The Tradition produced the NT? That would make Tradition greater than the Bible. This is the simple idea I have been getting hammered on for suggesting it is your view, and yet I am still getting multiple admissions.
Tradition came before the Bible.
More evidence of your view of the relationship between the two, and which is superior.
You have just defined Protestant Reformation.
It is clear we have radically different ideas of what "plain meaning" means. For example, I look to the text of the words first. I think that puts a lot of distance between our views.
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.
I don't know what you mean by "inspired by". I believe that all of scripture is God-breathed, inerrant, and the true word of God. I think that the Gospels were mainly targeted to different audiences, although still applicable to all. I also think that the personalities of the scribes did come through in the writings.
That said, I firmly believe that the actual words of the scripture are from God. I do not at all believe that each scribe of the Bible simply got a formless "inspiration" and then ran with it. I am definitely in the "every jot and tittle" camp. :) I just don't think God would gamble on something as important as His written word, by letting it be written by fallible men with a light bulb over their heads. However, if the Bible really is as flawed as you seem to portray it, in totality, then it would make sense that regular people wrote it with some of it being true, and some of it not.
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 --
"The only semblance of truth can come from an unbroken Tradition". (Jo Kus, you remember how you were just asking me for examples?) "...the only way it can be maintained is by consensus patrum."
For your side, truth comes from Tradition, and is maintained by agreement in the hierarchy. For my side, truth comes from God, and is maintained by God. Does anyone still want to argue that the Apostolics don't put men above scripture?
And, no I don't believe there was a major earthquake 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.
I genuinely appreciate your honesty here. If you haven't already answered on another post, may I ask on what basis you decide whether a Biblical story is literal? It could be common sense in 2006, or it could be scientific knowledge in 2006, or it could be something else entirely.
Yes.
More evidence of your view of the relationship between the two, and which is superior
No, it's a hstorical fact.
I think that the Gospels were mainly targeted to different audiences, although still applicable to all. I also think that the personalities of the scribes did come through in the writings
I think you think too much. If God "wrote" the Bible, how could their personalities come through unless they added a little of their own "zest" to the text?
That said, I firmly believe that the actual words of the scripture are from God...
And the scribes' personalities somehow "snuck" in?
For your side, truth comes from Tradition, and is maintained by agreement in the hierarchy
No, luckily, the Church had to deal with heretics from the get-go until the present-day and in their wisdom the Apostles and the fathers after them wrote everything the Church did and believed. These writings tell us what the church did and believed from the beginning. Comparing what we know and what we believe today we can see if we have maintained the Holy Tradition handed down by the Apostles in person. If what St. Ignatius, a disciple of Apostle Peter, we are confident that his writings reflect the knowledge of the Church and St. Peter himself, for otherwise I doubt he would have made him a bishop and patriarch of Antioch and his spiritual successor.
For my side, truth comes from God, and is maintained by God
Hey, the Muslims say their Koran comes from God directly, word by word. We are offering the writings of the people who were in the Church when the Church was born, when the Apostles still walked around; and you are telling me that your knowledge comes from how you interpret the word of God. So, you put yourself in the position of being the correct interpreter of the word of God!? And there are 33,000 zillion Protestants out there each claiming the same authoritative "authority." Please be real. You are denying historical facts and placing your own interpretations as coming from God, while diminishing the beliefs of the people who were the disciples of the Apostles that we use as our measuring stick.
may I ask on what basis you decide whether a Biblical story is literal?
Truly, I don't even concern myself with the historicity of scientific accuracy of the Bible. I will bring it up as a means of challenging those who claim that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, but to me biblical veracity is in its message.
I have tried to explain this in the past, but since it is a bit confusing, I will try again.
The word tradition has different meanings. In the earliest Church, "Tradition" referred to Apostolic Teachings, whether orally or presented in form of letter. Tradition = teachings of the Apostles. It was only much later in Christian history where "Tradition" took on a meaning that referred to "oral teachings" of the Apostles that are not in Scriptures explicitly. Thus, today, we have "Apostolic Tradition" refering to oral teachings, and "Scripture" referring to written teachings. And to make matters more confusing, we also have "traditions", which are changeable disciplines, such as whether priests in the Latin rite can marry
Naturally, Apostolic oral and written teachings would share the same "weight", once identified, correct? In either case, once we have God's Word, given orally or written, we give it equal obedience, correct? They have the same source, do they not?
With all of this said, hopefully, you can understand that the Tradition given the Apostles has the same "weight" as the Scripture since God gave them both - first, fully the oral version. But the oral version didn't go away, now, did it? The Bible doesn't say it consumed or abrogated oral traditions. It actually holds that we continue to treat them as God's Word!
In no case, however, do we say that the oral Apostolic Tradition is "above" the Bible. By relating Apostolic Tradition as preceding Scripture does NOT imply that oral teachings are above Scriptures. We are talking apples and oranges. The historical chronology of God's revelation is His choice. If this was a problem that He didn't desire, then He certainly could have done a "Moses" for us, correct?
For example, I look to the text of the words first
LOL!!! Such as "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have eternal life". Or, "Whatever sins you (apostles) forgive are forgiven, and whatever sins you retain are retained". Or, "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"
You look to the words of the text, and if they don't fit your own eigesis, you change the meaning.
I am definitely in the "every jot and tittle" camp. :) I just don't think God would gamble on something as important as His written word, by letting it be written by fallible men with a light bulb over their heads.
That is refering to the Law, not the individual words of the dozens of books in the Bible. As to God gambling, have you forgotten God's foresight??? You don't think that He has control of man's writing without taking the pen out of his hand?
"The only semblance of truth can come from an unbroken Tradition". (Jo Kus, you remember how you were just asking me for examples?) "...the only way it can be maintained is by consensus patrum."
This doesn't say that the Church is superior to Scriptures. The truth of INTERPRETATION is found within the Traditions of the Apostles and the consensus patrum - but the Bible itself is the Word of God, inspired and inerrant. The Spirit works through the consensus patrum to bring out the meaning of these Scriptures for the Church in time. Each age will see a different message in parts of Scripture because God has a different message for different cultures. That is what makes the Bible timeless. Without the Spirit's guidance, the bible is another book, is it not? Consider atheists. They read it - and get nothing from it. Thus, the BOOK does not convert people, it is the Spirit that leads the faithful, the Church, to garner the meaning and proper sense of the Scriptures.
For your side, truth comes from Tradition, and is maintained by agreement in the hierarchy. For my side, truth comes from God, and is maintained by God. Does anyone still want to argue that the Apostolics don't put men above scripture?
You present a false dichotomy with which I disagree with. The main reason why I am Catholic is because I believe that God works THROUGH this Church. You try to separate God from the Church, you try to decapitate the Body. We believe that the Body and the Head are united. Thus, your false dichotomy.
Regards