www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Scripture and Tradition

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Concerning the relationship between scripture and tradition (to get back to topic):

One interesting comparison I remember hearing was a person (this is not my story) who studied scripture for years with intense interest and was going over Leviticus, Deuteronomy and the rest when he suddenly realised that there wasn't enough there to tell a priest how to be a priest!The temple priests could not fulfill their obligations to Yahweh simply by studying the Torah.

Scripture couldn't provide all the details, and when the temple was restored after Babylon there would have been no way to restart the priestly functions without the living memory or oral traditions of the priestly families who were taken away.

WE acknowledge this ourselves without realizing it when we buy books like this, by Alfred Edersheim [trinitybookservice.org] . Our curiosity is peaked, and we wish to learn more. But even this book would not teach me to be a temple priest. I would need instruction, and perhaps a handbook or two.

And we need someone knowledgeable about the vestments and other appointments to make sure they are all in order and ready for service! And we all would have learned our functions by study with older more experienced predecessors.

That is tradition working in hand with the scripture.

In Christ,
Michael

Roger,

I think the root meaning of the word, tradition(Latin--traditio, is "something which is handed over." In that sense scripture is also tradition -- written tradition, which has been handed down. Unfortunately the idea of "tradition" whether that of Catholics or Orthodox is often misunderstood and assumed by many Protestants to be human tradition (or the tradition of men) as see in Col. 2:8.

I do agree with others on the forum, and, I think, Neil, who suggested you visit a Byzantine Church near where you are just to see what the Liturgical tradition, icons, etc. is all about. Eastern Christians rely heavily on 'experience' in their spirituality and worship. To 'see' and 'hear' is to understand better what it is all about. And again I say that not to convert you, but just to suggest a visit as it will be very educational. I know I had no really good idea of what it was until I visited and experienced an Eastern Church myself and I am still learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Neil,

Yes, thanks for reiterating about this forum's diversity. It sounds like Pastor Berean thought it was a one church only forum as he refers to "your church." My thought was - which church? On the other hand represented here are members of the one Body of Christ - so....

And, I am seconding your suggestion for a spell check.

In Christ,

Mary Jo \O/

Since we are discussing Scripture and Tradition, I have been pondering & wrestling with the word "begotten" referencing (John 1:18,John 3:16,Heb 11:17,1 John 4:9), it is in the Creed(Profession Of Faith) and is some how forgotten in various NT bible translations RSV,NAB,Jerusalem etc, but is part of KJV,NKJV,Rheims,Confraternity NT, NASB.

begotten: form of beget, to father/sire,to cause to exist or occur, produce.(I forgot to include dictonary quote).

How important is the word "begotten" to you regarding Scripture and the Creed ?

james

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Dear James, Brother in Christ,

Wow, what a good and challenging question! Am not sure, maybe you meant the question for another in this thread, but, if me, I am taking a stab at it. So, here goes getting a bit off topic but...I can understand the pondering and wrestling with "begotten." It has slightly different meanings, as far as I can determine, depending on the context in which it is used and the Hebrew(OT) or Greek (NT) word from which it has been translated.


Let's just take one of your references; John 3:16

I believe 'begotten' in this verse is used mainly in the KJV and other versions you mention. The NIV is translated to read "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (thus 'begotten' is not included)

John 3:16 (KJV)>>In that context of this verse the word "begotten" comes from monogenes Greek for only-born, i.e. sole--(only begotten ,child) So the NIV is more accurate in translation using "one and only Son" which is really the meaning of the original Greek word.

You asked about how important to scriptures and the Creed. "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages...etc." It is clear from this that we do not believe anyone else is the Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father...To me it is very important because this means that Mohammed is not the only Son of God, nor is Budda, nor others --the only, begotten son of God is Jesus Christ and this is one of the pillars of our faith. Also begotten of the Father before all ages,(eternally begotten)is important as it establishes that Jesus Christ always was, is, and always will be. Very important, to be sure as inherent to the mystery of the Trinity. And, in a sense, to me, important to my understanding of scriptures as well because it does establish the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

Hope this helps a little.


Mary Jo

Berean,

i'm new to these forums as well, and i am an orthodox Anglican. i have recently begun reading about the Eastern church, and i have found two books very helpful for my Western mindset: The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware and The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware.

Note: despite the name changes, this author is the same person. Timothy Ware was an orthodox Anglican who became a bishop in the Eastern Orthodox church - hence his name is now Bishop Kallistos Ware.

Begotten can indicate that Christ was not created because He IS...as in "I am".

I saw an Orthodox icon somewhere...of the Creation...do you know what I see? I see Christ the visible G-d, creating the world (because Christ is G-d, the 2nd Person of the Trinity).

Because we cannot see G-d, so He made Himself visible through Christ.

So it was cool to see that Icon. Because it is true, according to the Creed, the Father created the world through the Son. (Thru Him all things were created).

G-d bless,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

spdundas,

AMEN. I have that icon and I love it!


In Christ,


Mary Jo

SPDundas & Mary Jo,

Thanks for your thoughts, I find the phrase "Only begotten Son" echoing in my mind often, and find sadness when I see it shorten to "Only Son" in many places.

james

Dear Berean,

As a former Southern Baptist from the Bible Belt, I can testify to the sincerity and faith of Baptists! We appreciate the Spirit working in you and in us to bring us all to unity in eternity! Please, stay with us, and continue to ask any questions you like in your kind spirit.

In Peace,

Tammy

I think you will find that whether Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox Catholic that Tradition (big T)is a little more weighted than Scripture. Scripture in fact, is a part of Tradition. The early Church Fathers had to rely on Tradition even after all the books were made available via the Ecumenical Councils.

So, Tradition has been and continues to be the glue that keeps the Faith intact supported by Holy Scripture.

JoeS

//As an outsider and learner I am curious to what relationship your Church gives to Scripture and Tradtion. Are they equal? Does one have superiority over the other? Is tradition interpreted in the light of Scripture or vice-versa?

As I posted in another I am not hear to fight or cause trouble. I don't think I will be convering , but know nothing about your church and am simply here to learn.//

Thanks for another kind welcome. Been gone a few days and just looking in again.

I saw this (it may have been in this thread) and wonder if it accurately depicts the general few of your Churches? It went something like:

The Church does not come from the Scriptures, the Scriptures come from the Church.

Yes, that sounds about right; certainly the Church existed before the New Testament,which was written by her members, and the canon was decided by the Church. The Scriptures came out of the experience of the Church, after all.

I have an 1881 orginal copy! I found it somewhere and took it home and began reading and .. and .. and ... well you know the rest

I have only 5 books which I shall never ever ever lend to anyone (well - almost) and that is one of them.

-ray

That seems pretty simple to me.

Books come from people - people do not come from books.

Books are actually dead things. Yes... I know.. how we make a stand-alone-idol of scriptures� but paper and ink are dead things with no life. Scriptures only become 'alive' when it is explained by its author (the church). If one wants the explanation of scriptures one only need learn the theology of either the Eastern or Latin church (or both) - and take part in the life of the church - and bingo!! You are living it!

I know, I know, we often call the New Testament the "Word" of God - but Jesus is the Word of God and scriptures actually calls itself a �witness� (testimony - Testament) to the real Word. Actually I can not remember even once anyone in the NT refering to the OT as the �Word� of God.

Recorded testimony from several witnesses. No one can 'build the Word' � from it - it�s not a manual of operations which will 'produce' either the Word nor 'produce' the church.

If I received a long letter from someone and I read that letter - there would be some parts that I would be bound misinterpret - yet I would not be aware that I misreading the meaning of any of it. If the author were still alive - the author of the letter can straighten me out as to what he meant to say. So I would naturally ask him "Hey - what did you mean here when you wrote this part?" or he would hear me and say �That is not what I ment - here is what I meant � etc.. � And what would be the sense if he then told me what he meant and I said "No, no, no... that is NOT what you meant because what you really meant was what I understood at the time I read it." Now that would be a bone head thing - insisting to the author that he mant something other than what he meant!! (dizzy)

People who place scriptures above the church (where Christ is really present) are automatically assuming that God/Jesus was the author is and he is - dead - and all that is left are his 'letters'. What they are trying to do is re-build the author - from his letters. And the bricks they are using are often their own personal interpretation.

-ray

I appreciate your views, thank you.