Posted on 07/28/2008 4:07:43 AM PDT by Gamecock
The tendency to venerate tradition is very strong in religion. The world is filled with religions that have been following set traditions for hundreds—even thousands—of years. Cultures come and go, but religious tradition shows an amazing continuity.
In fact, many ancient religions—including Druidism, Native American religions, and several of the oriental cults—eschewed written records of their faith, preferring to pass down their legends and rituals and dogmas via word-of-mouth. Such religions usually treat their body of traditions as a de facto authority equal to other religions’ sacred writings.
Teaching as Doctrines the Precepts of Men
Even among the world’s religions that revere sacred writings, however, tradition and scripture are often blended. This is true in Hinduism, for example, where the ancient Vedas are the Scriptures, and traditions handed down by gurus round out the faith of most followers. Tradition in effect becomes a lens through which the written word is interpreted. Tradition therefore stands as the highest of all authorities, because it renders the only authoritative interpretation of the sacred writings.
This tendency to view tradition as supreme authority is not unique to pagan religions. Traditional Judaism, for example, follows the Scripture-plus-tradition paradigm. The familiar books of the Old Testament alone are viewed as Scripture, but true orthodoxy is actually defined by a collection of ancient rabbinical traditions known as the Talmud. In effect, the traditions of the Talmud carry an authority equal to or greater than that of the inspired Scriptures.
This is no recent development within Judaism. The Jews of Jesus’ day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it.
Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms:
“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that” (Mk. 7:6-13).
It was inexcusable that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism, because when God gave the law to Moses, it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. The Lord made very plain that the truth He was revealing was not to be tampered with, augmented, or diminished in any way. His Word was the final authority in all matters: ”You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).
They were to observe His commandments assiduously, and neither supplement nor abrogate them by any other kind of “authority”: “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32).
So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exod. 34:27), and that written record of God’s Word became the basis for God’s covenant with the nation (Exod. 24:4,7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses’ successor, Joshua:
Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it (Josh. 1:7-8).
Of course, other books of inspired Scripture beside those written by Moses were later added to the Jewish canon—but this was a prerogative reserved by God alone. Sola Scriptura was therefore established in principle with the giving of the law. No tradition passed down by word of mouth, no rabbinical opinion, and no priestly innovation was to be accorded authority equal to the revealed Word of God as recorded in Scripture.
Solomon understood this principle: “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6).
The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20, KJV).
In short, tradition had no legitimate place of authority in the worship of Jehovah.
Everything was to be tested by the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures. That’s why Jesus’ rebuke to the scribes and Pharisees was so harsh. Their very faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a serious transgression of the covenant and commandments of God (cf. Matt. 15:3).
The Rise and Ruin of Catholic Tradition
Unfortunately, Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself.
How did this happen? The earliest Church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition. Fierce debates raged in the early church over such crucial matters as the deity of Christ, His two natures, the Trinity, and the doctrine of original sin. Early church councils settled those questions by appealing to Scripture as the highest of all authorities. The councils themselves did not merely issue ex cathedra decrees, but they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly. The authority was in the appeal to Scripture, not in the councils per se.
Unfortunately, the question of Scriptural authority itself was not always clearly delineated in the early church, and as the church grew in power and influence, church leaders began to assert an authority that had no basis in Scripture. The church as an institution became in many people’s eyes the fountain of authority and the arbiter on all matters of truth. Appeals began to be made more often to tradition than to Scripture. As a result, extrabiblical doctrines were canonized and a body of truth that found no support in Scripture began to be asserted as infallibly true.
Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition.
Officially, the Catholic Church is very straightforward about her blending of Scripture and tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (CCC 82, emphasis added).
Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much “the Word of God” as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture “are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal” (CCC 80). The “sacred deposit of faith”—this admixture of Scripture and tradition—was supposedly entrusted by the apostles to their successors (CCC 84), and “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. . . . This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (CCC 85).
The Catechism is quick to deny that this makes the Church’s teaching authority (called the magisterium) in any way superior to the Word of God itself (CCC 86). But it then goes on to warn the faithful that they must “read the Scripture within ‘the living tradition of the whole Church’” (CCC 113). The Catechism at this point quotes “a saying of the Fathers[:] Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word” (CCC 113).
So in effect, tradition is not only made equal to Scripture; but it becomes the true Scripture, written not in documents, but mystically within the Church herself. And when the Church speaks, Her voice is heard as if it were the voice of God, giving the only true meaning to the words of the “documents and records.” Thus tradition utterly supplants and supersedes Scripture.
Who is splitting hairs?
[Galatians 2:9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Peter had no more authority than any of the other Apostles. Paul.....here, makes that very clear.
Paul.....here, absolutely confirms it: [Galatians 2:11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. The chief of the Apostles would not have accepted a public criticism such as this: [verse 14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Peter was not a chief Apostle....the keys were given to them all [Matthew 18:18].. The only special thing Peter ever did (by himself) was receive a command from the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:19] to visit Cornelius....and that was because Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, was still in Arabia [Galatians 1:17] sorting things out. In fact, Peter has never been pinpointed in Rome. He was told by Our Saviour [Matthew 10:5-6] not to go there. That's why you only find him in Asia....in Babylon [ Peter 5:13] and in the vicinity of Judea and Syria [Galatians 2:11]. Tradition does say he was in Rome and since tradition here.....goes against Holy scripture, we know it to be in error.
People in positions of authority make mistakes (Abraham, Moses, Saul, David, Solomon, etc.) but their human failings do not erase their authority.
Peter was not a chief Apostle
Of course he was.
He is mentioned first in every Apostolic list, Scripture literally telling us that he was first among them. He speaks on behalf of the Apostles. Christ gave him alone the commission to feed the flock. Christ named him alone the rock on which He built His church. The Father revealed first and only to him the truth of who Jesus was. He was the Apostle that Christ first revealed Himself to in His glory. He led the Apostles in their public witness.
No serious student of the Scriptures can deny that Peter was the leader of the college.
The reader is free to interpret 1 Peter 5:13 as Peter writing of the Church in the abandoned and desolate ruins of the literal Babylon OR as Peter's commentary on the state of human affairs in Rome, from which he wrote.
That instruction was given to the Apostles for their first mission, before Christ's death and Resurrection.
Later the Risen Christ instructs them to go and teach all nations. Matthew 28:19-20
No....it is you that are confused. Peter did not possess any more authority than the rest. Those who say he did, must...... because of traditional, religious requirements. Scripture does nothing to give Peter any special authority and I understand your dilemma.
If any Apostle were to be considered more influential with the early church.....a name other than Paul would be questionable. He was given authority to evangelize [Acts 9:15] any....and everyone. Peter was only given the responsibility to the House of Israel [Matthew 10:5-6]. This is why you never see Peter evangelizing the Gentiles. He did not evangelize Cornelius as he (Cornelius) was already a God fearing man [Acts 10:2]. This is also why Peter never goes to Rome.
That's not what Jesus said.
If any Apostle were to be considered more influential with the early church.....a name other than Paul would be questionable
Paul himself publicly acknowledged the subordination of his authority to Peter and James.
Influence and authority are two different things - that's why two different words are used to describe them.
Peter was only given the responsibility to the House of Israel
False, as Cornelius shows.
He did not evangelize Cornelius as he (Cornelius) was already a God fearing man
Plenty of people in the Gentile world of the Mediterranean were God-fearers - i.e. they acknowledged the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the one true God.
But they did not know about His Son, and therefore they needed to be evangelized. Cornelius was just such a man.
This is also why Peter never goes to Rome.
Peter, of course, died in Rome after ministering there. His presence in Rome is attested by his own words.
That was during Christ's life. The Risen Christ instructed them--all of them--differently at the end of †Matthew's Gospel.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
D1618>...in Babylon [ Peter 5:13]...
The reader is free to interpret 1 Peter 5:13 as Peter writing of the Church in the abandoned and desolate ruins of the literal Babylon OR as Peter's commentary on the state of human affairs in Rome, from which he wrote.
24 posted on July 29, 2008 7:02:48 AM MDT by Petronski
There are records of Jewish fundraising in Babylon for the tribes in JudeaAnyone who is a student of history unless they are invincibly ignorant, know that until
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Saddam Hussein there has been a large and thriving Jewish community in Babylon.
during the revolts from 100BCE - 100 CE
Babylon was an abandoned heap as early as 100 BC.
Peter was in Rome.
Peter was in Rome.
Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) The Talmud Bavli was transmitted orally for centuries Since the Exile to Babylonia in 586 BCE, there had been Jewish communities living in Babylonia as well as in Judea, There are some who wish to be invincibly ignorant. Funny History tells us otherwise.Talmud
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
prior to its compilation by Jewish scholars in Babylon about the 5th century AD.
as many of the captives never returned home. From then till the Talmudic period the Babylonian Jewish population
increased through natural growth as well as migration. The most important of the Jewish centres were
Nehardea, Nisibis, Mahoza, Pumbeditha and Sura.
It was no longer necessary for scholars to travel regularly to Israel to gather authentic traditions.
Well....it may have been....but by the first century there were millions of Israelites living in and about the area: Josephus/Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 58, Paragraph 2 [And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.]
The other two tribes still under Rome's influence, of course would be Judah and Benjamin (Judea) and most of the priestly tribe of Levi who were not counted separately.....but as part of other tribes. The rest of the Israelites of the dispersion [II Kings 17:6] have never been shown in scripture to have returned from their exile. Josephus tells us where many of them still were during the first century and many were still in Babylon.....abandoned heap....or not!
Coincidently.....scripture tells us that the Apostle Peter was here [1 Peter 5:13].....evangelizing these folks just as The Lord [Matthew 10:5-6] had told him to do. Scripture never finds Peter in Rome as tradition tells us. He was told not to go there!
If that's the case.....why then do we see all this surprise and indignation when Peter visits Cornelius? [Acts 10:45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And......[Acts 11:1-3] And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
This is at least 6 or 7 years after the resurrection. Why are these folks so surprised....Apostles among them? Are you certain that your understanding of [Matthew 28:19-20] is correct?
Chapter & Verse?
Paul himself publicly acknowledged the subordination of his authority to Peter and James.
Chapter & Verse?
False, as Cornelius shows.
Peter was not sent to evangelize Cornelius. Cornelius was already a god fearing man. He was directed to evangelize the House of Israel.
Plenty of people in the Gentile world of the Mediterranean were God-fearers - i.e. they acknowledged the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the one true God.
Correct....and this was Paul's task....to bring the "Good News" to these folks. Peter was instructed to go to the Israelites and "Not to go to the Gentiles" [Matthew 10:5-6].
Peter, of course, died in Rome after ministering there. His presence in Rome is attested by his own words.
Peter never set foot in Rome. There was a "Simon" in Rome about that time....but it was not Simon Peter. Justin Martyr was the first "Church Father" to catalog the early events of Rome and he frequently mentions Simon Magus and his deeds. He never mentions Simon Peter. Do you consider this odd? After all....Justin wrote early in the second century....not too far removed from the actual events themselves! Peter had been in Babylon....as The Lord had instructed to be.
False.
Justin Martyr was the first "Church Father" to catalog the early events of Rome...
False.
...and he frequently mentions Simon Magus and his deeds.
Are you saying Pope Peter I was Simon Magus?
Nope. The reference was to Rome.
...evangelizing these folks just as The Lord [Matthew 10:5-6] had told him to do. Scripture never finds Peter in Rome as tradition tells us.
Arguing from silence is very weak.
He was told not to go there!
And later he was told to go everywhere!
Let's look at [John 21:15-17] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. e saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Just who were these sheep? It was here in Galilee that Our Lord gave the Apostles their commission again. Our Lord had previously indicated who his commission was directed to: [Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Coincidently, these were the same folks who He had directed the Apostles to go and evangelize in [Matthew 10:5-6].
[Matthew 28:19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Nations:1484. ethnos (eth'-nos)a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one. And again, scripture confirms scripture. Our Lord had instructed the twelve to go to the tribes (House of Israel). The fact that modern translations show this to be "Nations" just shows a theological bias. Why would Our Lord tell the Apostles to not go among the Gentiles and then turn around and tell them to do exactly what He had said not to do? More importantly.....why were the Apostles....6 years after the crucifixion, so indignant and upset that Peter had been dealing with Gentiles [Acts 10:45][Acts 11:1-3] if The Lord had told them to do it?
And yet moved by the woman's faith, He healed her daughter as she had sought:
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her daughter was cured from that hour.Did He not consider her daughter one of His sheep?
Your attempt fails.
Because that is what He wanted? A mission to the Jews before the Resurrection and a mission to all the world afterwards?
Who are you or I or anyone to tell Him what He can want?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.