tomndebb:
Catholics and Orthodox note a different point.
Thus, there could not have been a Christian Scripture for a minimum of twenty years follow the departure of Jesus. Looking at the historical record, it actually seems that the gathering of such writings by Marcion just before 150, (in which he overtly excluded any writing associated with the Jewish people), was the first formal effort to create a canon, so we are really talking about a church that did not have a New Testament for well over 100 years.
During that period, it was the tradition of the teachings that informed Christianity. In fact, the standard by which various works were admitted to the canon was based on their adherence to the understanding of tradition held by the church in that period.
There are any number of objections one might raise concerning the selection, inclusion, and exclusion of various works as declared by the Catholic or Orthodox leaders. It is also possible to make the argument that only those portions of tradition that actually got recorded in what we now call scripture are valid. However, one cannot legitimately claim that the church has always had scripture to preach and explain the words of Jesus. For a significant period of time, the church grew and developed without any such scripture even existing. It is the Catholic and Orthodox position that they are maintaining the tradition that has always been a part of the church. If tradition is contradicted by scripture, it cannot be acceptable, but those wrinkles were ironed out long ago and from the perspective of the Catholics and Orthodox, there are no longer any contradictions. (On some points, obviously, various Protestants and others disagree, but the Catholics and Orthodox would tend to say that the interpretation (of either scripture or tradition) of the objectors is in error.)
As to tradition not being infallible, we could turn that around and note that scripture, arising from fallible tradition, is also fallible. That would hardly be a Catholic or Orthodox position, but it is the natural conclusion of rejecting tradition as fallible.
And both tradition and Scripture are of human origin. It is a matter of belief in the humans that passed on the tradition, and the writings…Correct?
Irrelevant to the discussion. This thread is framed in terms of Christian belief. Those who do not share a belief rooted in the Christian tradition, be they Wicca, Buddhist, atheist, etc., will regard the entire discussion as rooted in human error. Those who do hold beliefs rooted in the Christian tradition will consider some divine authorship to be axiomatic and will see no point in ascribing the totality of the issues to human agency.
If you want to have that discussion, open a new thread.
tomndebb:
Irrelevant to the discussion. This thread is framed in terms of Christian belief. Those who do not share a belief rooted in the Christian tradition, be they Wicca, Buddhist, atheist, etc., will regard the entire discussion as rooted in human error. Those who do hold beliefs rooted in the Christian tradition will consider some divine authorship to be axiomatic and will see no point in ascribing the totality of the issues to human agency.
If you want to have that discussion, open a new thread.
Sorry, I didn’t realize it was a discusion of Human error, just thought it was of human origin!