DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

This is an obvious example of misinterpretation
of the scriptures and you are correct that people can make the bible say anything they want it to ...

However Jay, I believe every church out there
including the RCC has done it.. Most Protestant
seminaries have classes in Hermanutics and Classes in what specific criteria to follow when studying the scriptures. They also teach Hebrew and Greek .. Not every Protestant preacher gets this education admittedly but most major denominations have these seminaries.

Do Catholic Priests get extensive education
in these area's at the Catholic seminaries or do they just take the interpretations of the various chuch councils as Gospel ??

It has been said on this Blog that everything
the Catholic church teaches is rooted in scripture. That may be true But I have noticed that some of scriptures used to support some of the RCC doctrines in my opinion seem to be out of context and assumptions are made that are not clearly in the text.

I look forward to your answer.

Clem

Clem,
Here's a question: what's the difference between a protestant church "setting specific criteria to follow" (as you put it) and the Catholic church doing the same thing? You seem very upset that the Catholic church does this, but in the same paragraph you praise protestant churches for doing so.

By the way, priests study Scripture and Theology extensively in college. Don't worry, they're getting it. The RCC, however, has an advantage of protestants: they have 2,000 years of Oral Tradition handed down from the apostles to help with interpretation. This is why St. Paul said we must obey the written and oral truth handed down.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

See, you put words in my post I never said. I did not have a problem with the Catholic Church setting certain critera... I was asking if they had certain critera and what that criteria was ....? I knew the methods that most Protestant seminaries use. I was curious if the
RCC used the same or similar criteria. Maybe
my question wasn't clear ??

Oral tradition may have its place when you are trying to evangelize illiterate audiences but there was always a scroll or a tablet of the teaching for the literate people to refer back to. Most people in the 21st century can read...

Jesus and the Apostles would refer back to the written word of the OT. They would usually say it is written.

Why did God write the ten commandment in STONE?
Why did He have the Israelites carry it around in an ARK ??? Maybe He didn't want to rely on Oral Tradition... I still say and History proves that God had Moses and others in the OT write things down So the the teacher or leader always had a reference to go back to....

An experiment was done where you line up a group
of people and tell the first person something
and by the time it gets to the end of the line there is something added or something missing from the original story.

Why do we write are laws down and not rely on oral tradition... Because the Written word is
more reliable than the oral word.

You and others make such a big deal about Oral tradition .. Explain why Jesus when HE was in the Desert being tempted by Satan respomded to every temptation ..? IT IS WRITTEN... Not it is said...

Why were the dead sean Scrolls so important?
Because they verified or disqualified the Oral
Tradition.... Please stop beating the oral tradition drum.. Please anwer my points directly. You tend not to address points directly.

In Search of His Truth,

Clem

Clem,
You say "there was always a scroll." Are you kidding? First, Christ was crucified in about 33 A.D. The first book wasn't written until the 50's and they were still being written up until around 100 A.D. Even after this, there were many scrolls out there, there was no way to know which one was Scripture until the Church clearly defined it in almost 395 A.D.

Remember, St. Paul wrote that we must obey his oral and written teachings - he didn't say we only should obey those which are written down (or have a scroll to refer to). Also, let me know where it says in the Bible that Oral Tradition is only necessary where people can't read. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then this must be clearly articulated in Scripture, right?

Note also that the Old Testament church had absolutely nothing written until the time of Moses and the full Old Testament wasn't done until well over a thousand years after he started writing. You seem to suggest that they were depending on the written word, but in fact you cannot recreate the required ritual sacrifices that Jews performed from the Old Testament alone. It requires the use of Tradition as well.

We don't have to rely on humans to keep Tradition perfect. Why? We have the Holy Spirit and the "pillar and foundation of Truth" (the Church see 1 Tim 3:15). The Holy Spirit protects God's Church from error - in fact I would argue that the Holy Spirit has taken the life of a pope about to teach error in the past.

Think about it this way: Why did Christ found a Church in Matthew 16:18? The Church is the protector of Truth, in essence, and is charged with keeping error out of Christianity and dispensing the Sacraments. If you don't believe either, why did He form a Church?

By the way, this article explains why I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are important. And note that no human institution has lasted longer than about 250 years. How is it possible for the Catholic Church to exist for 2,000 years without the direct involvement of God?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

There you go again ... First I did not discount oral tradition.. In the days before the flood they lived such long lives that Many of the notable OT Patriarchs were still alive to verify the stories that were handed down by oral tradition.. However, When Jesus and the apostles referred to scripture the NT had not been written yet but as you admitted in your post it was finished and there was a written record of the OT and Most Jews including Jesus knew what books were accepted and which were not ...

Remember when Jesus READ the scripture in the
synaqogue It was from a scroll... He did not recite it from memory, He openned the scroll and
read from it.

You did not have answers to these points ...

1. If oral tradition is more important then the
written word then why did GOD write the Ten
commandments on STONE TABLETS and have the Jews
carry them around with them?

2. Why then when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the Wilderness did He reply to him with IT IS WRITTEN, not it is said or I say to you ?

3. Also Jesus said in Matt 5:18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away , not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Letter and stroke of Pen indicates a written word and not
an oral tradition)

4. Why did Paul commend the bereans for Searching the scriptures daily to verify what they were teaching Orally was the truth ... ?

My point is that it appears that the Written word is preferred over the Oral tradition by God, Jesus and the Apostles ...

Can you denny this ?

Grace & Peace,

Clem

I recently saw something on the history channel regard the gospels. It said that they were not actually written by the aposteles at all,but by anonymous authors hundreds of years later. I've always been taught that the apostles themselves actually penned the gospels. So,what is the truth behind all this?

According to Catholic tradition, the four Gospels were written by four individuals called the four Evangelists. Many scholars today, however, argue that the original authors were "anonymous," and that the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were only later connected with these four books. Which opinion is correct?

Post a comment