The Problem with Oral Traditions

So how does that prove a necessity for oral tradition? They were eye witnesses of what they saw and heard:

1 Jn. 4:1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

They did not write from hearsay, or oral traditions but from their own eyewitness experience when it pleased God to move them to write. Between the time of their experience and the time they put it into writing they orally conveyed to the limited audiances in limited geographical circumstances what they experienced. However, there is no promise that their hearers would preserve their oral testimony by any oral tradition. The only promise is that they would convey their experience to orally to those who were their immediate audiance. Writing was "more sure" and designed for a larger audiance for a longer time.

The Prophets were given their revelation directly from God (Heb. 1:1a) not from oral tradition! The use of source materials was directly under the leadership of the Spirit of God.

Jesus gives revelation directly to His apostles through the Spirit of Christ not from oral tradition (Heb. 1:1b; Jn. 16:13; 17:17-21).

Other New Testament writers (Luke, James, Jude) wrote from first hand experience with eyewitnesses, or under the direction of the apostles.

Oral tradition does not provide ANYTHING in the production of scriptures UNLESS the Holy Spirit is pleased to place that on the mind of the writers of scripture.

 

Still, what do you do with the fact that Peter, a Jew completely repudiates your theory that memory is "more sure" than scripture? What do you do with the fact that Peter, a Jew writing by inspiration says written scriptures are "MORE SURE" than oral apostolic teaching????

 

First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. I will post that argument in my next post.

 

Newman’s argument


He wrote: "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.

 

Newman is not only wrong but contradicting the very terms Paul uses in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to state the very contrary to Newman's biased and unscholarly opinion that is not based upon proper exegesis.

1. The words "throughly furnished" - demands sufficiency
2. The word "perfect" (lit. complete) - demands sufficiency
3. The word "all" good works - demands sufficiency

When all three are considered together it makes Newman's personal opinion absurd and rediculous.

BTW when you are poved wrong each time, you simply dismiss the evidence and jump to another argument. This shows complete insincerity and in fact dishonesty in partaking in any discussion in any serious manner.

 

The Biblicist, yep, I can understand now why you're a Protestant.With answers as you give it is easy to see that you are a blatant foe of Christ's Church of Matt.16:15-19 . Jesus said "my church" then. He did not invent any Protestant Baptist church or other non-or denominational Protestant churches. The Catholic Church isn't a denomination ,as are all of your Protestant churches, because the Catholic Church never did splinter from another church. Your particular Baptist church and all 30 fractured groups are all different churches that originally split from one another continuously from the time it split from Christ's One Holy [ because it's from Christ ] Catholic [ because it is World Wide/Universal] and Apostolic [ because it is formed on the Apostles ] Church . Your Baptist church is formed on a guy named John Smyth or something like that name ,the century was the 16th century not the first century at Pentecost with the infusion of the Holy Spirit into''only" Christ's Apostles alone, they were the only people in the upper room ,the rest [120] were down below in the close proximity, but never with them as to receive the Holy Spirit.
Much more later on refuting your writings from my source which comes down to us from "teachers with authority'' as prescribed by Jesus because it all "Truth" stems from that One True "Teacher with Authority" . Only One Church has that God-giving Apostolic Authority and it surely isn't your church. You people can't even come close to IT, why ,you can't even produce one Bible verse in support of your latter day churches .

 

My point is that before it was written it was passed down orally.

I am sure that if you taught it 8 hours each day you have retained every word. Go back and study how students learned from the rabbis. They memorized. My point has been all along that before the word was written there was the word from God that was [passed down and later recorded in writing.

There are textual variants and copyist errors in the manuscripts too. They are written.

Luke certainly said that in Acts about what he compiled. The truth is that we really do not know but I am not sure that matters all that much.

 

Again, you are real good at blowing smoke (making unfounded accusations) but you simply ignore the evidences placed in front of you. You simply jump to another accusation or another argument when your previous arguments have been thoroughly repudiated by Bibical facts. Does not that bother you at all?

When your arguments are exposed as false rationalizations does not that invalidate the kind of claims you make below??? If you cannot respond intelligently to evidences that deny your arguments have any valid basis, does not that bother you at all? This is a discussion forum!

 

Oral Tradition preceded Peter by at least a few thousand years. Ask yourself the following questions: 1) When was creation?, 2) When did Moses exist? 3) When did Abraham exist? 4) When was the Torah written? 5) When did writing come into being?

None of those have anything to do with "Apostolic Tradition" but they are a part of Oral Tradition.

 

Pay close attention to the verse you are refering to in John 16:12-15

At no point in this discourse does Jesus indicate that the Holy Spirit will guide the Apostles by giving them a book. But that the Holy Spirit will guide the Apostles themselves and not to write a book but to remember and to teach. Lets look contextually at this passage in John. This verse follows other verses where Jesus is saying

Then look what Jesus says about the advocate our Paraclete

again the Holy Spirit will do these things but no mention of a book creation rather an Apostolic teaching which as we know was originally passed on orally and some of it written down later.

Yes. But 20 to 50 years after Jesus Christ. The first generation Christians had only Oral teachings of the Apostles who used the OT text to assist in their expression of verasity of their testamony. The first Generation Chrisitans did not have the NT at all. They had the Apostles.

We summize this is true but in fact have no evidence for certain like the book of Hebrews. Jude was questioned for some time.

NO!!!! Not because they wrote a book but because they bore witness to the things they themselves had seen and heard. They were taught orally by Jesus and they taught the first generation christians orally as well.

Not until 40-50 years After Christ and so have had been following the teachings of the Apostles which the letters supplemented. And note we see historically not all current books or letters were accepted by all churches and other letters by non apostles were used on equal stature of scriptures such as first Clement or the Sheperd.

I agree.

No. Sorry this sounds too much like Joseph Smith or Muhammad. The Holys Spirit did not author a book then handed it to the people. No he inspired the people to write within the context of their period. Much like a conductor conducts and orchestrates the orchestra. And pieces of it later became revealed to the people as having been inspired. The exception to this is Torah but specifically the Law in Torah. Moses (as tradition would have it) Wrote the Torah and handed it on. But every other piece came over a period of time. Thus from begining to end the Bible was written over a period of 1,300 years by 40 different authors in varying time periods and languages through out that history. Thus the Holy Spirit bore witness to the inspired works over time and didn't hand a volume in a golden tablet.

Yes... But

is false because you cannot find a list of canon books in scripture. If you only accepted the books mentioned in scripture our bible would be smaller than it is. The Holy Spirit did not give a list which hold the table of Contents for the bible. Thus an extra biblical device is in operation revealing the inspiration of the books. And since this is so scripture cannot be self authenticating. And if one were to say like John Calvin

in which he is basically saying 1) the church does not give authority to the Scriptures because God inspired them and 2) a christian can know the canon from the Holy Spirit's testamony within themselves and that it is as easily as seeing white is from black. To answer these points I say 1) the Catholic Church has never contested the first point, it recognizes authority comes from God by his inspiration of them Just as Apostolic teaching authority comes from God As well. It is a strawman argument then. The Catholic Church teaches that she received the scriptures from God by his guidance in discerning which books He had inspired and which he had not. To the second point I say 2) Calvin by replacing the belief that God guided the church in selecting canon to the belief that you or I are being guided in selecting canon, he provides for no principled reason to answer the differences in our choice as to what that should be. Its rather impractical because each person then chooses what their own canon is based on a feeling of authentication. How about new christians unable to decern completely the masters voice. Would he allow them to be lead astray? Or what of our own anxieties like Luther who wanted to throw out four books of the NT? And at what point would a christian be considered to determine canon. What if two disagreed? Whose inner judgment would be considered correct?

Whole volume could as easily be a set of scrolls regulairly used rather than book format. Codex appeared later in history that the first 100 years. Certainly as in any community setting and liturgical practice as was common among the Jews and early Christians divergence from well remembered passages would be immediately noticed.

 

Biblicist, you are always refuting all areas of intelligent truth as per Holy Bible. As a Bible believer, I've given you ample evidence that has been proven from competant historical data, proving the methods of "preaching' as being Oral Teachings within the method being called the "Apostolic Teaching method", as attested by millions of witnesses from those etchings found on the Catacombs to the legitimate writings of many numerous early period Christians. You would rather not accept the truth from them but approve and preach the words of a Johny- come- lately circus of man-made charlatans all of which preach a different gospel, not only different from the original Gospel but different from each other. With every one of them proclaming their interpretation as the correct interpretation. Nothing but man-made confusion, Jesus never was the Founder of a confused Church. He was only the Founder of a Church whose teachings were divine but whose members were not divine but still as sinners. Jesus never promised a Church with perfect members, He only promised us a Church formed on the Apostles and that He would protect that One Apostolic Church from a complete apostasy from His Teachings but not from your teachings that you've learned as a Protestant, hence the confused myriad of different eisegesis theologies that one finds in your Baptist/ Protestant churches. For as an example; if it was your particular Baptist church that was the "One" True Church that Jesus had formed it would look like that One True Apostolic Church found in these verses Romans 16: 17-18 that contains" the True Doctrine" already given "then "including but not inclusive of Luke 10:16. As found only in Apostolic Teaching without the dissensions [ 1 Cor. 1:10 ].Not as that found in a human -like menagerie with an over populated curator/ pastoral controllers administering as many diverse commands to their individual flocks, different from the same "doctrine as in One unity of Doctrine as followed by Church members found in the early real Orthodox Christian Church of the Apostles [ above verses ] . One flock One Shepherd , that is what we find in God's Son's One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

If so, then why are you forced to jump and run every time? So much for your "intelligent truth as per Holy Bible."

 

The Biblicist ,you asked for it now believe it. It is part of your sola Scriptura, SO WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE THE HOLY BIBLE ??

The Word of God is Transferred Orally
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.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

 

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.

 

The Biblicist, maybe you and your Protestant ilk don't believe in "Oral Tradition" .So here are some 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 17:1-16 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.

 

These scriptures have been answered over and over and your interpretation of them has been disproven over and over! You never deal with the evidence that proves your interpretations of these texts are wrong!!! You simply ignore the evidence like an ostrich with its head in the ground and then repeat them like a dead parrot and then jump like a jackrabbit from one text to another.

For example you have never been able to respond to:

Newman is not only wrong but contradicting the very terms Paul uses in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to state the very contrary to Newman's biased and unscholarly opinion that is not based upon proper exegesis.

1. The words "throughly furnished" - demands sufficiency
2. The word "perfect" (lit. complete) - demands sufficiency
3. The word "all" good works - demands sufficiency

When all three are considered together it makes Newman's personal opinion absurd and rediculous.

Or to Peters assertion that written scriptures are "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral teaching and memory of uninspired fallible humans - 2 Pet. 1:15-19.

 

The Biblicist, it just proves that you repel the Word of God as found in the above list of verses in my post#115 ,you even deny those verses that tell you that Jesus and His Apostles believed in Oral Traditional Teaching . What a hoot of a statement you make for one proclaiming to be a Bible Alone advocate.

 

On the contrary, John 17:17-20 clearly states that future generations of beleivers would be brought to salvation by "THROUGH YOUR WORD" which he introduces in verse 17 as "THY WORD".

He did not say "THROUGH THEIR DISCIPLES MEMORY OF THEIR WORD" but rather that "THROUGH YOUR WORD."

He did not promise that their FOLLOWERS WOULD REMEMBER but "YOU WILL REMEMBER."

Are you suggesting that the Omniscient Christ was ignorant of the completion of the Biblical canon produced directly under Apostolic supervision by the Holy Spirit?????? Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit was ignorant of the completion of the Biblical canon directly by/under the apostles he is addressing in that very room?

The promise is that future generations would be brought to Christ "through their word" not "through others memorizing their words."

So what? When the Holy Spirit was ready he brought to THEIR REMBRANCE what He wanted them to write as EYE WITNESSES (1 Jn. 1:1-3) not by hear say traditions from others!

First generation Christians possessed most of the New Testament before A.D. 70 and I believe 70 years is at the very minimum a generation. They had the apostles and Old Testament scriptures and much of the New Testament Scriptures as Paul wrote ALL of His when the second Epistle of Timothy was finished as in that very epistle he claims his death is imminent.

What do you think 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is all about - Oral teaching PLUS written scriptures already present at the early point of the writing to the Thessalonians.

What do you think 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is all about! They were receiving apostolic writings as scriptures very early and continued to do so or what do you thing 2 Pet. 3:15-17 is all about?

Just because SOME congregations were debating over a very very few books does not mean the vast majority of congregations were!!!

Wow! I didn't actually think you would deny the Holy Spirit is the true author of all scriptures and would work in His congregations that He indwells (1 Cor. 3:16) to confirm (Rom. 8:14,16) His own Word!!!!! Comparing this to Mormonism and Isalmism is more a commentary on yourself than anything else.

No! The Holy Spirit bore witness IMMEDIATELY when the Prophet prophesied orally confirming His Word in the hearts and minds of His people and did the same with His written Word. You cite a very few books disputed by a very few congregations and make that the rule for all the books and all the congregations! No such thing!

You do not need a content list for scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit to be self-authenticated. Their content along with the stamp and seal of the witness of the Spirit self-authenticates them in spite of doubters, in spite of disclaimers, in spite of those who added and subtracted from the "whole volume" delivered unto the congregations before the end of the first century.

The congregations established by the apostles and who were eyewitnesses of the reception of the originals from the Apostles demands they were authenticated within the first century before the death of the final apostle.

No it can't! Tertullian was claiming that this "whole volume" could not be ADDED unto or SUBTRACTED FROM prior to the rise of Marcion right up to his own time of writing. If there were any serious WIDE SPREAD doubt about the very few books that some entertained doubt about then Tertullian could not have made such an air tight argument against heretics.

 

The Biblicist, no to your post. You have just proven your ignorance of Scripture, as St Jerome once penned ; "To be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ "

 

Then why do you have to quote from Catholic websites and cannot quote those verses without consulting others? :smilewinkgrin: