am NOT trying to be dishonest i am stating what i (at least think) i know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oooh, great new editing trick: you can indent a whole paragraph using "list" function (the bullet diagram, just after x2 in the line containing "B" for bold.) I use it, here.

God is not religion. Religion arrogates to itself the interpretation of Holy Writ. Bible was known from the beginning as to what was from God or not, book by book, as each was issued, from Genesis (written 1440BC) onward.

That the Catholic Church arrogates to itself the effrontery to claim what IT says is God's Word, is quite beside the point. Moreover, it proved it can't even read the Bible, viz.,
    1) there aren't three days and nights between Friday and Sunday, so it couldn't read Matt12:40-41;
    2) they didn't have to declare some bleeping council to decide whether Jesus was Divine, would Matthew 4 even be a set of temptations if He were not Divine (Greek "if" there is 1st-class condition, Satan trying to tempt the Humanity to TAP His Deity, else they're not temptations)?
    Then 3) Trinity wouldn't be debated in some Catholic council, nor would Bible, can't they read the refrains "thus says the Lord", "I, the Lord", "Holy Spirit", "My Righteous SlaveSon" (av'di, Hebrew=arabic), and "The Lord said to My Lord, SIT DOWN..."?

So if they can't read, they can't decide what is and isn't Bible. But that doesn't stop them from being dishonest and claiming they are God's Mouth, huh.

Tradition is condemned in the Bible, as a work of man, like religion is. Revelation 17's fake church=religion, temptation by Satan, authored by Satan, since Genesis 3.

Each book of the Bible has to prove itself Divine. Verse by Verse. Ironically, Koran knows this rule, for it 'obeys' the rules true since Genesis for establishing itself as a worthy edition to the collection.

The rules are basically that the new book must allude completely to all prior Divine Writ, kinda like auditing. It must show how its own new text "ties" and "balances" to all prior Divine Writ, and it does this by "incorporation by reference". Then you audit how it ties, and by the deftness and breadth and comprehensive balance of the new book, you can tell if God wrote it, or not.

Bible in Genesis starts a number of key doctrines which thread throughout Bible. Each subsequent Bible book must pick up on and carry forward all those threads, much as a loom does with (say) cotton. To make an entire fabric. That's why Bible is so repetitive: by repeating and bookending it shows where a previous reference is 'carried forward' into the new book.

Book of Hebrews is perhaps the easiest book to read, to see this methodology in practice. The theme of the book is "the new covenant", Greek he kaine diatheke. So it has to JUSTIFY why the covenant changed from the OT. So it walks you through the logic and purpose of the Law, how Christ fulfilled it, what happens next.

Additionally, Book of Hebrews uses allusive words which tie back to all prior Divine Writ, but you can't see this unless you do word searches in the Greek. Keywords like pleroma, plerow, teleiow, are used as the main section markers, since the whole objective was to complete the promise started in the Garden, of a Savior ("bite.. heel" verse).

So do a word search pan Bible on the main nouns and verbs in a later Bible book, and then do the same searching pan Bible. Then you'll see it's deliberate. Best and most deft word search NT books are Ephesians, Book of Hebrews, 1 John. Oh, Revelation is a fabulous book for word search tie-backs to all the rest of Bible.

Once you've done that, you must think like a thesaurus and then search on all the synonyms of those words. Then you realize if God inspired the book, for these guys didn't have computers, but the Word just flat came out of their heads. Produce a piece of writing like it? Not possible.

Of course, the new book must quote the previous Divine writ, directly or indirectly.

So the Koran seeks to follow the above rules. If you examine it you'll see that. Whether the Koran passes the Divinity test, though, I can't yet say. Test did not pass in English, but that's not a valid criterion. Must be tested in the Arabic, and that, I've only just begun. Koran states that it uses those rules, and by coincidence I just discovered that Ahmed Bahgat is composing a listing of them, in http://freefaith.myfreeforum.org/about41.html. Especially, search on "ALR" on that page and read his explanation and pay closest attention to his statement about "no conflict". Then you'll better understand what I'm trying to say in this post.

See, the idea is, the greater the volume of words it must balance to prove true, the more it has to be divine. So to be divine, there must be a complete auditing and every word that's new must balance to every word prior which was already proven Divine. Only God is that smart.


As you can see, God didn't need some religious body deciding for Him what He authored. Razz Cool Laughing Shocked Twisted Evil Very Happy Idea
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
All_Brains
Master Administrator
Master Administrator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 632



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:25 pm    Post subject: Re: faith alone and no tradition? Reply with quote

ibnishaq wrote:
how can one believe in sola scriptura when the bible itself was not canonized until council of niccea? also the first book of the bible to come out was not until 20 years after jesus. before then they relied on tradition (and then synoptic writers wrote down tradition as did john etc)

i took a class on the canon of the NT before i switched my minor. many christian writers denied 2 and 3 john as authoritive and james and hebrews and titus and jude(since jude quotes enoch) and revelation and some on phillipians and 1 and 2 timothy.

10 pauline writings were generally accepted, as were 4 gospels and acts. however pastoral and "catholic writings" were always disputed.

not to mention old testament. catholics that make up 1 billion christians have 7 extra books and orthodox that make up 350 million have 11 extra books then protestants while protestants use jewish canon even though some jews have disputed ecclesesties and song of solomon.

if i am wrong PLEASE correct me i am NOT trying to be dishonest i am stating what i (at least think) i know.


I agree with you Shaq, but the same goes for the Quran too!
_________________
A little boy prayed for a bike. Then he realized God doesn't work that way so he stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.
www.all-brains.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 157



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:05 am    Post subject: Re: faith alone and no tradition? Reply with quote

ibnishaq wrote:
how can one believe in sola scriptura when the bible itself was not canonized until council of niccea? also the first book of the bible to come out was not until 20 years after jesus. before then they relied on tradition (and then synoptic writers wrote down tradition as did john etc)


It doesn't matter when the New Testament was canonized.  It was formally canonized in 397AD.  Notice I said "formally."

In the beginning, the Gospel of Jesus was preached orally.   His Gospel was memorized by His followers, disciples, apostles and eyewitnesses and then written down by the writers of the Gospel.

These authors quote from 31 books of the Old Testament, and widely circulated their material so that by about 150 AD, early Christians were referring to the set of writings as the New Covenant. During the 200s AD, the writings were translated into Latin, Coptic (Egypt) and Syriac (Syria) and widely disseminated. At this time, at least 21 of the writings were considered canonical.

Christians have oral creeds, most of them imbedded in the works of Paul.  These creeds are pre-Pauline.  The earliest one dates from about 2-5 years after Jesus died and notes Jesus' death and resurrection.

ibnishaq wrote:


i took a class on the canon of the NT before i switched my minor. many christian writers denied 2 and 3 john as authoritive and james and hebrews and titus and jude(since jude quotes enoch) and revelation and some on phillipians and 1 and 2 timothy.


True, but the 4 gospels were readily accepted, as were most of Paul's letters.

ibnishaq wrote:


10 pauline writings were generally accepted, as were 4 gospels and acts. however pastoral and "catholic writings" were always disputed.


True, as noted above.  I'm not sure what you mean by "pastoral and "catholic writings."

ibnishaq wrote:


not to mention old testament. catholics that make up 1 billion christians have 7 extra books and orthodox that make up 350 million have 11 extra books then protestants while protestants use jewish canon even though some jews have disputed ecclesesties and song of solomon.


Our Old Testament is the same as the Jews, except the books are arranged slightly different.  The Catholics include some Jewish books which the Jews do not accept as "inspired."  None affect Christian doctrine.  Today you will find them in a lot of Bibles used by Protestants.

ibnishaq wrote:


if i am wrong PLEASE correct me i am NOT trying to be dishonest i am stating what i (at least think) i know.


Let me know if I can provide any additional help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

David, you have to understand the mindset you're dealing with. Since Muhammad made the actual book itself (Quran) the center of everything, and even referred to it many times, then surely Jesus compiled a book too, and that was the center of his mission as well. See, If Muhammad did it, then surely Jesus did too. That's the mindset. So Jesus did not come to die for our sins, he came to impart a book, just like Muhammad. See how it works? It's kind of like if Muhammad can't measure up to Jesus, then we must change Jesus. Or, the old saying, if the mountain will not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad will go to the mountain.

Now, obviously, you and I both realize that the Gospels were merely a recounting of what happened, but Muslims don't, because again, they think the Gospels are supposed to be like the Quran if they are true. So they look at them through the perspective of God directly talking or look at them as this is the way they should be, when obviously, the Gospels are all actually written in narrative format as was all Abrahamic scripture. That's just the way it's always been.

So this is a semi decent explanation as why it's so difficult for them to understand.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:57 pm    Post subject: Re: faith alone and no tradition? Reply with quote

David wrote:
It doesn't matter when the New Testament was canonized.  It was formally canonized in 397AD.  Notice I said "formally."


The New Testament was not canonised at all, David. Perhaps, you meant it was the formal compilation.

David wrote:
Our Old Testament is the same as the Jews, except the books are arranged slightly different.  The Catholics include some Jewish books which the Jews do not accept as "inspired."  None affect Christian doctrine.  Today you will find them in a lot of Bibles used by Protestants.


Your Old Testament may look similar to the Holy Scriptures read by the Jews but in reality, it has been forged, where it was necessary to support Christian doctrines.

I will give you an example
:

Quote:
Psalm 2

11 Serve the LORD with fear
      and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
      and you be destroyed in your way,
      for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
      Blessed are all who take refuge in him.


Please note that you will not find "Kiss the Son" in any of the Jewish Holy Scriptures.

I quote below Psalm 2 from the Judaica Press Complete Tanakh
:

11. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with quaking.
12. Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him.

See the difference? Instead of fearing the Lord, a fear is being instilled for the added "Son".

BMZ

_________________
Ali Sina:"Go to a public place, call friends with video and preferably the media as well. Then in front of everyone, remove your veil and set it on fire. Then announce in loud voice, "I am free" (Edited)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
They call me Tater Salad
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 51



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:19 pm    Post subject: Re: faith alone and no tradition? Reply with quote

BMZ wrote:

Your Old Testament may look similar to the Holy Scriptures read by the Jews but in reality, it has been forged, where it was necessary to support Christian doctrines.

I will give you an example
:

Quote:
Psalm 2

11 Serve the LORD with fear
      and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
      and you be destroyed in your way,
      for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
      Blessed are all who take refuge in him.


Please note that you will not find "Kiss the Son" in any of the Jewish Holy Scriptures.

I quote below Psalm 2 from the Judaica Press Complete Tanakh
:

11. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with quaking.
12. Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him.

See the difference? Instead of fearing the Lord, a fear is being instilled for the added "Son".

BMZ


Not forged, BMZ--that's stretching the definition of the word.  The biggest problem is in the translation, and what happened was that although the Chrisitan interpretation shows that Psalm 2 is speaking about Jesus, they've used the Aramaic word "בר" instead of the Hebrew "בר". The problem in this is that it takes the Aramaic for that word only, when the rest of the writings are in Hebrew.  This is done to reinforce that the verse is in reference to Jesus (which is correct), but it is a dishonest translation.  

There is still no debate that the reference is to Jesus--only that the phrase should be translated in the language used--not to re-translate it to reinforce a dogma.  The NRV, NSRV, and NET translations DO use the proper translation.

Quote:

The translation of בר as “son” in Psalm 2:12 at least has the virtue of being based on the well-attested Aramaic word בר, “son.” Jim’s question, “Why see a stray Aramaicism in an otherwise standard Hebrew psalm?” is certainly quite appropriate. The Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS; the most widely used critical edition of the Tanakh) apparatus does not list any textual variants for Psalm 2:12. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament, abbreviated LXX) comes nowhere near supporting the NIV, etc. in translating נשקו־בר as “kiss the son” (much less “son” with a capital s or any of the NLT-type shenanigans to try to increase the Christian messianic potential of the verse). As Jim noted, the book of Hebrews does give other verses from Psalm 2 Christological interpretations, but I agree with Jim that “that doesn’t give the translators the leeway for linguistic flights of fancy.” Yet this is not quite the whole story. An apparently Hebrew word בר “son” is attested in Proverbs 31:2, where King Lemuel’s mother is quoted as saying, מה ברי ומה בר בטני ומה בר נדרי. Perhaps this use of בר is an Aramaism, explicable by the saying’s apparent non-Israelite provenance, but otherwise seems to be . Perhaps, as the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) lexicon seems to suggest, בר was indeed used for “son” in late biblical Hebrew, and this is our evidence. Or perhaps, as Gary Rendsburg is fond of suggesting, this is Israelian Hebrew rather than late Judean Hebrew (isn’t that one of the drums Rendsburg beats, or am I thinking of someone else?). In any event, there is biblical attestation of a Hebrew בר, even though it is very slim. The NIV, etc. are thus not completely without foundation in reading בר in Psalm 2:12 as “son.” However, I do not think this is the optimal reading, as I will explain below.

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=581

_________________
He who laughs last didn't get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 157



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:
David, you have to understand the mindset you're dealing with. Since Muhammad made the actual book itself (Quran) the center of everything, and even referred to it many times, then surely Jesus compiled a book too, and that was the center of his mission as well. See, If Muhammad did it, then surely Jesus did too. That's the mindset. So Jesus did not come to die for our sins, he came to impart a book, just like Muhammad. See how it works? It's kind of like if Muhammad can't measure up to Jesus, then we must change Jesus. Or, the old saying, if the mountain will not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad will go to the mountain.

Now, obviously, you and I both realize that the Gospels were merely a recounting of what happened, but Muslims don't, because again, they think the Gospels are supposed to be like the Quran if they are true. So they look at them through the perspective of God directly talking or look at them as this is the way they should be, when obviously, the Gospels are all actually written in narrative format as was all Abrahamic scripture. That's just the way it's always been.

So this is a semi decent explanation as why it's so difficult for them to understand.


Yes, I understand.  Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 157



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:05 am    Post subject: Re: faith alone and no tradition? Reply with quote

BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
It doesn't matter when the New Testament was canonized.  It was formally canonized in 397AD.  Notice I said "formally."


The New Testament was not canonised at all, David. Perhaps, you meant it was the formal compilation.  


Christian writers had been using all of the NT as Holy Scripture, equal in authority with the OT, by 200AD.

It was during the 200's AD that these writings were translated into many languages and widely disseminated.  At this time at least 21 of the books were considered canonical.  It was in 397AD that the NT was formally confirmed and canonized.

David wrote:
Our Old Testament is the same as the Jews, except the books are arranged slightly different.  The Catholics include some Jewish books which the Jews do not accept as "inspired."  None affect Christian doctrine.  Today you will find them in a lot of Bibles used by Protestants.


BMZ wrote:


Your Old Testament may look similar to the Holy Scriptures read by the Jews but in reality, it has been forged, where it was necessary to support Christian doctrines.  


Forged?  Hardly.

BMZ wrote:


I will give you an example:

Quote:
Psalm 2

11 Serve the LORD with fear
      and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
      and you be destroyed in your way,
      for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
      Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Please note that you will not find "Kiss the Son" in any of the Jewish Holy Scriptures.  


I quote below Psalm 2 from the Judaica Press Complete Tanakh
:

11. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with quaking.
12. Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him.

See the difference? Instead of fearing the Lord, a fear is being instilled for the added "Son".

BMZ


Even the Jews do not translate certain verses in their Scriptures exactly alike.  Do you accuse them of "forging" them?

The most you might get away with is that the LXX has mistranslated this verse.

You might get something out of the following articles:

http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/psalm2b

http://www.shalom.org.uk/Messiah/SonGod.htm

Notice this:

Some scholars dispute the translation “kiss the Son”. They claim that this in an unwarranted rendering of the Hebrew phrase nashqu bar, translated by Christians in order to apply the passage to Jesus. The Tanakh – The Holy Scriptures: The new JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, translates nashqu bar as “pay homage in good faith” but acknowledges in a footnote that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Why, then is “kiss the Son” (a reference to the “Son of God” mentioned in verse 7) a more preferable reading?

Why didn't you mention this footnote?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Christianity All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page 1 of 1
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum