The Problem with Oral Traditions

First you are only going by your opinion.
Second you are contradicting the Word of God.
Third, you are contradicting history.
Fourth, you are contradicting evidence already at hand--over 5,000 extant MSS. Those are extant, meaning there were many more.

For internal evidence, consider that God commanded Jeremiah to write all the words that I command you. He did as was commanded, and gave them to the king. The king threw the scroll into the fire. Jeremiah was commanded to write the words again. By inspiration he wrote again what was in the scroll, but this time addes many more words. He wrote what God commanded him to write: "all the words that I have commanaded you." He wrote them twice.

"Write ye in the book of the law" is a phrase found in the OT.
Peter refers to the Scripture that Paul had written; not oral tradition.
They wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Scripture is written.
The words are those words that are written and it is those written words that are written on the original MSS which are the very inspired words of God and none other. This is not oral tradition. Those words were made available to the people as they were written.

Not any that would make a difference in doctrine.

The fact that matters is that his original MSS was inspired. Up until he wrote and even longer, eye-witnesses were stil alive, and plenty of them. Why would there be any need of oral tradition?

 

Biblicist, you jumped context. This is not a good practice. I reviewed the passage to which you yourself referred in John 16. Taking a look at that discussion we find that I am indeed correct. In order to contradict me you jump to an entirely different conversation going in an entirely different direction and try to say its in the same context which of course it is not. We can both jump all over the bible and find verses and pieces of verses to support our position but if its not contextual its not accurate. And by jumping to Chapter 17 verse 17 you jumped context. And even in that prayer to the Father Jesus is making you miss identify what word he's speaking of. Look at that prayer again in its context. Lets go back to verse 14 through 18

You and I agree Jesus did not write scripture but taught his disciples Orally. Thus this word he gave to the disciples is two fold. His oral teachings which his Apostles passed on and that Jesus Christ himself is the word and is the truth and the sanctification. Therefore, in the context of this passage. And in the context of this prayer Jesus is not referrencing a "bible" but his teaching to his disciples which was passed on orally and to which the Apostle provided testimony to.

You, like Calvin before you have set up a false delemma. I never said "your followers would remember". I did say the Apostles would remember and pass this teaching on orally to their disciples. You are creating an argument I never suggested.

How do you even make that falicious logical jump from?

The fact is that no where in that passage can it be construed that Jesus gave the Apostles a book or that the Holy Spirit gave them a book. It is clear from the passage that a book isn't even what is being considered. You must then, in order to come to your conclusion, read into that passage your already supposed position from your tradition of belief rather than taking the passage at its own voice. Which is an extra-biblical exercise. Which you claim not to do being Sola Scriptura. You reveal your predudicial reading of that passage.

Get it right, through Apostolic testimony.

The words that Jesus gave orally to the Apostles and which the Apostles taught orally to their disciples. Jesus doesn't say "for I gave them the bible and scriptures." No. He gave him his own words spoken not writen. Now when Jesus lifts up the Apostles' followers, look at what he says

Their message is their testimony orally given for remember the first pages of the NT didn't come about for another 20+ years. Thus their message is their eyewitness accounts of all Jesus said and did. God did not hand them tablets of gold.

Clearly the passage you use to support you acctually supports me.

all of this is oral teaching not done through a book. This has nothing to do with your so called Traditions of others as it does with "Apostolic Teaching" Oral teaching. No book is discussed again because the original profession of the Gospel was oral under Apostolic teaching.

 

cont.

I thought you were a biblicist. The common generational age throughout the scriptures is 40 years. Which is why a lot of rapture enthusiast were excited about 1988. The first generational period after the founding of the Modern State of Israel. Supposidly with in that first generation, 40 years, Jesus partial second advent should have occured. It didn't of course but I remember the hype. And even if I were to take you at your word that would mean the first generation still missed out on the written text which means it was available only to the 2nd generation. Yet biblically it was closer to the third generation of Christians. No book for 1 to 2 generations at the very begining. If God wanted Christians to be just a people of the book, Jesus would have writen the text himself and pass it on to the Apostles who would have copied it and spread it around. However, we see this is not how God operated. Instead he trusted his gospels to the oral presentation of his Apostles being lead by the Holy Spirit.

Again, like Calvin, you set up a false delemma. I'm not suggesting scriptures do not play apart. I am suggesting that scriptures work hand in hand with Apostolic teaching all of which is not presented in scripture. Most yes. What is reserved from scriptures are how the scriptures are to be viewed in light of what Apostolic Teaching. Thus you need both the oral teaching of the Apostles and the scriptures for a full understanding as the Catholic Church says.

Exactly as I have said and quoted from the Catachism. Both Oral teaching of the apostles and their writen words are necissary.

You should read more history many churches were involved in the debate as were whole regions.

That isn't what I was saying and you know it. I am saying that you were trying to insinuate that the bible was already a writen text and handed down to the apostles complete and whole when you said

to which I replied that is a claim Joseph Smith or Muhammad would make. I at no time indicated that the Holy Spirit didn't author scripture. Certainly the Holy Spirit authored scripture and I have explained it in the same post

So you false accuse me of suggesting the Holy Spirit did not author the scriptures

See you don't seem to understand that the text of the bible was not as you say, "IMMEDIATELY", provided to the people it came over time.

You are not following the logic of Sola Scriptura. In order for books to be authenticated then scriptures must recognize each book which is scripture or it is not self authenticated.

 

I did not jump context but simply brought in the overall context within the same time and place and discussion. Chapter 17 is simply the conclusion of that discussion not a new discussion.

Yes, we agree that Jesus orally taught his disciples but in doing so it was in connection with the Old Testament Scriptures as the oral instruction of Christ referenced the scriptures continually throughout his ministry. He supported His teaching by scriptures and did it consistently. The Apostles in their oral teaching did the very same thing - include scriptures.

Perhaps Calvin understood the developmental Catholic argument very well and knew that the next logical leg in the development of the Catholic argument was to argue that the oral teaching was designed by Christ and the Apostles to be passed down by Oral transmission through their disciples???? Hence, he cut them off at the pass just as I did you. The only audiance for the oral transmission of Christ were his immeidate audiances. The purpose for selecting hand picked apostles were for them (not the general listening audiances) to pass down his oral teaching to the congregations. There is no promise or teaching that the audiance receiving/hearing their oral teaching would be the Divine medium for preserving in tact an APOSTOLIC TRADITION to be handed down by their disciples from one generation to the next.

This is why I went to John 17:17-20 to show that Jesus promised that future disciples in future generations would be converted through "YOUR WORD" not through "YOUR DISCIPLES MEMORY OF YOUR WORD." Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring what he taught them back to THEIR MEMORY not the memory of their disciples.

Here is where you cannot see the forrest because you insist on putting you nose against one tree in the forrest. Here is where overall contextual factors must be recognized and scripture must be interpreted not merely by immediate contextual factors but overall contextual factors.

Jesus specifically knew and understood the Isaiah 7:14-9:6 passage and in specific the Isaiah 8:14-18 passage as he referenced it several times as did the apostles. The apostles realized they were furnishing Bibical canon scriptures (2 Thes. 2:13; 2 Pet. 3:15-17). In this immediate context Jesus is promising that the Holy Spirit would lead them into "ALL TRUTH" and that is through their word future generations would come to know Christ (not through their disciples memory of their word). Peter explicitly denies that Apostolic oral teaching was "more sure" than prophetic scripture. John knew the Isaiah 8:16-18 prophecy as much as did Christ and the other Apostles (Heb. 2:3-4,12-13) and explicitly chose the term "the testimony" (Isa. 8:16; Rev. 1:3) to describe the last apostolic writing and then purposely sealed it (Isa. 8:16; Rev. 22:18-19) citing with Isaiah that the next revelation from God would be Christ from heaven (Isa. 8:18; Rev. 22:20-21). The book of Revelation is by its very nature the natural completion of the Biblical canon as ALL THINGS begun in Genesis are COMPLETED in Revelation and Genesis takes us from the beginning of the present heaven and earth whereas Revelation takes us to the new heavens and earth. You will not, and cannot recognize that all these things are more the mere circumstantial because you have your nose pressed into one tree at a time while refusing to look at that one tree in the context of the forrest around it.

Another classic nose in a tree conclusion. Do you actually think that the completion of the Biblical canon was not inclusive in this promise of "all things" ("some things") by the omniscient Christ but was a mere after thought???? Do you think the Holy Spirit led them to write scriptures as a mere after thought???? Hence, do you believe there is really no completion of the Biblical canon of scriptures ever intended by God but his is purely manufactured by legislative authority of the Roman Catholic Church?????? The only way you can maintain such a narrow focus is to stick your nose in one tree at a time and refuse to see that tree in its overall FORREST context.

 

The Biblicist, I can refute your Bible verses and passages but you do not believe in the whole Bible, you just "cherry pick ' those verses that fit your erroneous interpretation, you've never have been taught the one correct interpretation as taught by Jesus to His disciples. Another big problem that you are having is thinking that Scripture is self-authenticating, which is what you are assuming. If it was self-authenticating, then the canon of Scripture would have been settled right away. The fact is, the Church debated it for four centuries. Why? Because it is not self-authenticating. Even after the Pope back then, determined the canon, some in the Church questioned it. The Council of Trent put this to bed by elevating the Church's teaching on the canon to a dogmatic teaching. This is a teaching that you accept Biblicist, and it was rendered by the Catholic Church.

 

Yes you did. John 16's contextual discussion is Jesus to his Disciples

John 17 Is Jesus discussion with the Father in prayer

Contexts were jumped.

Yes but no where did they use scriptures alone. Scriptures were used to make a point or provide support. It wasn't used solitarily.

Neither he nor you have cut the pass to anything. In order to apply his theology he must come up with a false delemma in order to provide his point for a self authenticating bible. He must ignore Paul where he told Timothy

showing the oral teachings given to him as well as the scriptures

Both in scriptures are claimed here to Timothy not the one to the exclusion of the other. And Calvin and you ignore history. The NT at earliest could be provided for in 70 AD. So the first Generation of christians were ignored by God? I think not. Jesus established his Apostles by his Holy Spirit to proclaim the truth long before it was written.

Oh? And Peter gave the Gideons out on the Temple Mount in Acts 2? Clearly audiences all throughout Jesus ministry and most of the Apostolic Minsitry had only their word of testimony.

Uh...Lets read the great commission

That is exactly what Jesus is saying here. Note no mention of bible here to pass on one generation to another. Or how about John 20

It is clear Jesus is entrusting His disciples to teach the gospel and is relying on the Holy Spirit to maintain this teaching until the end of the age. Again no mention of a book.

Yeah? lets read that passage again

Jesus is praying for the disciples to be sanctified through Gods word not their followers. The apostles followers are mentioned later but about "your word look at what Jesus said earlier in verse 6

So the word he's talking about is his verbal word spoken to the disciples. Again this verse does not back you up but shows Jesus putting the Apostles to the task of proclaiming and not relying on a book. What cause the consistent oral teaching for all following believers is the Holy Spirit.

if what you are saying is true then I see an Oak Tree and your telling me its a pine forest. Overall context is fine but doesn't shatter the immediate context. Or easily changes the meaning of the immediate context. The immediate context meaning stays the same and supports the overall context but like you trying to tell me an Oak forest is really a Pine forest when all I see is an Oak trees is wrong.

What does that have to do with our discussion. Yes Jesus showed that the OT referred to him and his ministry. So. The OT prefigures Jesus in many ways and prophesied his first advent. So? Nothing mentioned in those two passages have anything to do with the topic.

You again are reading things into passages

Logical falacy "other" doesn't necessitate Paul's leters are scripture. Just that his letters are being treated like other scripture. Because

Which people misuse to show their view.
And in this passage it isnt Clear how Peter viewed his own letters. However you miss this aspect of the quote which is telling

Reminders of what? What they had been oraly taught by Peter. Not from a completed NT.

 

Both he and I believe the whole Bible--all 66 books. That is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. You, however have gone farther than that. You have added another 13 books to the inspired Scriptures, have another authority that you call Oral Tradition, almost as inspired or authoritative as the Bible itself. The Mormons believe the Bible too, but their secondary authority is the Book of Mormon. Yours is Oral Tradition. Ours is______. Nothing. It is the Bible alone, and no other authority is needed.

As to interpretation, the Bible interprets itself. That is why you get frustrated when either he or I can pull more than one verse from different passages that support the same doctrine. The Bible doesn't contradict itself, nor teach heretical doctrines. It does, of course, put forth the doctrine that Christ taught his disciples very clearly, and that the Apostles taught to the churches as well. As we study the Bible (sola scriptura) we learn these doctrines far better than you do. We don't have to depend on Catholic websites for our information.

What makes you think it wasn't. Do you think that the apostles were not intelligent? Did they lose their brains once they wrote down Scripture and were unable to tell others or teach others the inspired word of God? If you think that the Apostles weren't able to teach others what the inspired books were, and only the Catholics were able to do that, I pity you. You have such a low estimation of the very authors of the Holy Writ.

There were many debates (and there still are), mostly against the prevailing agnostics, and heresies of the day (like RCC).

The Pope had nothing to do with it. People have always questioned it. They questioned the Word of God in OT times. So, what is new?

So, now because of the Council of Trent, there are no more atheists, and no more agnostics. The C of T, but all of that to bed. Good to hear that. Next time I come across an atheist I will tell him that.

 

The prayer was in the presence of His apostles and about His apostles and he prayed in harmony with what he told the apostles. Hence, your point is moot!

No oral traditions were used! What was used was DIRECT INSPIRED VERBAL prophetic Word coupled with INSPIRED SCRIPTURE - but no oral traditions were used as the authorized basis to establish doctrine.

There is no false dilemma! Scripture only promises the Holy Spirit would bring back things to THE APOSTLES MEMORY not the disciples of the apostles. Scripture only promises future generations would be brought to Christ through the word of the APOSTLES not the apostles words through their disciples. Nowhere in scripture does God promise perpetuity of doctrine and practice through the transmission of ORAL TRADITIONS received and passed down on the basis of MEMORY. But to the contrary, Peter directly states that apostolic oral traditions held in memory by their disciples was LESS STABLE than the prophetic scripture. Prophetic Scripture was "MORE SURE" and that is what they should "TAKE HEED UNTO" (2 Pet. 1:15-19).

Again you distort the scriptures completey. It was the scriptures that were used to train Timothy by his mother and grandmother. It was DIRECT INSPIRED prophetic Word by Paul used to teach Timothy. However, the ONLY ALL SUFFICIENT SOURCE for teaching others doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof is NOT ORAL TRADITIONS but "all scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The complete and total sufficiency is communicated by three terms used together in the same two texts:

1. May be "perfect" (telios = complete)
2. "throughly furnished" = (comprehensively furnished)
3. "for ALL good works" = (comprehensive of all "good" works possible)

They had the present INSPIRED PROPHETS SPEAKING, plus inspired scriptures supporting what they spoke (Bereans- Acts 17:17) progressively supply the authorized replacement for ORAL teaching (2 Pet. 1:15-19) that was "MORE SURE" than fallible human memory (2 Pet. 1:15, 1 Cor. 15:2). The oral teachings of Christ and the apostles would be corrupted by fallible memory just as the oral traditions of the prophets had been corrupted by faillible memory in the first century. Peter knew that and told them to "TAKE HEED" to something "MORE SURE" than the memory of oral apostolic teaching (2 Pet. 1:19).

No, he gave out INSPIRED PROPHETIC WORD but he did not give out to his hearers INFALLIBLE MEMORIES of what he said nor did he promise them that their MEMORIES were the sacred depository for transmitting oral teachings from generation to generation. Indeed, he later did the very opposite critiquing their ability to remember oral teachings by commanding them to "take heed" of something "MORE SURE" than their memories of apostolic oral teaching (2 Pet. 1:15-19). He went on to confirm apostolic scriptures as that more sure word (2 Pet. 3:15-17).

They obeyed his command! However, his command was not "teaching them that they would pass down what they were taught by memory to future generations"!!!! No, it is the Scriptures that were designed for that (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and it was their MEMORY that was critized as being dependable for that (2 Pet. 1:15,19) in comparison to the scriptures which were "MORE SURE" than memory.

Just as he promises their followers would be brought to Christ "through your word" not "through your disciples memory of your word."

Of course at that precise moment all there was the oral teaching of Christ given to them to give to others and they did that. However, verse 20 speaks about all future generations of believers that would be brought to Christ through "your word" not through "the memory of your words by your disciples."

Again, you can't see the forrest for the tree you have stuck your nose against. "Through your word" is a statement by the omniscient Christ who would lead Peter to say that fallible memory of apostolic teaching is LESS SURE than their written witness which is "MORE SURE" than apostolic teaching as it is the same in nature that CONTINUED from the Old Testament Prophets to that time when all their oral teaching had been corrupted by fallible human memory.


What does that have to do with our discussion. Yes Jesus showed that the OT referred to him and his ministry. So. The OT prefigures Jesus in many ways and prophesied his first advent. So? Nothing mentioned in those two passages have anything to do with the topic. [/QUOTE]

Isaiah 8:16-18 has everything to do with this discussion because it is the prophetic promise of the completion of the Biblical canon and Jesus was very aware of that promise in regard to his apostles (Heb. 2:3-4,12-13) and the apostles became aware they were providing the completion to the Biblical canon (2 Thes. 2:13; 2 Pet. 3:15-17; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19). This is the demise of your whole theory and this is the forest you cannot see because your nose is glued to either an oak or pine tree.

 

NO! As I have shown Jesus discussion with his Apostles was so that they would not loose faith. Jesus' prayer for his disciples was to provide protection and to cause unity. Two different topics all together.

Funny Direct inspired Verbal proclamations are oral!!!! They weren't in some prophetic trance!!!! The Apostles Proclaimed what they saw and heard. Note Acts 2

And this certainly is Doctrine given by verbal presentation!!!!! Look Jesus says of the Apostles before being raised to the Father

Nothing about a book! but it is the Apostles that were to be the witnesses.

Absolutely so. for instance

You are repeating what I said and then adding that this promise wasn't for the Apostles disciples. I said Jesus expected to spread the Gospels by his Apostles witness and this witness would be maintained down throughout the ages by his Holy Spirit. Which is why peter encourages people this way when he says

Its because our faith is a living faith.

So now you're saying there were no christians after the first Generation of Christians?

Consider these things:

This is oral no book mentioned.

Note the word is listen not read.

how is the gospel to be spread? Orally.

faith comes from hearing not reading.

Clearly Paul is suggesting oral tradition be heard kept and passed down.

Peter incist on orally reminding them of what he has consistently taught even though they were firmly established. John prefers to speak face to face. Wonder what he taught them orally?

And even in the OT we have Malachi

a lot of oral doctrine being taught and transmitted here.

You again set up a false delemma. By say Peter says that scripture is More Sure doesn't mean that his oral teaching is not in use are to be heard. The clear meaning is that what he teaches orally has already been accepted in the writings of the prophets whom to his audience were a more sure thing. Not that Peter disposed of oral tradition.

 

The only difference is teaching versus prayer but the subject is the same - His apostles.

The issue here is not the term "oral" but the term "direct." Doctrine was not coming from SECONDARY sources of hearsay transmitted by memory but DIRECT from God through the prophet's mouth by the Holy Spirit. It was PROPHETIC utterance by the Spirit not REPEATED utterance by memory of what others had said.

The issue here is not whether PROPHETS spoke the word before they wrote the Word, but whether they merely REPEATED what they were told by other men. There is no promise that PROPHETIC UTTERANCES would be preserved through the MEMORY OF OTHER UNINSPIRED PEOPLE as the source of faith and doctrine. Not on Pentecost or any other time when PROPHETIC UTTERANCE was given direct from God.

Absolutely not! There is no dilemma because there is no promise that the Holy Spirit would bring to remembrance the things that Jesus said to the disciples of the apostles! The promise was to the apostles.

There is no promise by the Holy Spirit or Christ or in the written Word that Christ's doctrine would be preserved and transmitted by MEMORY of fallible uninspired followers of the apostles but rather the promise is that it would be preserved and transmitted "through YOUR WORD" and Peter denies it is the oral testimony being preserved but the "MORE SURE WORD" of prophetic writing (2 Pet. 1:15-19; 3:15-17). That is precisely why Paul limited total sufficiency for future instruction, correction and doctrine to "scriptures" not oral testimony (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

There is no Christians in the first generation who are promised that Apostolic doctrine and practice would be preserved and transmitted through THEIR ORAL TESTIMONY to future generations. None! Zilch! Nada!

Fulfillment of prohetic predictions is neither promised or dependent upon the ability to MEMORIZE the prophetic word or transmit it by uninspired disciples?

Listen to WHO? Not to their followers! This promise is given to the Apostles that the Apostles by the Holy Spirit would be inspired to speak in behalf of God and those who were in the audiance should receive it as such (2 Thes. 2:13). However, this is no promise to those receiving it that they could either MEMORIZE IT infallibly or transmit it infallibly by inspiration to anyone else!!!!

Of course it has pleased God by the foolishness of preach to save those who believe! However, that is not the promise for beleivers to MEMORIZE and TRANSMIT apostolic faith and doctrine to future generations!!!!! That is your problem! You want to confuse preaching the gospel with the whole body of faith and practice or apply the promise given ONLY to apostles and make it applicable to all their disciples. It won't fly!

Nothing wrong with that! We are told to hide the word in our hearts that we might not sin against God! Nothing wrong in that.

However, this is not a promise to perpetuate the Apostolic oral teaching by transmitting it through MEMORY of uninspired disciples to future generations! Sorry, but that bird won't fly!

You can show the Christ orally taught the disciples. You can show the apostles orally taught their disciples - all well and good. However, you cannot show that either Christ or the Apostles received their doctrine from SECONDARY sources as the authority for what they taught! Christ spoke as God and quoted scripture NOT ORAL TRADITION as doctrine and practice. The apostles were taught directly by God (The Son, the Holy Spirit) and quoted scriptures for support NOT ORAL TRADITION as doctrine and practice.

That is not the issue! The oral teaching of the Apostles is for use and repetition among them but that is NO PROMISE that it will be preserved through their uninspired fallible memory as the basis for faith and doctrine to future generations!

 

Oh, boy. Next you'll say its in context because its all in the bible! LOL.

It absolutely is. You've already propose oral traditions did not teach doctrine obviously oral traditions passed down doctrine by those very verses.

All of this has to do with your false delemma. I never said the Holy Spirit would bring to rememberance stuff Jesus said to His Apostles that they had no already heard. You inference that I said that and I said no such thing. I said Jesus fully expected the witness of his apostles to be spread by their witness to others orally. I said the Holy Spirit would maintain that teaching down through the ages which is why I quoted Peter who said to Keep these things he orally taught. He encouraged them Remember what he was saying. Thus you have presented an argument that was never made.

That is called a false delemma. You fight a proposition I never made. My point was that is was the Apostle upon whom God relied the spreading of the Gospel not a book. How does the Holy Spirit maintain the oral traditions as well as the scriptures passed down from the apostles? Through his Church!!!! And we see these things have been kept in the bible, liturgical practices, and the institutions of the Lord.

The Apostles!!! Don't you get it. What the Apostle taught.

IT Flies all the way to heaven!!!! What your problem is; is that you don't think preaching is orally teaching of Tradition! The Apostles kept insisting that their followers remember. Do you think they just did that for their own good health? And the gospel is spread by teaching those things the apostles have handed down to us and kept by the Holy Spirit through the Church. The apostles left the church their oral teachings and written teachings all proclaiming what they witnessed and were taught.

Of course not! But you have a problem with it. Paul is clear the fullness of Apostolic teaching is both in verbal and writen forms.

 

What I stated is that neither Jesus or the apostles received doctrine and practice from ORAL TRADITIONS passed down by uninspired sources existing before them or current with them! They gave doctrine DIRECT from God (The Father, The Son or The Holy Spirit) or inspired scriptures as the sources. ORAL TRADITIONS played absolutely no part!

Likewise, with the Apostles! Their doctrine and practice were received DIRECTLY FROM GOD (The Son, The Holy Spirit) or inspired scriptures as the sources. No use of ORAL TRADITIONS received through uninspired people were their sources for doctrine or pratice.

Likewise, that was the source of authority for their hearers (directly from God through prophetic utterance or scripture).

Likewise that is the source of authority for all who did not actually HEAR either Christ or the Apostles. The direct authority through INSPIRED scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17) as completely sufficient WITHOUT oral traditions or hearsay through uninspired people.

You and the Vatican have manufactured false doctrine based upon circular reasoning! You have presumed without evidence that the Scriptures teach that apostolic doctrine and practice is to be preserved and transmitted by uninspired hearsay and is an authoritative source for doctrine and practice! That is one false point presummed.

The second is that you have falsely presumed that the Biblical command and promises that the hearers of apostolic teaching should receive them as God's Word and therefore teach and pratice such as God's Word is the promise that they are not merely a depository of truth but the same commands and promises are to be falsely interpreted to mean that uninspired disciples are to transmit such apostolic teaching by fallible memory from generation to generation.

So false doctrine is fed by false interpretations of scriptures which in turn confirm false doctrine.

That is not the issue! The issue is that neither Christ or the Holy Spirit or Scriptures promise anywhere the oral words of Christ or the apostles would be brought to the memory of their followers! Thus absolutely no promise of a ORAL TRADITION transmitted through the fallible memories of their followers.

Instead, all the scriptures you use in attempt to support that idea fall into one or more of three possibilities:

1. Directly refer to the Apostles only
2. Directly refer to the responsibility of present hearers to receive as God's inspired words presently being spoken to them rather than any promise to transmitt such words through them to future generations.
3. Directly refer to the scriptures produced by them.

That is exactly what I have denied the Scriptures teach anywhere! There is no promise that the Holy Spirit would preserve an ORAL TRADITION through uninspired memories of their followers!

Again, no such false dilemma exists! The proposition you made and inferr in nearly every response is that Christ or the Holy Spirit or the written Word promises the transmission of APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE orally transmitted through uninspired fallible memories of their disciples! When I point out Jesus never promised that future generations would be saved "through THEIR remembrace of YOUR WORD" but rather "through YOUR word" the point is appliable to the system of interpretation your are attempting to manufacture that indeed does teach "through THEIR remembrance of YOUR Word."

What you don't get is that apostolic preaching is inspired not oral tradition. What you don't get is that preaching the gospel has already been based upon "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" and therefore it is not apostolic traditions or oral traditions but preaching the scriptures and both Jesus and the Apostles had the scriptures to preach the gospel.

What you don't get is that the explanations found in the New Testament SCRIPTURES is not oral tradition but direct product of the Holy Spirit by inspiration.

 

Biblicist Did the apostles write down absolutely everything that Jesus revealed to them ? Did not Jesus trust the apostles , who were eyewitnesses toHis works and words , to pass on the truth? Did the apostles have to wait until the gospels were written before they started to preach?
According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline. It is telling that since the Reformation of almost 500 years ago—a Reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 Protestant denominations. In John 10:16, Jesus prophesied there would be "one flock, one shepherd." Reliance on sola scriptura has not been effective in establishing doctrine or authority.

 

There is no argument between us concerning whether or not the apostles orally communicated to the congregations concerning what was delivered orally to them by Christ. We agree on this. They preached and taught by direct inspiration of the Spirit. Later they wrote by the direct inspiration of the Spirit. We agree on this

Where we disagree is whether Christ, the apostles, the scriptures or the Holy Spirit made any kind of promise that what they orally delivered to their hearers would be preserved and transmitted by their hearers for future generations through fallible uninspired memory of the apostolic tradition.

If you don't understand the distinction above, the I will try to say it another way in a postive form.

God (the Father, Son, Holy Spirit) spoke directly to people through inspired an Christ and the Apostles but he does not speak directly to people through those who heard heard Christ and the apostles. God does not preserve the inspired utterances of Christ and the apostles through the uninspired fallible memories of those who heard them.

 

Biblicist, I understand your logic, but tell me do you think that when Jesus spoke this verses to His Apostles that it meant only for thr first generation of Christians, Luke 10:16,taking into considereation that after Jesus left us it would be another 3 to 4 hundred years before the Bible itself would be compiled with the correct canonical Books, untill that period nobody actually knew which books were canonical.
While Thomas an apostle,went off to India [ without any Scripture ] for an example and converted many without sola Scriptura . Those converts of India certainly never had any written Scriptures until maybe at the earliest circur 16 to 17th century. Surely Thomas ordained a Bishop or two [ " teachers with authority" just as all Apostles were "teachers with authority " as in being taught from the True One "Teacher with Authority " ] and those bishops could only pass on down 'orally " the Gospels, not with sola Scriptura, being that region never received anything written until very late in the centuries. Do you agree or disagree ?

 

As I pointed out by one of your own authorities (Tertullion) the "whole volume" of Apostolic scriptures was completed and among the congregations before 140 AD. Tertullian accuses Marcion of SUBTRACTING from the "whole volume" of New Testament scriptures.

Tertullian denies that the "whole volume" could be ADDED to from before 140 AD unto the time he penned this around 200 AD.

All Apostolic scriptures by NECESSITY were circulating among the congregations BEFORE the death of John as they were ALL written while alive not after they died.

 

Luke 10:16 says "hear YOU" not "hear YOUR DISCIPLES." There is no Biblical promise that God would perpetuate or preserve any kind of APOSTOLIC ORAL TRADITION through any kind of uninspired fallible human memory. However, the very reverse is implied by Peter that they were not to trust their fallible memories but were to "take heed unto" a "MORE SURE WORD" the scriptures.

 

You do err in your thinking. Thomas arrived in India ca. 52, before NT Scripture had been written. He would have had the OT with him, as any good Jew would have. However, Thomas was an eyewitness of the events of Jesus just as much as Peter, James or John. Remember, he bowed down before Jesus after seeing the marks in his hands and side, exclaiming: "My Lord and my God." He knew who the Messiah was, what He did, and why He did it. The gospel was no stranger to Thomas. The teachings of Christ were not strange to Thomas. He was one of the elite--one of the twelve; one of the chosen to see and hear all that Jesus did in those three years. He himself could have written one of those gospels, had God chosen him to do so. But that wasn't God's plan. There was no oral tradition here. Thomas was God's chosen Apostle, and apparently verified it by a couple of miraculous acts while he was there, although that cannot be documented. The gospel was accepted from him by them as the Word of God, not as tradition.

We do not know how soon after Thomas died did others come with the gospel. I expect it would not have been long. Either way they would have had the Old Testament, and the written teachings of Thomas concerning the gospel. It would have been very easy for someone else to go there without much difficulty.

After all, Esther with much expediency was able to get messages out throughout the entire kingdom of Ahasuerus which stretched from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces in all. If she could do it back then, I am sure that someone 450 years later could.

 

The Biblicist and DHK, you are both wrong.And you both should know better. Any "Christian" person that hears the Word of God preached to them needs both the OT and NT" together" which gives us the completed Holy Bible.
That Holy Bible along with Sacred Apostolic Traditional Teaching are needed ,[i.e. later after the Cononization of completed Holy Bible that is ] both are needed for the "Fullness of the Christian Faith ".
In the case of Thomas , he had some OT passages but no Holy Bible [ no sola Scriptura ] but what He did have was the absolute total "Fullness of the Christian Faith " as "Taught and Approved" by Jesus. You both are missing the point of Jesus not appearing with a completed Holy Bible , have you ever wondered why Jesu/God waited so long before the comleted Holy Bible was revealed/ compiled and given to man-kind ? Please give me your thoughts on that question.

 

The time period between Christ and when it was written is a time of when things were passed down orally and that method is commonly referred to as Oral Tradition not the traditions of men.