can you use the bible only without tradition?

[Dan_473]

can you use the bible only without tradition?

I think so, though there are some questions that I think are interesting, maybe you will too..

the bible doesn't say how many books it has in it, or what versions of those books should be used, so...

should the 151 psalm be there? the greek lxx has it, it's not in the hebrew...

should the gospel of thomas be in the new testament?

are there any books in the bible that shouldn't be there?

grace and peace to you

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

psalm 151 is not authentic...its title makes the claim that it is a davidic psalm...but it is actually a combination of two separate psalms...copies of the original two psalms were found in the dead sea scrolls...

the gospel of thomas is one of the writings of the gnostic cult...which is actually condemned by name in the bible...

 

[evangelist1]

psalm 151 is not authentic...its title makes the claim that it is a davidic psalm...but it is actually a combination of two separate psalms...copies of the original two psalms were found in the dead sea scrolls...

the gospel of thomas is one of the writings of the gnostic cult...which is actually condemned by name in the bible...

Good study and a very good observation about what is inspired and what is not!

Shalom

 

[crossnote]

You can use the bible only without tradition BUT why reinvent the wheel over and over?
Much of the 'traditional' teachings of the Church down thru the centuries have been hammered out on the anvil of controversy e.g. the Trinity.
Now non biblical traditions you can easily do without.

 

[followjja]

Jesus said that his words are truth. Anything that disagrees with what Jesus spoke, is not from God.

 

[Dan_473]

psalm 151 is not authentic...its title makes the claim that it is a davidic psalm...but it is actually a combination of two separate psalms...copies of the original two psalms were found in the dead sea scrolls...

the gospel of thomas is one of the writings of the gnostic cult...which is actually condemned by name in the bible...

you raise some good points... there are other psalms in the '150' that aren't written by david... should those be in the bible?

which part of the bible condemns the gnostic cult by name? i'm interested... or moving on from thomas... perhaps the epistle of clement?

 

[Dan_473]

Good study and a very good observation about what is inspired and what is not!

Shalom

suppose we make it psalm 151 & 152... ? could it be in the bible then?

 

[Dan_473]

You can use the bible only without tradition BUT why reinvent the wheel over and over?
Much of the 'traditional' teachings of the Church down thru the centuries have been hammered out on the anvil of controversy e.g. the Trinity.
Now non biblical traditions you can easily do without.

I was thinking of what I hear a lot about using 'just the bible'... without traditions... now, I'm fine with that... i was interested in what people would say about the idea that one of the traditions that many people use is which book are in the bible... and which aren't... if one uses tradition, then which ones does one use? there is a tradition that the church has a visible hierarchy... a structure that you can see... this is a tradition that the Catholics use... it's a tradition that relates to the bible, in that part of the sermon on the mount where Jesus talks about lighting a lamp and putting it where people can see it...

 

[Dan_473]

Jesus said that his words are truth. Anything that disagrees with what Jesus spoke, is not from God.

I like that idea... there is sometimes a question about what Jesus said... like at the end of mark, where he says, 'these signs will follow those that believe...' there is a real question about whether that's part of what mark wrote or not... did Jesus say it? how will we know??

 

[Dan_473]

I like that idea... there is sometimes a question about what Jesus said... like at the end of mark, where he says, 'these signs will follow those that believe...' there is a real question about whether that's part of what mark wrote or not... did Jesus say it? how will we know??

also, did mark write that gospel? I don't think it says in the text... I think that a traditional name attached to it...

 

[Vernon]

The New Testament and Old Testament were gathered together and canonized by traditionalists. And unless you are reading and defining the bible by your own understanding you are not using 'the bible only'. Every concordance is written by some traditional view. Without extra biblical knowledge we wouldn't be able to understand many things within the bible, because to understand the bible we must first understand the intention of the writer, and this is often only understood when we learn of the culture or tradition the writer was writing the message for.

Those who claim to use the bible only as their foundation for what they profess as doctrinal truth are not being honest in their understanding. And even the bible only teaching is a tradition of those who proclaim it.

Now if you do not want to follow or accept as truth traditions that you are unable to verify biblically for yourself, I believe The Lord has given you the liberty to do so. As a catholic, I am asked to believe sacred scripture and sacred tradition, as interpreted by the teaching authority of the Church, is the only and complete divine revelation God has revealed to the earth. And I do believe this is true, but I do not believe the interpretation has been without error. So I take my personnel liberty in not accepting all the teachings of the Church as 'gospel truth'. Each of us must be convinced in our own minds what the truth is that was revealed in Jesus Christ, The Lord communicates with each of us as individuals and not only through the corporate body of believers. As individuals,The Lord has called us to follow him by faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God.

I do not believe as individuals we have the liberty to change or alter the canon of sacred scripture or the sacred tradition of the Church, but we do have the liberty to interpret it for ourselves for our own understanding. I believe the corporate church has been given the grace and responsibility of interpreting scripture and tradition for all believers, that they have not done so without error does not make me their judge, but God will judge them by a higher standard than he will myself or others not given this responsibility. As James wrote: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." James 3:1

Just a thought
Christ be with you always.

 

[Dan_473]

thanks for the thoughtful post! this part:

So I take my personnel liberty in not accepting all the teachings of the Church as 'gospel truth'.

if you don't mind saying, what teachings are you talking about here?

 

[Timeline]

psalm 151 is not authentic...its title makes the claim that it is a davidic psalm...but it is actually a combination of two separate psalms...copies of the original two psalms were found in the dead sea scrolls...

the gospel of thomas is one of the writings of the gnostic cult...which is actually condemned by name in the bible...

I read the Gospel of Thomas a long time ago and maybe I forgot but from what I remember it repeated the information that is in the gospels that are in the bible. Did I miss something unbiblical in it?

 

[Vernon]

thanks for the thoughtful post! this part:
if you don't mind saying, what teachings are you talking about here?

I was afraid you would ask this question, (joking), there are several teachings I am not in full agreement with, primarily some of the teachings regarding Mary and the saints. The dogma of the assumption of Mary, which was not made dogmatic until 1950, is the teaching that Mary was lifted up to heaven (body and soul) and is seated next to Christ being only second to Christ in glory and honor. The teaching of Mary as Co-Redemptrix although not dogmatic is a teaching that Mary in her unique role as the Mother of Jesus is his closet human cooperator in the work of redemption. The veneration of saints and their relics is another teaching that I can not in good conscience accept. Also the teaching that priests and bishops are forbidden to marry and are required to be celibate I find unscriptural. The teaching that a person can only receive forgiveness of grave sin by confession to a priest and receive absolution through a priest. These would be the major teachings that I have taken liberty in not fully accepting as gospel truth. I have been given no authority to teach against these teachings and so I would not say they are untrue, I am only saying that in my own understanding I question there validity.

Christ be with you always.

 

[Dan_473]

I read the Gospel of Thomas a long time ago and maybe I forgot but from what I remember it repeated the information that is in the gospels that are in the bible. Did I miss something unbiblical in it?

Thomas is basically like a collection of sayings of Jesus (it says)... a lot are found in the 4 usual gospels... some are not... like this one at the beginning: 1 And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

 

[Dan_473]

The teaching that a person can only receive forgiveness of grave sin by confession to a priest and receive absolution through a priest.

thanks for the thoughtful answer! do you want to discuss it further? if so, the section that I copied above... was that teaching established at an ecumenical council? also, when the whole church meets in council, say acts 15 or maybe any of the later councils, can they ever arrive at a wrong answer, or does God protect from that?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

you raise some good points... there are other psalms in the '150' that aren't written by david... should those be in the bible?

which part of the bible condemns the gnostic cult by name? i'm interested... or moving on from thomas... perhaps the epistle of clement?

the problem with psalm 151 is not that it was not written by david...because as you noted there are many psalms david did not write...the problem is that psalm 151 -claims to have been written by david- and yet was not written by david...we know that God does not lie...so psalm 151 cannot be from God...

here is the bible verse that condemns gnosticism by name...

1 timothy 6:20-21..."O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge'—which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith."

the greek word translated as 'knowledge' here is the word 'gnosis'

 

[Kerry]

so now were picking and choosing what is from God and what is not, in the bible, as if we are the authority on it. The Holy Spirit decided what is and ain't in the bible.

 

[Dan_473]

the problem with psalm 151 is not that it was not written by david...because as you noted there are many psalms david did not write...the problem is that psalm 151 -claims to have been written by david- and yet was not written by david...we know that God does not lie...so psalm 151 cannot be from God...

here is the bible verse that condemns gnosticism by name...

1 timothy 6:20-21..."O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge'—which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith."

the greek word translated as 'knowledge' here is the word 'gnosis'

i found several versions of ps 151:1... the CEB has a 'hallelujah of David'... the 'of david' of course can mean in the style of david... i think... or suppose verse 1 is left off... maybe it was added later... could 151 be in the bible then? or maybe just the second half?

not quite following what you're saying here, also... it could not have been written by david because it is found in the dead sea scrolls? maybe that's the oldest document we have where it's found... but wouldn't that be relying on tradition? do we know if the text that the lxx translators were working from was older than the dss one?

thanks for posting the verse from 1 tim... the challenge, imo, is connecting what paul is talking about with what thomas says... because, as i understand it, we don't know much about gnosticism... what we know is taken from the surviving later christian writers... who may or may not have been well-informed about gnositicism... the gnostic texts having been mostly destroyed... imo, the attempt to connect the two will probably come to relying on tradition, somewhere... my guess... but moving on from thomas, what about clement? your thoughts?

 

[Dan_473]

so now were picking and choosing what is from God and what is not, in the bible, as if we are the authority on it. The Holy Spirit decided what is and ain't in the bible.

two ideas... pick the post you like the best! or both!