Um… This command is in regard to one vision only. It doesn’t relate at all to the other writings that became the New Testament. You mentioned Rev 22: 18, 19 where there is a warning not to add to or take away from the book. This too is about Revalations rather than the Bible. A similar warning is in Duet. and we got plenty of scripture after that. I also have to wonder why God would issue such a warning if it was his plan to not allow either to happen. If it’s God’s will that scripture remain inerrant, and in it’s original inspired form, why bother with such a warning?
Theories, yes, which means they may or may not be accurate. Theories based on honest scholastic study have at least as much weight as years of Christian tradition that is not fact based.
You seem to be defending Christian tradition based solely on the fact that many Christians have believed these things for many years so they must be true. That’s your choice. A commitment to the teachings of Christ means a commitment to the truth no matter where that takes you. If Christian tradition doesn’t stand up any kind of honest realsitic examination then it’s time to leave it behind in favor of the honest truth.
First, cosmosdan, let me commend you for your long post of 9/11 in which you saliently answer a variety of issues raised by Bible Man. I found it singularly well done.
However, I would like to draw to your attention the question of tradition. Obviously, in dealing with issues transcending the contemporary, some attention to tradition needs to be paid. But not undue reverence.
Along with Orthodoxy, Anglicanism draws the distinction between Tradition and tradition – the first, the understanding and the custom of Christendom in (nearly) all times and places, vs. the convenient that has over time become “the way we do things.” Taking Catholicism as our example, a very clear delineation can be drawn between the celebration of the Eucharist (Mass, Divine Liturgy, Holy Communion, Lord’s Supper, etc.) in the manner we know to have been in place since at least 110 A.D., an example of Tradition, and the celibacy of the priesthood, a law of the (Roman Rite of the Catholic) church which can be changed at any time, if in the good judgment of the Pope and his advisors it becomes wise.
And Anglicanism founds its teachings on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason – the proverbial three-legged stool, without each element of which the entire edifice collapses.
The Tradition of the Church is that which can be proven, not by implication but by good evidence, to have been carried on everywhere and since earliest days. But even that does not make it sacrosanct. When the Anglican Church was confronted with the question of women’s ordination, there was little doubt that both Scripture and Tradition called for exclusively male clerical orders, the possibility of deaconesses to one side. Paul forbade women to teach, and the time-honored church practice was to ordain only males. However, when Reason was applied, we found that Paul’s strictures were given to a Greek church where women were traditionally taught only the domestic and commercial arts, and would thus not have the foundation on which to build the theological, exegetical, and homiletic abilities called for among the clergy. This was clearly no longer the case. And while Jesus called the Twelve, all male, he honored and taught the women who followed Him. Ergo, the application of Reason to Scripture and Tradition authorized the change, and we now have Spirit-filled, scholarly, inspiring women deacons, priests, and bishops.
The traditions to which Bible Man appeals are issues scarcely 200 years old, before which the idea that parts of Scripture were to be interpreted symbolically, typologically, and in other non-literal ways was a commonplace held by anyone sufficiently interested to raise the questions.
And, of course, the first chapter of the Gospel According to John equates God’s Word first and foremost to Jesus Christ, not to the Law and the Prophets, and certainly not to the New Testament books which had yet to be written when He carried out His ministry and Atonement.
When not used in reference to the Incarnate Son of God, “God’s Word” is used in Scripture to mean “God’s message to humanity” as is evident from the quotes already cited in this thread. It is a bit of special pleading to say, as Bible Man implies, “I use ‘God’s Word’ to mean the whole of Scripture, so therefore, when the writers use the term, they must be meaning the Bible, and the Bible as I understand it, not the books held as Scripture in East and West between 400 and 1600 A.D. which my ancestors decided to drop from the Bible.” (I never did get a straight answer about my quote from Wisdom – which, by the way, happens to have a passage [19:18-19] that might be read as supporting evolution.)
Nor is the portrait of God as prepared to condemn all those who do not repent and accept Jesus in a classic conversion experience the one which Jesus Himself paints of Him. This God-as-Cosmic-Bogeyman is perhaps the greatest perversion of the faith which the evangelicals have perpetrated. A God of unconditional love is far from their conceptions – but not, thank God, from His.
Thanks for the kind words. One of the things I appreciate about the SDMB is how the other posters challenge and stimulate my thinking. Also just the pure educational value ranging form interesting links to my own research when I look things up.
I have often appreciated the information offered in your posts as well as the manner of their presentation. This one is no exception. I was unaware of some of the history of certain traditioanl beliefs and when they became accepted.
I have always been a fairly non traditional kind of guy. Years ago when serving in the priesthood I would often change the way services were done to try and get people to actually think about what they were doing and why. I can appreciate the value of tradition as long as we see it for what it is and what it isn’t. I think your term “undo reverance” has a lot to do with how I view many Christian traditions. There is a big difference between “we choose to do it this way and we find it meaningful” and “we know this is how God wants it done and any other way is just wrong”
Other traditions I find simply steer people in the wrong direction and don’t help us draw closer to God and each other. In all fairness, those traditons are no worse than anything that hinders our growth and each individual must choose when to surrender. Ultimately people must not forget the purpose that any Christian tradition should serve. To help in our own transformation. If our beliefs don’t change us into kinder, more loving, more compassionate people in thought and deed, then it is fruitless.
I have not read the entire thread, but have you discussed the fact that the original copiers of scripture were not scribes, but semi-literate copyist who often simply drew the letters they saw without comprehending them?
It is suspected many errors come from this situation.
In the interest of not dragging up any disputes among posters no longer among us, I am closing this thread. The topic is fine and any new thread with links to this thread is welcome.
[ /Moderating ]
