Replies

While it is much more that this, Holy Tradition at the very least is the context in which the Scriptures were and are interpreted and understood.

Which, incidentally, is the key to your circuitous dispute with Kosta about inerrancy of the scripture. The scripture uses verbal images to convey elements of the Holy Tradition. It is in the nature of verbal communication that idiomatics get in the way, and imperfection of human memory gets in the way. When Christ speaks of mustard seed and mustard tree, the Tradition is very clear: it is an idiomatic expression of the essence of faith, and not a botany lesson. Likewise, when the family composition of a biblical patriarch is mentioned, the Tradition does not stumble over what most likely is a human error of recollection. But when you divorce the Scripture from Tradition, the imperfections of the verbal form of expression become noticeable. It is not unlike the Russian peasants replacing priceless ancient icons in their possession with modern kitsch because the old ones were pockmarked and the paint peeled off here and there. If he valued the icon because it is from Granddad, he would love it for the pockmarks all the more. When the Granddad is forgotten, the icon is viewed as painting and personal preference for brighter colors and realistic shading takes over.

Modernity: Gallileo, medical science, zoological taxonomies, the sola scriptura superstition, are all the wrong light in which the scripture should not be viewed. "Mustard is the tallest tree" is an inerrant statement in its context and in the light of the Tradition. Pasted into a botany book is it erroneous. So? You cannot study anatomy from iconographers either.

The scripture uses verbal images to convey elements of the Holy Tradition. It is in the nature of verbal communication that idiomatics get in the way, and imperfection of human memory gets in the way... When the Granddad is forgotten, the icon is viewed as painting and personal preference for brighter colors and realistic shading takes over.

Exactly. Biblical truth is in its spiritual message, not in the hard-facts. Thus, if we assume that everything is exactly the way the Scripture says, then we must assume that either (a) God did not say mustard seed is the smallest seed and mustard tree is the tallest tree (because it is neither), or that (b) God didn't tell the truth. Yet, when taken in its proper spiritual context of the message being conveyed it really doesn't matter if botanically the statement "fits."

Let me just say this: faith is not only an encounter with God, but our relationship to God, our interaction with God on His terms. It is not a history lesson. What matters is how Christ-(un)like we are no matter how much we quote the Scripture.

Love is not something we can see, yet we know it exists; it is real. How doe we know it's real? Trough its manifestations. Love manifests itself in acts of mercy, gifts, sacrifice, etc. It is always indirect, it is always an expression of an invisible but very present and real, true and unchaining entity we know as love. It had nothing whatsoever to do with science, history or genetics.

We know God as real presence in our lives through His blessings, and through the message, the "essence" of Scripture. We must never use Scirpture to explain the world, or to deny it.