Discussion:
Apostolic Traditions
(too old to reply)
Cloud Hobbit
2017-09-12 21:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm

Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them. But the results are disappointing. Few genuine traditions can be justified in this way, and worse still, early authorities often confirm many practices that are now regarded as unacceptable. For example, a return to the earliest practices would mean that no religious icons would be allowed, either pictures or statues. The use of incense would be prohibited as pagan. On the other hand, Christians would hold love feasts, and celebrate the Sabbath on Saturdays. Easter would be celebrated on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. Infants would not be baptised, and adults would not be baptised except between Easter and Pentecost. Baptisms would then involve the triple immersion of the naked baptismal candidate. There would be no sacrament of confession or penance, or if we accept the earliest (third century) practices there would be only public penance (exomologesis), permitted once after baptism1. There would be no priests or bishops, only elders and supervisors, freely elected by the community.

The whole area of "tradition" is riddled with difficulties. The early Church leader and writer Tertullian, who invented the idea of appealing to tradition, used it to justify the practice of triple immersion at baptism, the requirement that the Eucharist should be taken in the early morning, and the prohibition of kneeling at Easter or on Sundays. There is no doubt about the position of the early Church on these matters and it is for this reason that various reformed Churches have returned to at least some of these ancient practices.

The Roman Church is in a less comfortable position. It purports to give great weight to tradition — the importance of traditions dating back to the apostles was emphasised by the Council of Trent (Session 4). Yet it has persecuted and killed people for the heresies of adhering to apostolic practices — rejecting infant baptism, keeping the Sabbath on Saturday, celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan, and so on. Protestant Churches have also persecuted and killed other Christians (e.g. Anabaptists) for such "heresies". It is strange enough that apostolic practices are sometimes at variance with mainstream Christian views. Worse is the fact that not a single Church doctrine can be justified by appeal to a reliable apostolic tradition.

The Roman Church's commitment to tradition is widely regarded as questionable. The Church has never attempted to collect together a comprehensive body of tradition, and it is not unknown for Roman Catholic writers to be charged by other Christians with being evasive, and even "fugitive", on the subject3. This is not altogether surprising since numerous Roman doctrines are not evidenced by the Church Fathers, and are universally acknowledged to date from later times (papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and Mary's Assumption, to name but three ).

It is difficult to find any Church Fathers who were consistently orthodox by modern standards. Indeed the problem of deciding who counted as a Church Father was much like deciding which books were canonical. People tended to include anyone who agreed with them and to reject anyone who did not. Since there were so few accepted Fathers, broad agreement was eventually reached, though once again there is no definitive list, and Eastern and Western Churches still accord vastly different weights to different Fathers4. Since it was difficult, often impossible, to find orthodox writers who confirmed certain doctrines or practices, Churches were driven to accept as authoritative men who had been condemned as heretics. Some of them had been considered heretical even in their own day. Their original writings were conveniently "lost" or tampered with. Many of these early Christians had extremely unfortunate views on sex and punishment, shared extreme anti-Semitic views, and firmly believed a range of absurdities. The most influential were:



St Ignatius of Antioch (AD c.35-c.107). Ignatius was an unusually credulous man, given to embellishing stories, and with an unusual personality (he prayed for his own death, preferably by horrific means). He held that only bishops could conduct baptisms and love feasts5 - he is the first writer to hint that "bishops" might be different from "presbyters", and that Christ might be something more than human. He left little else of doctrinal value, and what little he did leave is universally acknowledged to have been radically tampered with by later Christians. By the 5th century, his letters had been enlarged by spurious writings, and the original letters had been supplemented with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as a witness in contemporary theological disputes. The purported eyewitness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.



St Clement of Rome (fl. AD c.96). Clement wrote letters that were initially accepted into but later rejected from the canon of Christian scripture. They deal largely with the great dissent then current within the Church, and suggest that there was no established bishopric at Rome during his lifetime6. (Ironically his name was later included in lists of early popes, though different lists have him as first, second, third or fourth in line from Peter). According to acta dating from the 4th century, Clement was banished from Rome to the Chersonesus during the reign of Emperor Trajan, and set to work in a stone quarry. He was allegedly killed by being tied to an anchor and thrown from a boat into the Black Sea.

Clement used the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably - a reminder that bishops had not separated off as a higher office at this time. Clement seems to have been as credulous as others of his age (he was convinced in the reality of the phoenix). The stained glass window on the right shows him along with his fabulous phoenix. Much of his surviving work is now known to be forged, and little is known of his life or beliefs.

Much more at http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Your Founding Fathers Erred
2017-09-13 19:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
The books of the New Testament in the Bible were canonized as supplemental to the CHURCH and were never meant to mention everything. If you believe otherwise you have some reading comprehension problems.
Jonh in one of his letters tells his flock that he will instructed them verbally when he comes to them, meantime they must live not according to the flesh.
Paul reminds his congregation in Galatia the Gospel he preached them.... Of course the Gospel he preached them orally.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a fraud.
The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
2017-09-13 21:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
The books of the New Testament in the Bible were canonized as supplemental to the CHURCH and were never meant to mention everything. If you believe otherwise you have some reading comprehension problems.
Jonh in one of his letters tells his flock that he will instructed them verbally when he comes to them, meantime they must live not according to the flesh.
Paul reminds his congregation in Galatia the Gospel he preached them.... Of course the Gospel he preached them orally.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a fraud.
Ooops typo: Will instruct instead of will instructed.... Sorry about that guys!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-09-13 23:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
The books of the New Testament in the Bible were canonized as supplemental to the CHURCH and were never meant to mention everything. If you believe otherwise you have some reading comprehension problems.
Jonh in one of his letters tells his flock that he will instructed them verbally when he comes to them, meantime they must live not according to the flesh.
Paul reminds his congregation in Galatia the Gospel he preached them.... Of course the Gospel he preached them orally.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a fraud.
Shouldn't the bible, supposedly the word of god at least be free of falsehoods?
How do stories about imaginary people and imaginary events give one confidence that any of it is true.
The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
2017-09-14 15:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
The books of the New Testament in the Bible were canonized as supplemental to the CHURCH and were never meant to mention everything. If you believe otherwise you have some reading comprehension problems.
Jonh in one of his letters tells his flock that he will instructed them verbally when he comes to them, meantime they must live not according to the flesh.
Paul reminds his congregation in Galatia the Gospel he preached them.... Of course the Gospel he preached them orally.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a fraud.
Shouldn't the bible, supposedly the word of god at least be free of falsehoods?
How do stories about imaginary people and imaginary events give one confidence that any of it is true.
What do you think I said above? The New Testament supplements the Church. In other words the Church came first and the New Testament second as supplemental. Jesus didn't found the Bible, He founded the Church.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-15 21:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
The books of the New Testament in the Bible were canonized as supplemental to the CHURCH and were never meant to mention everything. If you believe otherwise you have some reading comprehension problems.
Jonh in one of his letters tells his flock that he will instructed them verbally when he comes to them, meantime they must live not according to the flesh.
Paul reminds his congregation in Galatia the Gospel he preached them.... Of course the Gospel he preached them orally.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a fraud.
Shouldn't the bible, supposedly the word of god at least be free of falsehoods?
How do stories about imaginary people and imaginary events give one confidence that any of it is true.
What do you think I said above? The New Testament supplements the Church. In other words the Church came first and the New Testament second as supplemental. Jesus didn't found the Bible, He founded the Church.
And yet you can provide no evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
2017-09-16 19:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
The books of the New Testament in the Bible were canonized as supplemental to the CHURCH and were never meant to mention everything. If you believe otherwise you have some reading comprehension problems.
Jonh in one of his letters tells his flock that he will instructed them verbally when he comes to them, meantime they must live not according to the flesh.
Paul reminds his congregation in Galatia the Gospel he preached them.... Of course the Gospel he preached them orally.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a fraud.
Shouldn't the bible, supposedly the word of god at least be free of falsehoods?
How do stories about imaginary people and imaginary events give one confidence that any of it is true.
What do you think I said above? The New Testament supplements the Church. In other words the Church came first and the New Testament second as supplemental. Jesus didn't found the Bible, He founded the Church.
And yet you can provide no evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
Your intellectual depth is so impressive.... I am really impressed.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-17 15:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
The books of the New Testament in the Bible were canonized as supplemental to the CHURCH and were never meant to mention everything. If you believe otherwise you have some reading comprehension problems.
Jonh in one of his letters tells his flock that he will instructed them verbally when he comes to them, meantime they must live not according to the flesh.
Paul reminds his congregation in Galatia the Gospel he preached them.... Of course the Gospel he preached them orally.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a fraud.
Shouldn't the bible, supposedly the word of god at least be free of falsehoods?
How do stories about imaginary people and imaginary events give one confidence that any of it is true.
What do you think I said above? The New Testament supplements the Church. In other words the Church came first and the New Testament second as supplemental. Jesus didn't found the Bible, He founded the Church.
And yet you can provide no evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
Your intellectual depth is so impressive.... I am really impressed.
Thanks for confessing that you have no evidence.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Cloud Hobbit
2017-09-21 01:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
The books of the New Testament in the Bible were canonized as supplemental to the CHURCH and were never meant to mention everything. If you believe otherwise you have some reading comprehension problems.
Jonh in one of his letters tells his flock that he will instructed them verbally when he comes to them, meantime they must live not according to the flesh.
Paul reminds his congregation in Galatia the Gospel he preached them.... Of course the Gospel he preached them orally.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a fraud.
Shouldn't the bible, supposedly the word of god at least be free of falsehoods?
How do stories about imaginary people and imaginary events give one confidence that any of it is true.
What do you think I said above?
Just more of your typical crap.

The New Testament supplements the Church. In other words, the Church came first and the New Testament second as supplemental. Jesus didn't found the Bible, He founded the Church.

Only if he really existed which is in doubt.

duke
2017-09-14 17:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
Since the Bible fails to mention certain doctrines and practices that are now considered characteristically Christian, some branches of Christianity have looked to early traditions to justify them.
But not man's traditions.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
But the results are disappointing. Few genuine traditions can be justified in this way, and worse still, early authorities often confirm many practices that are now regarded as unacceptable. For example,
a return to the earliest practices would mean that no religious icons would be allowed, either pictures or statues. The use of incense would be prohibited as pagan.
Still aren't. The egyptians thought statues were god. Never in the RCC.
No points.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On the other hand, Christians
would hold love feasts, and celebrate the Sabbath on Saturdays. Easter would be celebrated on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan. Infants would not be baptised, and adults would not be baptised
except between Easter and Pentecost. Baptisms would then involve the triple immersion of the naked baptismal candidate. There would be no sacrament of confession or penance, or if we accept the
earliest (third century) practices there would be only public penance (exomologesis), permitted once after baptism1. There would be no priests or bishops, only elders and supervisors, freely elected by the community.
Why yes. Jesus left no instructions here. It was the Church that derived the
positions, No points.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The whole area of "tradition" is riddled with difficulties. The early Church leader and writer Tertullian, who invented the idea of appealing to tradition, used it to justify the practice
of triple immersion at baptism, the requirement that the Eucharist should be taken in the early morning, and the prohibition of kneeling at Easter or on Sundays. There is no doubt
about the position of the early Church on these matters and it is for this reason that various reformed Churches have returned to at least some of these ancient practices.
Why yes. Jesus left no instructions here. No points.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The Roman Church is in a less comfortable position. It purports to give great weight to tradition — the importance of traditions dating back to the apostles was emphasised
by the Council of Trent (Session 4). Yet it has persecuted and killed people for the heresies of adhering to apostolic practices — rejecting infant baptism, keeping the Sabbath
on Saturday, celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan, and so on. Protestant Churches have also persecuted and killed other Christians (e.g. Anabaptists) for such "heresies".
It is strange enough that apostolic practices are sometimes at variance with mainstream Christian views. Worse is the fact that not a single Church doctrine can be justified by appeal to a reliable apostolic tradition.
Why yes. Jesus left no instructions here. No points. Oh, and btw, it's not
the "Roman Church. It was a) the Church of the Way, then the Catholic Church
then the Western church as opposed to the EOC, and then the Roman Catholic
Church. Roman Church is a total misnomer.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The Roman Church's commitment to tradition is widely regarded as questionable. The Church has never attempted to collect together a comprehensive body of tradition,
and it is not unknown for Roman Catholic writers to be charged by other Christians with being evasive, and even "fugitive", on the subject3. This is not altogether surprising
since numerous Roman doctrines are not evidenced by the Church Fathers, and are universally acknowledged to date from later times (papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and Mary's Assumption, to name but three ).
The RCC evolves in traditions. With the exception of a few items, the EOC and
the RCC are brother Catholics. Still no points.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
It is difficult to find any Church Fathers who were consistently orthodox by modern standards. Indeed the problem of deciding who counted as a Church Father was much like deciding
which books were canonical.
The canonical books were selected by the Church leaders who knew exactly what
Jesus said and did and the canon agreed exactly.

No points.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
People tended to include anyone who agreed with them and to reject anyone who did not. Since there were so few accepted Fathers, broad agreement was
eventually reached, though once again there is no definitive list, and Eastern and Western Churches still accord vastly different weights to different Fathers4. Since it was difficult,
Clement used the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably - a reminder that bishops had not separated off as a higher office at this time. Clement seems to have been as credulous
as others of his age (he was convinced in the reality of the phoenix). The stained glass window on the right shows him along with his fabulous phoenix. Much of his surviving work is
now known to be forged, and little is known of his life or beliefs.
Wasted comment.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Much more at http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm
You're right. It's totally bad news driving your mistakes..

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Loading...