When I talk with Protestants about the bible why is it that they rarely knowledge where the bible comes from?
Most of the time they are trained in an answer of it being the inspired word of God yet how did God place it in our hands?
Most of the time I'm left thinking they believe it fell from heaven in bound leather on Pentecost whats up with that?
And why the denial of oral tradition?
2007-05-26 12:32:46 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
oops sorry tampa that should be acknowledge not knowledge, my terrible typos once again
2007-05-26 12:41:50 · update #1
tisk tisk fish I've seen some of your answer/questions look in the mirror. BTW answer the question please if you can
2007-05-26 12:43:04 · update #2
Oh, yeah....they're huge on denying any form of oral trdition....even though Scripture itself IS tradition. I mean....Matthew and Mark did not sign the gospels that each is credited with writing. Scripture scholars are less than 100% positive that they did write them. Actually the fear is admitting that it was indeed the Catholic Church during the Council of Carthage (N. Africa) in AD 397 that determined definitively which books were inspired and should be included in the canon of the New Testament. Notice the constant use of the term "the early Christians".....while they certainly WERE "early Christians", most Protestants would be hard pressed to call them Catholics which indeed they were! There were no Protestants until 1517. So to admit that the Bible is indeed a "Tradition" of the Catholic Church would bring more questions to the Protestants like, "then why aren't you Catholic?" We Catholics have been acused for centuries of "adding" books to the Old Testament, but since ALL Protestant bibles contain EXACTLY the same 27 books in their NT as does the Catholic Church, they are admitting that the Catholic Church did indeed get it right. Otherwise, Protestant bibles would have a different group of books within it.
2007-05-26 12:49:27 · answer #1 · answered by The Carmelite 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
What is meant by "the inspired Word of God" is that God caused the thoughts that the human writers of the Bible put into words. That explains why the Bible is a perfect document containing no errors or contradictions. There was no oral tradition involved. God inspired the writers to put his message on paper so that we would know how to be saved.
2007-05-26 13:00:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not all Protestants are concerned with Church history. They, as I, were taught that all of the answers are in the Bible.
The Bible turned out to be not enough for me. I never questioned where it came from but tried to get as much from it as possible. At one point I had 12-14 different translations/interpretations of it.
I wandered into a Catholic Charismatic Prayer meeting once... The rest of the story is too long to put it here.
2007-05-26 12:54:42 · answer #3 · answered by Grace 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are left thinking that Christians believe the Bible fell from heaven, that's because you interacted with folks who read and were duped by the Da Vinci Code fiction. No knowledgeable Christian buys that notion.
BTW, Christians do not deny oral tradition. We simply insist that the any purported oral tradition be subject to the written tradition, i.e. the Scriptures.
2007-05-27 18:47:36 · answer #4 · answered by Seraph 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"Oral tradition"? What is that. Whatever it is, is should line up with God's word in the bible.
Not everyone has the same kind of knowledge. Frankly, I think it's a good thing, if one knows that the bible is the inspired word of God, studies it frequently and is a doer of the word and not a hearer only. If someone is interested in how the bible got put together, I'm sure they would look into it.
P.S. I'm with Fish. Your tone is a bit arrogant.
2007-05-26 12:42:46 · answer #5 · answered by Esther 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
If they gave you ANY credence then they might have to admit they were wrong and their PRIDE wont permit that. Always studying and never learning. They should consider the Eunuch that the Apostle was urged to catch up to because he was reading Scripture and the Apostle could explain things. He could read the same as the next man (the eunuch) but, he at least had the humility and the "brains" to know he needed help in understanding it.
2007-05-26 12:42:34 · answer #6 · answered by Midge 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
At the moment, I do not know anyone that denies 'oral tradition'. (I assume one istalking about verbally passing it down originally).
One of the present 'problems' comes from analysis of the process, and losing focus of where it came from in the 'first place'.
2007-05-26 13:10:21 · answer #7 · answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
where the bible comes from? you see the bible is written by mark, john, matthew and luke. but, you see in the bible the gospel according to mark and so on. you see them in inverted commas. this is the confusion.
also what did jesus preach? the bible? no. if not did he have mark, matthew, john and luke with him all the time?
2007-05-26 18:28:55 · answer #8 · answered by vida 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They believe that they should only read the bible and the bible does not telll where it comes from. It is God's knowledge which is good and mans' knowledge is bad.
2007-05-26 12:46:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
That's not true at all, about the Protestants people I talk with.
2007-05-26 12:39:50 · answer #10 · answered by TAMPABAYLADY 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋