The Problem with Oral Traditions

[gb93433]

I could care less about any "book" you might recommend for reading.

That is obvious.

If you cannot provide the BASIS for the conclusions of that book then it is not worth my time reading.

Do you use a toilet? Provide proof from scripture that a toilet is okay to use. Your reasoning makes about as much sense as that.

Hermeneutics involves anything that sheds light on arriving at the correct interpretation. Biblical documents are historical. History involves anything of the past that is of value in interpreting scripture or any document. That includes the historicity of Jewish cultural thinking.

Rev. says that there were many things Jesus did that are not contained in the Bible. Does that mean nothing else happened just because it is not recorded?

My point is not to encourage you to read any book. It is your choice if you choose to remain as you are.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

This is a lie! What do you think the word "throughly furnished unto all good works" means? Almost sufficient for all good works? When this statement is coupled with the preceding comment by Paul "that the man of God may be PERFECT" or COMPLETE, then what Catholic Answers says is a most manifest lie!

The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15).

This is a lack of common sense! Paul knew that he spoke as a prophet and therefore what he had previously told them was "thus saith the Lord" as much as what he wrote was inspired. However, that does not mean that after his death what he orally taught would be passed down from generation to generation as equal authority with the scriptures!! Both he and Peter in view of their death directed their readers not to their oral testimony as authortative in the future after their death but to the scriptures (2 Pet. 1:15-19) as "more sure" and what they were to "take heed unto" as it was "inspired" for the complete and thorough basis for doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

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:

Why does he not mention "the traditions" with those scriptures in verse 15?????? Because the traditions were not authoritative. The whole Old Testament was completed and available when Timothy was a boy. However, the Jews rejected the Old Testament apocraphy and other traditions as scritpures.

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."

The fact that NO TRADITIONS were included in his list of materials for use to establish doctrine and practice proves Paul did not place traditions on a level with scriptures as final authority for faith and practice! Most of the New Testament was written by this time - all of the Pauline epistles were written with this last epistle before his death and Timothy was at Ephesus and so had the epistle to the Ephesians and all the other prison epistles (Col. 4:17) as well as both pastoral epistles to Timothy.

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!

Notice that Paul did not include his oral teachings that Timothy heard in what he set forth as what would make the man of God "perfect" or complete and throughly furnished or completely furnished for "all" not some good works. He only included the "scriptures" not his oral teaching because Paul did not believe that his oral teaching would be or could be passed down from generation to generation by memory alone in tact.

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).

These scriptures teach no such thing. Any LIVING prophet would say the same thing but that does not mean they are teaching that their oral teachings are designed to be passed down from generation to generation as an authorative guide for faith and practice or for interpreting the scriptures. Indeed, from a practical point of view that is rediculous and full of problems. The fact that those who put in writing what Rome calls the "ECF" could not remember correctly even to write down their traditional beliefs.

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).

These scriptures teach no such thing! Notice Jesus said "HEARS you" not "hears YOUR FOLLOWERS." Jesus is simply talking about those whom the Apostles were sent unto in their own life time as they would be the only ones who actual "hears YOU." All others would have to READ them not "hear" them!

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).

Pure distortion of this text. "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD."

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.

Immediately after Paul defines the scriptures as the source for all faith and practice he then goes on to say "preach THE WORD"! The scriptures are what is to be preached. Peter explicitly tells his readers that the scriptures are "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral traditions (2 Pet. 1:16-19) and it is the prophetic scriptures which are to be read and preached.

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.

Every prophet would say the same thing! However, it is the scriptures alone that determine whether they are faithfully teaching His doctrines (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist, You wrote that it is all lies, it was taken from the Bible, here is more from the Bible.
Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist, You wrote that it is all lies, it was taken from the Bible, here is more from the Bible.

Not a single one of these texts teach that authority for faith and practice is derived from the perpetuation of oral tradition! Not One!

Jesus is the LIVING WORD and full expression of God and therefore any time He speaks it is "thus saith the Lord." But Jesus never promised that his ORAL teaching would be preserved ORALLY through the memory of hearers until the end of the world! Besides, how do YOU know what you HEAR someone say is what Jesus actually said when he was on earth???????????

Do we find church counsels convening and asking one another what did someone tell you that Jesus or Paul said about this issue?????????

You certainly have no dependable record from the MEMORY of those who penned the ECF because counsels had to determine what was dependable and what was not?

How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Why even bother with writing scriptures then since MEMORY is 100% accurate and writing is full of errors??? When various Christians within a church and various churches disagreed what happened to the 100% memory????? Was a simply a majority COLLECTIVE MEMORY and if so, then why did it take some many centuries to REMEMBER it in precise words in order to develop Roman Catholic doctrine??????? This position is simply foolish and self-contradictory!

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

This is such a foolish statement it hardly deserves to be answered. They preach the gospel recorded in the scriptures they wrote and preserved to define what they preached. Why do you think 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was even written for?????? If MEMORY is 100% accurate and the Word of God was to be transferred "orally" then why even bother writing scripture since you claim scripture is not even comparably accurate to MEMORY but is full of errors????

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Another foolish argument. Paul clearly tells you that the gospel he preached was "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Paul tells us plainly that he preached no other gospel than what was recorded in the prophets (Acts 26:22-23). Jesus plainly states that the gospel of Christ was according to the scriptures (Lk. 24:24-25; 43-44). We preach the gospel today also but that does not mean we get it from another source than the scriptures!!! What is a gospel that would be different from that which is spelled out in scriptures??? IT IS ACCURSED (Gal. 1:8-9). Why do you suppose Paul told Timothy to "preach THE WORD" immediately after telling him that "all scripture" is given to define exactly what is the Word of God???????

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

You are still perverting this text!!!!! It does not say He who hears YOUR FOLLOWERS!!!! But he who HEARS YOU. Tell me, where you there in the first century to HEAR them speak????

The fundemental error you embrace is that you mistake those who lived in the first century or any other century who actual HEARD the prophet preach with the idea that YOU ARE HEARING them preach! All the texts you quote refer to the audiance that actually HEARD them not to those who did not hear them.

The second fundemental error is that you imagine that the oral teaching of a prophet is designed by God to continue ORALLY through fallible memories of uninspired men, when in fact, God's design is to perpetuate what he wants future generations to know about that prophet and his message THROUGH WRITTEN SCRIPTURES.

 

[lakeside]

Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition
Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.

1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.

1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.

Catholic Answers. com

 

[The Biblicist]

Remember, Paul congratulated the Bereans for being "MORE NOBLE" not because they did not accept ORAL APOSTOLIC TEACHING without first confirming it by the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES!

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Hence, oral tradition was never given to take precedence over the written scriptures but rather must be first submitted and confirmed by the written scriptures (Isa. 8:20).

Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition
Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

The truth is that many of Rome's doctrines are not only very similiar to the traditions of the Pharisees but many are far worse violations of God's Word. Maryolotry, the mass, baptismal regeneration all originate with Babylonian paganism.

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Again, the apostles teachings were from Christ who based his gospel on the scriptures (Lk. 24:24-25; 42-44) and his teachings he consistently supported by the WRITTEN scriptures. The Apostles confirmed the gospel they preached was "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" (1 Cor. 15:4-5; Acts 26:22-23) and were aware they were providing scriptures for the foundation of the Lord's congregations (2 Pet. 3:15-17).

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

The first three hundred years prior to Constantine the early Christians observed Sunday not because of oral traditions but because they repeatedly stated over and over and over and over again the very same reason was that Christ rose from the grave on the first day of the week which is written in the scriptures.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

False! Go back to verse 17 and you will see that it is "Thy Word" the written word he has in view and the prediction that the Holy Spirit would lead them into providing the New Testament scriptures as a fulfillment of Isaiah 8:16-18 confirmed by Hebrews 2:3-4,12-13 and completed by John - Rev. 1:3; 22:18-20.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Until scriptures were provided the oral teaching of the apostles was the only thing Paul could refer them to in regard to New Testament congregational policies and doctrine. However, later as the apostolic scriptures were produced he added to the oral teaching those writings as scriptures (2 Thes. 2:13) and ultimately by the end of his life he was directing preachers to only the scriptures as the complete and final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

So of course all the scriptures you list about his oral teaching was simply TRANSITIONAL until something "MORE SURE" could substitute for them as the latter depending totally upon fallible memory.

1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.

He is not referring to "oral tradition" but to the gospel he preached which was "according to the scriptures."

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

The trouble is that Rome has repudiated what was "entrusted" by false doctrine and practice that the written Word of God explicitly condemns as apostate errors. Paul goes on in the second letter to establish what is final authority to distinguish between false traditions and the true oral traditions:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
1 ¶ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.



Hence, Catholic Answers simply READ INTO (esigesis) these texts what is simply not there.

1. Oral teaching is to be verified by the scriptures - Acts 17:11 and those who do this are "MORE NOBLE" than those who do not.

2. Oral teaching is to be verified by the scriptures because it is weaker than the scriptures as it depends upon fallible uninspired memories.

3. Oral teaching is TRANSITORY in all generations from the first prophet (Moses) to the last prophet (John) but scriptures are "MORE SURE" and the permenant record God has assigned to represent the prophets to future generations in order to establish doctrine and practice.

4. Oral teaching was always consistent with the writings of the prophet and therefore equally applicable to those actually HEARING them. There is no promise in the scriptures that the oral teachings of the prophets would be ORALLY preserved to any who did not HEAR them.

5. If God designed permenant perpetuation of the oral teachings of the prophets by ORAL traditions dependent upon MEMORY then there is absolutely no value in perpetuating written scriptures. The truth is that God's design for scriptures is to perpetuate exactly and only what the Holy Spirit wanted to be preserved for future generations as the sole basis of faith and practice.

 

[Eric B]

"Oral tradition" is being assumed to be a totally separate body of teaching and practice omitted from written scripture or only inferred from certain references. But oral vs written are only two different means of teaching the same body of teachings, not two separate canons, basically. (The rabbinic Jews take it that wasy as well, and that was the source of all the restrictions they had added to the sabbath and other lws. It's not scriptural, but they too appeal to a separate "Mosaic" body of "oral tradition" that is "just as authoritative".

Proof of this is that right in, 2 Thess. 3:6, we see one of the "traditions" being referred to: "keep away from any brother who is living in idleness"; where "living in idleness" is what is contrasted with "the traditions". It has nothing to do with any elaborate doctrines or practices that cannot be found elsewhere in scripture, by principle at least, if nothing else.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you Eric! I was trying to say the very same thing but just could not get it out as clear and concise as you have.

It is the same body of teaching but each has a different purpose. Anyone who has done any writing knows that writing requires much more concentrated and refined thought processes and specificity than speaking. The oral teaching temporarily served the IMMEDIATE audiance of the prophet prior to the production of prophetic scriptures. The scriptures serve a much wider audiance and for a much longer period of time.

It was natural for the oral teachings to exist within the framework of the prophets physical ministry but it is his written prophetic ministry that is designed to endure the ages to all audiances into the future. Hence, the oral teaching is merely a TRANSITION to the written scriptures.

That is precisely why Peter compared his oral traditions to prophetic scriptures and WROTE tellin his audiance to "take heed" unto the written scriptures as they were "MORE SURE" than the oral teachings (2 Pet. 1:16-19).

"Oral tradition" is being assumed to be a totally separate body of teaching and practice omitted from written scripture or only inferred from certain references. But oral vs written are only two different means of teaching the same body of teachings, not two separate canons, basically. (The rabbinic Jews take it that wasy as well, and that was the source of all the restrictions they had added to the sabbath and other lws. It's not scriptural, but they too appeal to a separate "Mosaic" body of "oral tradition" that is "just as authoritative".

Proof of this is that right in, 2 Thess. 3:6, we see one of the "traditions" being referred to: "keep away from any brother who is living in idleness"; where "living in idleness" is what is contrasted with "the traditions". It has nothing to do with any elaborate doctrines or practices that cannot be found elsewhere in scripture, by principle at least, if nothing else.

 

[lakeside]

Eric and The Biblicist, you Baptist as all Protestants must admit [ from Gen. to Rev.] that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). I will get back later on explaing your last posts.... i will give evidence where Jesus and the apostles had to depend on oral tradition.

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist & Eric, please explain then these examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, here is an explanation to your previous verses and passages-

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.

 

[lakeside]

And here ,about the real scoop on the Bereans

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, thanks for the response Lakeside, but your response does not even deal with the real problem for you in this text. The problem for you is not in the word "profitable" isolated by itself, but in its connection with the word "throughly furnished" (Gr. exartizo) in connection with the term "perfect" [Gr. telios] and the word "all" good works.

You see it is not merely "useful" for doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof but its usefulness is further defined because it brings the man of God to COMPLETENESS (telios) so that he is "THROUGHLY furnished" or LACKING NOTHING (whoops crash goes tradition) in regard to "ALL" (oopse crash goes need for tradition) good works.

You and Catholic answers have this crazy and weird idea that exegesis consists in attacking one word at a time, isolating it from the rest of the text! That is called EISGESIS not exegesis. Eisgesis is reading into the text your own ideas rather than giving an honest expression to what Paul wrote into the text.

So you can isolate one word and attack it and then jump to another word and attack it but I am going to let you into a little secret that you simply don't understand. The Holy Spirit chose to put all these words together in the same two verses and they compliment each other rather than oppose each other.

Catholic answers and you need to go back to school and learn what it means to exegete a text!

Biblicist, here is an explanation to your previous verses and passages-

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.

The Biblical writers do not use the term "scripture" for anything not inspired by God. Also the singular "scripture" is like the singular "sheep" or "man" which are grammatically singular but at the same time comprehensive of "all" included under that nomenclature. In other words, the KJV got it right "all scripture."

So your argument is baseless! Paul is not talking about every single "passage" of Scripture but all that is scripture.

Furthermore, the term gaphe is used of Paul's writings by Peter (2 Pet. 3:16) and so again you sources are wrong that graphe here could not include New Testament scriptures.

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, so far you've been doing nothing but blowing smoke.
Post 70 proves everything that you wrote on this thread as being S0ooo wrong , Jesus and the apostles had to depend on Oral Traditional Teaching, sorry, you've struck out again . No matter what you write in defence of your sola scriptura is proven wrong, i'm not interested in reading any more of your man-made Protestant eisegesis taken from a crap-shoot of which one of the Protestants's 30,000 +interpretations is correct , when "all" are wrong. There is only One True Interpretation and that One Interpretation was infused into Christ's only True Christian Apostolic Church at Pentecost 1st century ,not to any Protestant Baptist , Methodist, Anglican, Jehovah Witnesses , Mormon. Lutheran or any other man-made Protestant church nor was it given to any of your KJV off- shoot cults. God bless and Good-night.

 

[DHK]

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.

Does that make a difference. Jesus refers to the torah as the Books of Moses. He identifies Moses as the author. Would you call Christ, the son of God, a liar? Moses wrote the first five books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He didn't have to be there. He was on the Mount for 40 days and 40 nights--twice! God gave him the law and much more than the law.

There also is good evidence if you study the Bible that from Adam onward an accurate record of events were kept and passed on from generation to generation. Moses had these documents at hand and simply edited them--all of course under the inspsiration of the Holy Spirit.

One can believe that theory, or simply believe that God gave it to him supernaturally. Either way we have an inspired Bible, and it did not come from oral tradition. It came from written records.

 

[DHK]

The Biblicist , here is the answer from Catholic Answers,

This is a problem you have. We can all go to Catholic websites. There is an abundance of them. Why don't you just participate in the converation yourself?

 

[DHK]

Eric and The Biblicist, you Baptist as all Protestants must admit [ from Gen. to Rev.] that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). I will get back later on explaing your last posts.... i will give evidence where Jesus and the apostles had to depend on oral tradition.

So instead of looking at historical and Biblical principles of why we have the books we have you simply look into biased Catholic sources. Why not simply use the Book of Mormon instead. Isn't it relable enough, or just as reliable as the RCC. I would think so.

 

[lakeside]

Face the truth DHK, you Protestants have to fabricate a bunch of twisted interpretations to meet your myriad consisting of the many thousands of man-made theologies and of course not one of them having any authority from God ,which can be proven from the Holy Bible, because no where from the Bible can any of you Protestants show one verses that Jesus intended a church different from His Apostolic Church ,not one. That in it's self tells me that I must seek an Apostolic Church that was around from the first century , and that One Apostolic Church can only be the Catholic Church. No way have any of you protesting Protestants ever been able to even come close to any evidence of a church that Jesus formed that looks like any Protestant church. You Protestants will not even accept the One proper interpretation as all of the millions of early Christians followed, even the first Protestants claim much from that only "One "interpretation , but as time continued they too left it behind, because of the Catholic bigotry.The kings of the world certainly control their subjects.

 

[The Biblicist]

Face the truth DHK, you Protestants have to fabricate a bunch of twisted interpretations to meet your myriad consisting of the many thousands of man-made theologies and of course not one of them having any authority from God ,which can be proven from the Holy Bible, because no where from the Bible can any of you Protestants show one verses that Jesus intended a church different from His Apostolic Church ,not one. That in it's self tells me that I must seek an Apostolic Church that was around from the first century , and that One Apostolic Church can only be the Catholic Church. No way have any of you protesting Protestants ever been able to even come close to any evidence of a church that Jesus formed that looks like any Protestant church. You Protestants will not even accept the One proper interpretation as all of the millions of early Christians followed, even the first Protestants claim much from that only "One "interpretation , but as time continued they too left it behind, because of the Catholic bigotry.The kings of the world certainly control their subjects.

You seemingly cannot respond to anything. You can insult. You can quote Catholic Answers. However you cannot intelligently carry on any kind of rational dialogue or respond to pointed problems placed in your lap! You remind of persons caught up in a cult who simply act like a parrot for the cult. How about some real dialogue???

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So instead of looking at historical and Biblical principles of why we have the books we have you simply look into biased Catholic sources. Why not simply use the Book of Mormon instead. Isn't it relable enough, or just as reliable as the RCC. I would think so.

The point is well made DHK that the bible didn't come with a contents page. If you look to scripture to authenticate scripture you end up with a smaller bible than we currently have both in the Old Testaments and the New Testaments. Which means that an authority out side the source text of the bible itself decided which books were inspired and which were not. You can list what litmus test determines which books are scripture but must accept that the litmus test itself is derived extra-biblical. So then the question becomes whom are you relying on for your Litmus test and why do they have a greater authority than someone else which means the last question you posed also applies to yourself. Why not simply use the book of Mormon? Why not settle with just Maricion's canon? Their litmus test must be just as reliable as another.