The Problem with Oral Traditions

If Jesus taught anything which contradicted Torah then Torah condemns Jesus.

 

It seems to me that your understanding of oral traditions and "Oral Tradition" are equated. They are not the same. It has been shown that "Oral Tradition" is 100% accurate. You must understand how things were remembered in those days. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" cannot be forgotten but could easily be written wrong if it were copied thousands of times.

 

No one is doubting they were given by INSPIRED prophets 100% accurate. What is being challenged is they were maintained through UNINSPIRED fallible human disciples from generation to generaion as %100 accurate. All one has to do is look at the ECF and see that is not the case.

Peter recognized this weakness in Apostolic Oral Tradition and that is precisely why he elevated the written scriptures above them and said that scripture were "MORE SURE" than his own apostolic tradition (2 Pet. 1:16-19).

What you fail to see is that Scriptures SUPERSEDE oral tradition and that is why Paul OMITTED oral tradition in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and only INCLUDED scriptures as COMPLETELY THOROUGH for the man of God to determine doctrine, correction, instruction, teaching, reproof for ALL HIS WORKS. If oral traditions were necessary, essential, permenant and lasting he would not have excluded them but included them. HE DID NOT. Scriptures supersede traditions as traditions have the inherent weakness of being preserved accurately by UNINSPIRED humans.

This is why Jesus NEVER quoted the "traditions of the elders" as authority but always said "It is WRITTEN" and never "it is SAID."

Anyone can look at the written version of so-called oral traditions (EFC) and see how corrupted they are. Rome has no INSPIRED prophet, counsels or church but only UNINSPIRED sinful humans which is obvious by its pagan doctrines and traditions.

 

It seems that you are mixing the traditions of men and oral tradition of how scripture was memorized and passed down. It was common for men studying to be a rabbi to memorize the OT. The traditions of men refers to traditions created by men who adulterated God's of the OT as well. Jesus addressed that in the Sermon On The Mount. The traditions of men were a misinterpretation of the OT. Jesus did not come to do away with (misinterpret) the Law but to fulfill it. The traditions of men subtracted from what God had inspired.

A good book on Oral Tradition is "Memory and Manuscript with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity" by Mr. Birger Gerhardsson (Author), Eric J. Sharpe, Jacob Neusner

 

No, I am not! Oral teaching is inspired as given but it is not scripture. The term "scripture" is never used to refer to the oral delivery but to the written delivery of a prophet.

Second, the Oral delivery of a prophet is inspired but the memory of non-prophets transmitters are not inspired and the evidence proves the memory of transmitters corrupts quickly and ECF is written proof of such corrupt memory transmission.

Memorizing the OT scriptures is one thing as you have the scriptures to correct your fallible memory for future generations BUT memorizing oral teaching that supposedly has not been put into inspired writing by that prophet is quite another thing as there is nothing to correct FALLIBLE and UNINSPIRED memory errors.

Are you seriously telling me that FALLIBLE UNINSPIRED memories of non-prophets have not been adulterated with time????

I suggest you do this little experiment. Take 25 verses of scripture and 25 men standing side by side and whisper the 25 verses in the ear of the first man and tell him to whisper it to the next in succession to the last man and go down to the last man and listen to what he says. I guarantee it will not be what you gave the first man. Then take all the men and have them attempt to come to agreement as to every word that was said and see if they can agree. Now repeat that experiment for three centuries and see what you get at the end?

Peter realized that transmission by memory alone was not sufficient or stable way to communicate the truth to the next generations and that is why he illustrated the instability of his own oral teaching (2 Peter. 1:15-18) and told them that the written prophetic scriptures were "MORE SURE" and that this is what they should "TAKE HEED UNTO" (v. 19) as it is more stable than fallible memory of men.

Just plain common sense is all that is needed to the see the complete fallicy of believeing that the Tradition of oral teaching by the apostles was actually transmitted in tact without corruption. If common sense is not sufficient then just read the absolute mess found in the ECF.

 

The Biblicist, your foolish grammer school litmus test doesn't cut it with Jesus being that it was Jesus Himself that introduced this way of communicating His true Teachings :" Go ye into all the world", He commanded , '' and preach the gospel to every creature " [ Mark 16:15 ] ' ... ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit ....."[Acts 1:8 ] In confirmation of these instructions was the practice of the early Church. It is recorded , for instance, that the Christians in Jerusalen " continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrin"e" [ Acts 2 : 42 ] Again I refer you again to Luke 10:16 , If Jesus wanted a "Bible Alone" religion He would have had passed out Bibles first, but no, God used "Oral Tradition passed on to His Teaching Apostles. Make deciples of other men , meaning to pass on the same Apostolic Teachings to future generations via those that were "ordained" [ the Bible way ] and they to other Bible way ordained men. Jesus was the Inventor of this practice and He commanded His Apostles to follow the same way of preaching. Sola Scriptura was never taught by Jesus or His Apostles/ Successors it only came into existance around the protesters reformation [ agaist God's Church & Teaching method, because it was too Catholic ]

 

You simply don't get it do you? Oral always precedes written and written always supersedes oral! Each has their respective place. But oral is not to be equated equal to written as written is "MORE SURE" in every way than "oral" as oral depends upon fallible uninspired memories.

Can you remember everything you said two days ago? Case closed!

 

The Biblicist, you're form of writing is in the form of defending man's way of explaning things . Oral in this case "comes from God" and that "Oral Teaching" is most definitely 'inspired' because it comes from God/ Jesus , it supersedes any thing written, but it doesn't supersede the Holy Bible , in this Inspired situation both are equal, as can be seen from 2 Thess 2:15. Why can't you accept the Truth? You're emotions and ego are not doing either your physical body or your eternal soul any benefit, kick out your pride and ego , it is better to lose family and friends than your eternal soul.

 

Who said it is not inspired? Not I! Indeed, I have repeated that the oral teaching of prophets was the spoken word of God!

That is absurd! That implies the inferiority of previous scripture or that there is contradiction between previous scripture and what a prophet speaks! The Bible is clear that any prophet that speaks contrary to previous scriptures is a FALSE prophet. God does not speak write one thing and then correct by sending a prophet to speak another thing!

The equality is only durable as long as they "REMEMBER" it correctly (1 Cor. 15:1-2). This text does not teach that oral apostolic teaching was to continue beyond the apostolic ministry EQUAL TO apostolic scriptures but both Peter (2 Pet. 1:15-19) and Paul (2 Tim. 3:16) both teach at the close of their ministry that scriptures are "MORE SURE" and are THROUGHLY (thoroughly) sufficient in and of themselves for all doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof" in EVERY GOOD WORK. No traditions included!

 

You place limits on God by writing the things that you write . Jesus infused his power and Authority into those Apostles making any of their Oral Teachings infallible and" binding", need Holy Scripture to show you that you are wrong ?

 

I simply don't distort and pervert the scriptures like you do. I interpret them in keeping with their historical and grammatical context. You do not!

 

The Biblicist, It is you that distorts the intended way that Scripture should be interpreted, you simply negate the importance of understanding Holy Scripture as it was intended. You are always arguing about "what Jesus didn't say" . The following verse is one prime example of your twisting Scripture to make it fit into your ridiulous eisegesis and that is found in Luke 10:16 , you have to work real hard to get Jesus to say the way that you interpret that verse. Jesus wasn't instructing His Apostles only for the 1st century Christians "alone' but he was instructing for all future Christians also, nothing to do with your erroneous explanation.Much the same as most of what you write. Who gave you your Authority to claim that it is your interpretation out of the other 30,000 different Protestant interpretations that is the correct one? The Catholic Church follows Apostolic Tradional Teaching which Luke10:16 is just one of the many verses and passages describing the Church that Jesus formed and that is undeniably the Catholic & Apostolic Church.

 

If that is so, then why can't you respond with contextual based arguments from scripture????? Why is it you ALWAYS respond by proof texting or personal opinions or assertions????? Go back and look at your responses to scriptures.

Does Luke 10:16 say "hear your disciples" or "hear YOU"????

 

Does Luke 10:16 say "hear your disciples" or "hear YOU"????

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Rome's interpretation would require it to read "hears your disciples who heard you."

 

Biblicist, no where is that which you write found in the Holy Bible. Jesus is telling His apostles and they in turn teach other qualified "ordained" disciples who will teach the exact same teachings as from Christ. It is you who is going against Jesus and His Teaching Method.

" Matt 28 :18-20 "All power in heaven....... Go, therefore , and make disciples of all nations , baptizing them .... , teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; ....."

' As the Father has sent me , I also send you John 20:21 -How can it be explained any clearer than that , Jesus Teaches His Apostles ,gives them the "power and Authority to" bind and loose '' and sends them off to make other successors ,not only for the first Christians, but for "All" to be Christians.
Biblicist, no other Church nucleus was ever infused with the Holy Spirit as the Apostles and they were commanded to go out and teach others and those replacement/ successors and other ordained deciples are given the same apostolic authority as the original Apostles , just as Jesus arranged it, in as much that you would like and try to rearrange that which God has made, it would be and is a futile attempt on any Protestant now as it will be throughout the short lived history of Protestantism.Your churches just keep on splitting and splitting and become more watered-down along with moving away from original Gospel at every split. Baptists alone in their past short lived history have at least 30 splits alone ,and that is only one of the many thousands of different Protestant churches that split with everyone of them proclaiming that their interpretation is the correct interpretation. Only One correct interpretation and that existed only then as it does now in the only Apostolic Church that can trace its lineage directly back to Jesus and his Apostles. Good luck in trying to change Christian history.

 

Didn't answer my question! Does Luke 10:16 says "hear YOU" or "hear YOUR DISCIPLES"????

The commission does not say one solitary word about what the final form of authority would be? Whether it would be oral traditions or inspired scriptures! However, both Peter and Paul settle this issue explicitly before they died. Peter explicitly told his followers who heard his teachings that scriptures were "MORE SURE" and they should "TAKE HEED" unto the scriptures (2 Pet. 1:16-19).

Paul taught his disciples that the "scriptures" not tradition was completely sufficient to determine doctrine in regard to all things for the "man of God" (2 Tim. 3:16).

The scriptures you refer to have only a TEMPORARY basis for oral tradition that does not exceed the memory of fallible men but is SUPERSEDED by written scriptures.