The Problem with Oral Traditions

Biblicist, i see you're not reading the complete posts that I've sent out to you. Let's break it down this way. You wrote ;"Didn't answer my question! Does Luke 10:16 says "hear YOU" or "hear YOUR DISCIPLES"???? "


Answer . only those deciples that can trace back through to the apostles and Jesus. Can any of your religious teachers or ministers / No ,of course not. Only the Catholic' EOChurches can. not " one" of your Protestant churces can.

Peter follows that which Christ commands , and certainly any thing that comes out of your traditional man-made interpretations of Holy Scripture . Jesus/ God gave all authority to His apostolic church
1- Peter ' ... feed my Lambs... feed my lambs ... feed my Sheep . Peter being a Apostle teaches them under the private tutelage of Jesus as do all the other Apostles and all the other deciples that they ordain and those ordained ones do the same to the deciples that they ordain ,right up until Jesus returns.
2, 1 Tim 3; 15 ... church is pillar/ foundation of all Christian Truth
3. Matt.18:17-18 -church as final authority.

 

Do you seriously think you answered my question? All you did was further pervert the text! I asked you did the text say "hear YOU" or "hear YOUR DISCIPLES"? Read the text and give us what the text says not what you want it to say!! For pete's sake be honest with the Word of God.

With the exception of the words "all authority" Yep, that is the truth about the "Baptistic" church of Jesus Christ!

He never said He gave his church "all authority"! What he said was that "all authority' was given HIM not the church - reread it!

Mt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

You mangle and distort every text you use just like Mother Rome! The apple does not fall far from the tree!

 

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

 

Another perversion of the text and context! Timothy's mother and grandmother only had the Old Testament Scriptures! Why is there no mention that his mother and grandmother used "tradition" to teach him? Huh?

Secondly, Timothy was contemporary with the Pauline ministry consisting of his oral teaching and written scriptures. Timothy did not have to rely upon his memory of oral teaching because Paul was furnishing written scriptures (Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy). However, what does he tell Timothy that is completely sufficient as final authority for doctrine and practice for all good works???? Not traditions! Not his oral teachings! But "all scripture" without including traditions of any kind!!!!!!!

All of Pauls' epistles were already written making this his last one as he goes on to predict his death very shortly in chapter 4. Timothy was at Ephesus and Timothy already possessed the book of Ephesians, 1 Timothy and all the prison epistles that were circulated among the churches in that area (Col. 4:16). All the synoptic gospels had been written and only the writings of John may not have been written.

It is not the word "profitable" that sinks your ship but the words "throughly furnished unto ALL good works" that sinks your ship. These words demand that "all scriptures" are ALL SUFFICIENT for all doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof!!!!

That is completely false! There is no grammatical necessity for the term "pasa" to be translated "every" instead of "all." That is purely interpretation not demanded by grammar!

What perversion of the scripture!! The text says no such thing. It says "all scripture is "INSPIRED" not "USEFUL." Hence, to translate "pasa" "every" as though some "scripture" is not inspired is silly! The term "scripture" is NEVER EVER used by Biblical writers for anything other than what is the written Word of God! The biblical writers define exactly what they mean by "scripture" when they speak of the books of Moses, the prophets, the psalms" or the divisions that Jews applied to the same canonical books we have today EXCEPT for the Old Testament apocrypha which the Jews and Jesus and the apostles NEVER used the term "scripture" for!!!!!

That is rediculous! It would only mean that Matthew was equally inspired as Mark and one verse in Mark is equally inspired as one verse in Matthew or any other book of the Bible.

This is an outright lie! Neither the Jews in the apostolic period or Jesus and the apostles in the apostolic period included the dueterocanocial books in the canon of the Old Testament!!! This is common knowlege! Even Jerome knew that and would not include them at first because of this common knowlege!

What utter nonsense. It certainly would include the Bishops in the churches but it is not restricted to them as Paul tells Timothy that he is merely the EXAMPLE for every member in the church and what is good for goose is applicable to the gander!

Again, see my comment above on the words "throughly furnished unto all good works."

 

It is obvious that what you describe is not what is often referred to as Oral Tradition. Oral Tradition refers to how things were passed down through the centuries before it was written down. Oral Tradition is found to be more accurate than the written material. The written material being copied had mistakes.

Read what I wrote in posts 26 and 28.

 

Thank you gb93433.

The Biblicist, The preferred method of communicating the word of God was not in writing but by word of mouth. Much of the Old Testament was known orally for centuries before it was written down.

Jesus himself wrote none of the New Testament. He established a living Church founded on Peter and the apostles, and he told them to preach. We see in the epistles of Paul how anxious the apostle is about the welfare of the local churches he has established and how he wishes he could be there with them in person to guide and teach.

In 2 John 12 we see explicitly in the written word itself how the apostles preferred to communicate directly with their own lips: "Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak, face to face."

The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition--a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches. Much of that Tradition was reduced to inspired writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

 

the Biblicist,Divine Tradition comes from God, either through the written word of the Bible or through the oral teaching of Christ himself or his apostles. Because it is revealed by God, divine Tradition may not be altered by men.

 

We need to distinguish between traditions and Tradition with a capital "T." All churches have traditions. But sacred Tradition is a direct expression of the authority Jesus gave to the apostle Peter and his successors. For over a century there was no New Testament. What was taught was oral Tradition. The faithful, like us today, had to rely on the authority Jesus gave to the leaders of the Church and their successors. It was that authority that eventually compiled the New Testament, discerning which books to include and which not. Whatever the Church teaches, it is bound to fidelity to sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. This is why it cannot sanction anything it chooses but only that which is in accord with what it has been given: e.g., prohibiting the use of anything but grape wine and wheat bread for the Eucharist.

 

The oral tradition that was passed down to the time of Moses was not inspired of God. They were stories. The scriptures were inspired by God through Moses to preserve the actual truths in those stories and or edit and revise as the Spirit of God directed Moses. From Moses forward there was ALWAYS scripture until the end of the first century A.D.

The oral teaching of the prophets was the Word of God as it came forth from the prophet but not as it was poorly or inaccurately remembered by generations after that prophet had lived and died and the same is true with the apostles. The scriptures and the scriptures alone are inspired by God and all sufficient for that the man of God may be "throughly furnished unto all good works" in regard to doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof WITHOUT oral traditions or The Oral tradition. The scriptures STAND ALONE!

 

It seems you are trying to make the case that the fallible memory of men is "more sure" than the inspired written word of God? If that were true then there would be no need for any written Word of God since fallible memory is "100% accurate" as you claim.

If that were so, then scripture should be tested by the memory of men and thus the greater authority!

Sorry, but that kind of thinking makes a mockery of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 as that kind of think should be reflected by Paul in that text by saying "The Oral tradition is given by inspiriation......."

Sorry, but that kind of thinking makes 2 Peter 1:19 pure mockery as that kind of thinking should be reflected by Peter in that text by saying "But we have a MORE SURE word, The Oral tradition...."

Oral tradition has more errors than copyists of Scriptures could ever make in the whole history of transmission. Even the most liberal textual critics admit that 99.3% of the Biblical text is not in question. We have more source materials for the scriptures than any ancient book in history.

However, the written traditons (ECF) is filled with contradictions and errors. The so-caled Oral Tradition has no trustworthiness whatsoever.

This is more Catholic attempt to poor contempt on God's Word and elevate their heretical living magisterium.

 

Rome and its advocates have an Anti-Biblical, anti-Prophet, Anti-Christ spirit that characterizes them.

For example look at David and Psalm 119. Here is the longest chapter in the bible dedicated in every verse to honoring the Word of God. However, Rome and its advocates demean and degrade the Word of God every opportunity they get.

For example look at Christ's ministry. He assumes the title "The Word" and repeatedly throughout His ministry defends and defines his ministry by "It is written" but Rome and its advocates defend and define their ministry by tradition, counsels, etc.

For example look at the Prophetic ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said He would not speak of Himself but his cheif aim would to be to glorify Christ and yet the cheif aim of Rome and its advocates is to glorify the church of Rome and Mary and their traditions.

For example look at the transmission of the New Testament by Rome. They possess the most corrupt form of that transmission as they have defiled it by their rash hands because they hold it in contempt. Tischendorf saved copies from the monks who were going to burn it.

For example look at the trail of blood Rome has left behind in their utter disregard for the command to love thy enemies but instead persecuted, tortured and murdered millions by their evil hands.

For example look at the man made office of Pope who has the audacity to claim to be the Vicar of Christ on earth - an anti-christ. Look at the history of popes in the Vatican and their immoral and ungodliness that has characterized many of them.

Heaven will rejoice when Rome is destroyed some day and the millions of saints who have been persecuted and killed by Rome will rejoice over their destruction (Rev. 19:1-4).

 

Oral Tradition was the method God used and it is found to be more accurate than writing. When something is memorized it is 100% accurate. When something is copied, mistakes are made. The Jews were not like Americans.

Try writing "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush 1,000 times and then memorize it and see which is more accurate.

 

....and the evidence for this statement is what?

.....and found by who?

Only if it is memorized correctly and only if the memory does not fail. Are you seriously attempting to defend that the whole Apostolic oral teachings not recorded in scripture was memorized 100%??????

If that is the case then the ECF writings sure had memory failures! Why is it that their memories failed them in writing down it correctly?

 

1. Where do you get the information that Oral Tradition was the method God used?

2. Are you aware that the context of Oral Tradition, for the most part in this thread is the RCC Oral Tradition, which includes all of their various heresies, papal bulls, etc.

3. Concerning the Bible we have over 5,000 extant MSS, more than any other ancient writing. God has promised to preserve his word, and he did. But he preserved it through scribes who faithfully and accurately copied his Word, a much more accurate method than relying on man's faulty memory. The scribes counted the number of words on each page, in each line. They were very meticulous in their work.

 

----- From the way you write then the first five books of the OT must be all errant , being that the Rabbis only memorize. Explain that.

 

What is the basis for you to draw that conclusion?

 

You are an American who had failed to understand Oral Tradition and how things were passed down from the beginning. You are attempting to interpret with your Greek understanding the things of God given to a people of a Jewish tradition which is very different. For example study Mt. 18:20 in light of its historical Jewish understanding and then read and hear what if often preached from a Greek understanding. They are completely different.

Ask yourself the question, "Did Adam exist before things were written down? Did God create in Genesis before things were written down?

The traditions of men and oral teaching of false prophets is completely different than Oral Tradition.

 

The RCC Oral Tradition is not what "Oral Tradition" is. Was Moses present when God created. What is the time period between Adam and Moses? When did writing come into being? If you assume a particular date for the writing of the Torah, God still spoke long before that time and that is long before the RCC and any church.

 

I see it is your nationality and failure to understand CULTURAL TRADITIONS that you and others decide must be READ INTO the scriptures that is the now new standard of authority and basis for proper exegesis! In other words, the scripture do not interpret themselves sufficiently without a little help of uninspired cultural opinions and traditions!

What about studying it in light of a consistent Biblical use for the minimum number to bear witness to anything? What about studying it in the context where it requires "two or three" to witness a church problem (Mt. 18:17). What about studying it in the context where the term "ekklesia" or "congregation" cannot possibly exist apart from at least "two" or more!

Your neo-gnostic view of scriptures is nothing but humanism warmed over.

Ask yourself what difference does that make in regard to inspiration of Genesis? NOTHING! If God wanted future generations to have an authoratative basis for anything else that occurred between Adam and Moses he would have provided it in the scriptures. Everything else is hearsay, traditions that God passed over as NON-ESSENTIAL to faith and practice.

No, that is exactly what you are teaching!

I could care less about any "book" you might recommend for reading. If you cannot provide the BASIS for the conclusions of that book then it is not worth my time reading. If the BASIS for the conclusions of that book are Non-Biblical then it is mere uninspired HUMAN OPINIONS and thus based upon traditions of men.

 

The Biblicist , here is the answer from Catholic Answers,
It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.