I find that on this thread. Because so much of Tradition is not technically found in the scriptures, it is independent. On issues such as infant baptism, purgatory, and Mary's perpetual virginity, there really is no supporting scripture. These beliefs stand on their own and are taken as truth.
However, with the Bible, there are many verses in which the plain meaning "apparently" directly contradicts the plain meaning of Tradition. There must be an interpretation. Something has to be nuanced. In every single case, which is it? In every case, it is the meaning of the Bible which is changed to match Tradition. The old, plain meaning is thrown out in favor of a Church approved new meaning in order to match. This is man over God's word. Tradition stands on its own, the Bible does not.
You might say that nothing was ever thrown out, that it has always been this way. If that is true, then Christianity is not a revealed faith EXCEPT THROUGH MEN. You believe that there is absolutely no way in the world anyone could correctly read the Bible without the interpretation of the Church. Again, this puts man over and above God's word.
Kosta, you yourself have said on this thread that you deny the historical accuracy of the Bible. I can't remember reading a verse that acknowledges that the Bible is really to be taken as a collection of morality plays, like the original Star Trek. There are many stories, especially in the OT, which by a plain reading give no indication that they are allegory, and yet you do not believe they actually happened. It takes men to make those decisions, God never said they weren't true. Men put themselves over the word.
We have not seen a plain meaning contradicting the Tradition, not on this thread or anywhere. We have seen the relatively modern tradition, either Protestant in origin or simply modern usage, contradicting the apostolic tradition. For example, the plain meaning of "your brothers are outside" as perceived by the modern usage is biological brothers. But the plain meaning of the same phrase 2,000 years ago was kinsfolk. You pointed out a few like that and you pulled them toward your tradition, and I and others pulled toward the historical reading. But you never pointed out a case where a Church father would say something like "OK, Matthew says they were Jesus's biological brothers, but I declare Matthew wrong and establish the Tradition that they were not". In all cases that Church father simply read the same text you are reading and the meaining was plain to him, because he had the cultural proximity to the evangelist and had the unwritten knowledge.
FK I find that on this thread. Because so much of Tradition is not technically found in the scriptures, it is independent. On issues such as infant baptism, purgatory, and Mary's perpetual virginity, there really is no supporting scripture. These beliefs stand on their own and are taken as truth.
Where exactly have you found on this thread that anyone said that the Church is above the Word of God? Please give me an example, as you are again putting words into people's posts. Tradition is NOT something ove and above the Word of God - it IS PART of the Word of God! You need to get out of the Protestant concept that the Word of God is found only in the Scriptures - which is entirely a man-made concept. The Bible says NOWHERE that it is ALL of the Word of God, nor does it say to ignore any Word of God outside of itself. Making such a claim refutes Sola Scriptura!
These beliefs stand on their own and are taken as truth.
As is the idea that the Bible is the Word of God. Or that the bible is the Word of God alone. Or that all that God wants man to know is found ONLY in the Bible. Whew...It's one thing to make false accusations, but beware - from where we are standing, Protestants fare much worse in "bending" the Word of God found in Scriptures.
However, with the Bible, there are many verses in which the plain meaning "apparently" directly contradicts the plain meaning of Tradition.
Plainly, that is your opinion. Plainly, you yourself hold to the very ideas you accuse us of, for example, "God didn't give man the power to forgive sins", or "God didn't tell us we must REALLY eat His flesh to have eternal life". What holds you back from belief on these points is your own personal concepts of God, not the Scriptures. I would seriously consider this a case of the pot calling the kettle black here...
This is man over God's word. Tradition stands on its own, the Bible does not.
The Bible is subject to interpretation by God's people. We have spent an inordinate time discussing Scripture on free will. And the plain meaning? There isn't one. The same can be said on many issues. WE have different interpretations based on OUR traditions. YOU look at justification through the lense of Luther who said that man is totally corrupt - an innovation of the 1500's. Your interpretations of Scripture are NOT the same as were held 1000 years ago. Who exactly is changing the Bible's meaning to fit their own opinions? If you want to know what the Bible REALLY means, find out what the first Christians thought it meant. Ignore them at your own peril. If anyone is changing the Bible's meaning, it would by yourself, not the catholic/orthodox Church.
You believe that there is absolutely no way in the world anyone could correctly read the Bible without the interpretation of the Church. Again, this puts man over and above God's word.
Here we go again, God speaks through only Protestants...I forgot that Protestants have a pipeline to the mind of God and know exactly how to interpret every Word...
God never said they [OT stories] weren't true. Men put themselves over the word.
Exactly when did God vouch for the truth of every written word to be taken literally as historical or scientific truth? You are confused on what the definition of "inerrant" means. Or do you still think, along with the literal interpretation of the Bible, that the world is flat and sitting on pillars? God speaks through parables, but in the OT, He isn't allowed to? Even people like St. Augustine regarded parts of the Scriptures as allegory - 400 AD! YOU with all of our scientific knowledge at hand can't admit what is as plain as the fact that the earth is round?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but your reply to Kosta was something else...
Regards
I doubt it. You keep confusing Tradition with the tradition of men. Infant baptism is what the Church practiced from the beginning. Mary's perpetual virginity comes from the Scripture which you Protestants reject and which the early Church had all along. Purgatory, likewise, is not something men just invented but found in Tradition that was with the Church since the Pentecost. The Orthodox do not believe in the Purgatory, but our theology is a hairline different and most of it is cultural and linguistic.
However, with the Bible, there are many verses in which the plain meaning "apparently" directly contradicts the plain meaning of Tradition
Really? That is interesting, considering that the Tradition is what produced the New Testament which you believe in and take for truth.
In every case, it is the meaning of the Bible which is changed to match Tradition
Tradition came before the Bible.
The old, plain meaning is thrown out in favor of a Church approved new meaning in order to match
You have just defined Protestant Reformation.
You might say that nothing was ever thrown out, that it has always been this way. If that is true, then Christianity is not a revealed faith EXCEPT THROUGH MEN.
I thought it was men who revealed the word of God through their own revelation (i.e. The Revelation of John). God did not write the Scripture. Inspired by and writing them are two completely different things. Only Muslims and some Protestants believe God "dictated" the Bible to the scribes.
You believe that there is absolutely no way in the world anyone could correctly read the Bible without the interpretation of the Church
I do. No one believes perfectly, and no one understands the Bible perfectly. Other than Job, the Bible does not name any other mortal to be a perfect man. The only semblance of truth can come from an unbroken Tradition started at the Pentecost and the Apostles, and the only way it can be maintained is by consensus patrum -- taking into consideration the vast knowledge that was revealed (through the Tradition and the Bible). No one particular father is perfect or without sin.
Kosta, you yourself have said on this thread that you deny the historical accuracy of the Bible
I am not a spokesman for the Church. My views are "heresy" for all I know. But I do believe the Bible is true and inerrant; just not as a historical and scientific encyclopedia. I believe in the Bile spiritually. And, no I don't believe there was a major earhquake when Jesus died on the Cross. No one recorded it. I find that strange. I don't believe Jonah lived in an oxygen-deprived acid-filled belly of a fish for three days, without suffocating and being dissolved by digestive juices into delicious food for the fish. I don't believe the Flood either. But I do believe that men lived in caves 60,000 years ago. That does not take away from my belief in God or in the Bible.