The Problem with Oral Traditions

That is fine! However, it is quite another thing to prove that such oral teaching was ever orally tansmitted to future generations by fallible uninspired men, or that scriptures teach that it would be or that scriptures approve it as the authorized source for teaching future generations!

 

Remember what Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!"

 

Yes, I remember that statement! So, what is your point?

Is this all you can give as a response to my last post? If you had any truth you could demonstrate from scripture that the Oral Tradition is to be transmitted by uninspired fallible memory of their disciples! But you cannot!

 

"However, it is quite another thing to prove that such oral teaching was ever orally transmitted to future generations by fallible uninspired men" from post 141

 

So........? Are you saying you see a contradiction between the words you quote in post #141 to the words I said in my last post????????

Again, what is your point here and with what Christ said to Peter?

 

Is a man whom Jesus called Satan uninspired and fallible or not? God used men who were not prefect. The scriptures were written by man and God breathed. They were not inspired by man.

 

No man is inspired. Inspiration has to do with what is written not the person of the writer. "All SCRIPTURES are given by inspiration" not "All WRITERS are given by inspiration" It is the scriptures that are inspired (God breathed) not the writer. The writer is "moved" by the Holy Spirit to write but it is what is written that is inspired by God.

There is Divine promise that the Holy Spirit would bring back to the memory of the apostle what they had heard, but there is no promise that the Holy Spirit would bring back to the memory of their disciples what they heard from the apostles.

Hence, there is no promise that God would inspire MEMORIES of their disciples to recall, preserve and transmitt orally Apostolic tradition.

In regard to Peter, he did not speak or write inspired utterance under the leadership of Satan.

 

Did you not read what I posted to you?
Thomas was an eye-witness of all that Jesus did? Why would he need to wait for anything? He could have written one of those gospels himself! He had all the information himself. He was an Apostle! He preached to them Christ and Christ crucified--that which he had seen personally, and experienced with his own eyes and ears. What more of a witness did they need? He was one of the twelve!

Consider:
8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
--There was great persecution because of Saul

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. (Acts 8:3-4)
--But it was the average believer, not the Apostles, that went every where preaching the word. The Apostles stayed in Jerusalem! The early believers had been taught well by the Apostles, even though they had not any written MSS by that time. They could still preach the gospel. They had been taught by the Apostles. That is as early as chapter 8, before Paul was even saved!

Consider:
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. (Acts 8:35)
--Philip didn't need a NT. He began at the same Scripture, (Isa.53:7,8), and preached unto him Jesus. That is where the Eunuch was reading--from Isaiah 53. Philip used that text and preached the gospel from it. Yes, there is the gospel in the OT. It is revealed and made clear to us in the NT. Philip knew this and knew how to point him to Christ. Philip was also able to teach him many other NT truths having sat under the preaching and teaching of the Apostles.

The Reformation affirmed what believers had been practicing since the days of the apostles. The fact that they put it in writing is inconsequential. The Bible teaches the trinity. The fact that someone came along and put it into writing is inconsequential. It was there all along. And so it is with many doctrines. But sola scriptura is all the more evident. Not only were they practicing in the NT (Acts 17:11), but in the OT as well!! (Isa.8:20).

Maybe an example will help you. The entire Bible has 66 books, was written by about 40 different authors over a time span of 1500 years, and in no place contradicts itself. It has one them: Salvation by faith in Christ.

If you take any one of those books, OT or NT, and consider the author, what do you see? A man that writes a book, the words of which are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now what does it take to write a book? It took me at least two years to preach through the book of 1Corinthians, but at the end I had a fairly comprehensive "book" or commentary on that book. All the while I am writing I am teaching, teaching what I am writing. I have the advantage of a computer, other books, reference works like concordances, and others to refer to and verify. Of course they were there, eyewitnesses, and the Holy Spirit was inspiring them, so they had the advantage in that respect. Their disadvantage was time. Every word had to be written on parchment, painstakingly inscribed usually by another, a scribe. This took a long time. There were no computers, not even a typewriter, nor the printing press. It was slow--very slow. All the while Luke is composing his 24 chapter Gospel, he is teaching the things that he is writing. It is inspired teaching. It will someday be a written gospel. The work is slow. It will take some years to complete. It is historical in nature. Luke was not an apostle, but a companion of an apostle--Paul. The information in the gospel account he has to verify. It took him more than ten years than Matthew, an eyewitness, for Luke to write his gospel. You ask why there was no gospel written in the 30's or 40's. There were not computers, no printing presses, etc. The work was very slow.

I am writing a book. I have been for some time now. It is slow work, even with the advantage of a computer. Any book that is historical in nature will be slow. But notice how the synoptics (the first three of the gospels) are so similar in nature and in facts. It was no accident. It was the work of the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit doesn't work in vacuum. Man must do his part as well.

 

Thank You DHK, you wrote the following:"The fact that they put it in writing is inconsequential. The Bible teaches the trinity. The fact that someone came along and put it into writing is inconsequential. It was there all along. And so it is with many doctrines."
You have definitely reinforced my belief in the Oral Traditional Teaching method instituted by Jesus to His Apostles then on to their future successors and deciples, continuing on down to us at present day then on until Jesus returns. Also ,you have explained the labels that have been attached to many of the Catholic [so called " Catholic inventions" by anti- Catholics ] terms such as Trinity, Purgatory, Eucharist etc. Your explanation of the Trinity is exactly how [ in the very same manner ] the other labels have been attached to many of the Catholic Church's practices and beliefs many years later.

 

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: (John 20:30)

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25)

Oral Tradition says that Jesus, as a child, took lumps of clay put life into them, through them into the air and watched them fly away as birds. That is Oral Tradition. Pure myth and nonsense. It is not Biblical, but contrary to the Bible, since the Bible specifically says the first of his miracles was to turn water into wine. But your Oral Tradition is a tradition wrought with heresies, historical inaccuracies, and things that could be considered coming straight from the mouth from the anti-Christ--they are so ungodly.

The fact is, the Bible does teach the trinity.
The apostles taught that the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Spirit is God. They firmly taught that there is one God (Isaiah 43:10,11). Now how do you suppose they would frame those truths in their mind? Did they have to use the word "trinity" in order to believe in it? No, of course not!!

I have identified that you are dreaming and imagining things.:sleep::sleep:
You need to get more sleep. Think clearly about things.
There is not one verse in the Bible that teaches the horrendous and blasphemous doctrine of Purgatory--a doctrine that denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ.
There is not one verse in the Bible that teaches the RCC doctrine of the Eucharist.
The concept of the trinity was taught before the RCC was ever formed. You are too arrogant. It is as if you think that Christ and his disciples spoke the KJV, or maybe they used the NIV. To learn of the trinity they had to speak modern day English, right??

Did they teach "transubstantiation" as well, such as the RCC teaches.
Hmm, I wonder where Christ got that word from? Where do you find that in the Bible? It is not--not in word, teaching, or concept. It is a doctrine that is heresy. It is pagan superstition.

The apostles taught what they wrote. Was I not clear enough? They taught the Scriptures. That is not Oral Tradition. You are bordering on blasphemy here, calling our inspired Scriptures, uninspired tradition!!

 

DHK, An explanation of the Trinity go also be found thousands of years before the Church was formed also. If I wasn't a Catholic , I would be Jewish , certainly not a member of one of the many other different so called Christian religions. My reasoning is based on the concept of Christ's Church being built on His Apostles and their many future successors and deciples. If the Bible was intended to have been the "sole rule for salvation" then Jesus would have definitely made sure that somehow a Holy Bible epidemic would have occurred instead of a three plus year Jewish [ Talmudic ] Teaching Method as applied to His Apostles. It is illogical to believe that early Christians would have been able to understand the Holy Scripture, BECAUSE THEY COULDN"T READ. So Jesus, who is God by the way, came up with a brilliant idea,[ remember God knows everything ] if man can't read, as the vast majority of man-kind couldn't , God left us with a Teaching Church with the "teachers' being taught by the Great Teacher. DHK, your example of young Jesus along with His clay pidgeons is not taught by the Catholic Church as An Apostolic Doctrine of Faith, I thought you said that you once was a Catholic. I also was once a ti Catholic for the first twenty-years of my life, Jesus was right there in His Christian Holy Catholic Church but I wasn't ready for Him then , I was more ready for the girls , never payed attention to the Bible being read to me at Mass and skipping religious classes etc. and left because I thought I knew the Catholic Church 'teachings',and I as many who leave began a journey of trying to constantly finding fault with it, wasn't until i started to study deep into the Christian Faith that brought me back "Home" to God's One Church on this earth.Now after reading how you and other anti Catholics think I can unserstand why I came back. DHK, I am not a Catholic Apologist ,far from it, as you can tell without my saying it, and I am not educated, having entered the Marine Corps at a young age and then later becoming a Union Bricklayer/ StoneMason, so my education and writing abilities are very limited . It's a shame that you won't go up against a real Catholic Apologist , anyone of them would take the wind out of your sail.

 

You seem to suggest that Oral Tradition was not done orally by "fallible uninspired men." Peter would have been a fallible man but I am unable to think of any man that is inspired or uninspired.

 

Certainly, all the prophets and apostles were fallible human beings. However, they must be distinguished from others simply because they were selected to be special instruments through whom God spoke and wrote under inspiration. The apostles were specifically promised by Christ that the Holy Spirit would bring back to their memory what he orally conveyed to them so that they could communicate it to their disciples orally and in writing, both by inspiration.

However, what separates you and me on this issue is the undeniable fact that neither Christ or the scriptures promise that their disciples would be objects of either of these promises. Neither does Christ, the apostles or scriptures promise a perpetual oral apostolic tradition through the memories or writings of their disciples.

 

It is difficult to understand what your point is above since the sentence structure is so difficult to follow.

Your interpretation of these things is wrong. A correct interpretation and understanding is perfectly consistent with New Testament "Baptistic" congregations. We have pointed out your hermeneutical errors many times.

Christ based his teachings on the Old Testament Scriptures, fulfillments of those scriptures in addition to speaking directly as God in the flesh. Anyone who reads the teachings of Christ and fails to see the consistent Old Testament scriptures undergirding is reading with blinders on.

This is simply a bold face falsehood. Most Jews could speak and read three and some four languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew). Most of the apostles were had no formal theological training, many were common fisherman, but the books of Mathew, Mark, John, James, Jude, 1&2 Peter demonstrate they could write Greek and if Greek, they certainly could write Armaic.

 

An admission that the RCC cannot lay claim to it? Good for you! Yes, the trinity can be found in Genesis one: "Let us make man in our own image--thousands of years before Christ. There are other references in the OT as well. One can well deduce the trinity out of the OT alone. Good to see that you are coming around.

So, you deny the deity of Christ. That is quite a telling statement. This is a board for Christian denominations. What are you doing here?

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (John 1:11)

You didn't get the right "carnal emotional experience" right? It didn't "feel" right, when you were there.

A nice concept, but who has brainwashed you into believing a lie. You admit you are no apologist, and yet you accept this lie as truth. Why?

1. You don't get to dictate to God the way you think He should do things. His ways are higher than your ways.
2. We did have a Bible--the OT. It never disappeared from sight.
3. Philip preached from it; Jesus preached from it; Paul preached from it.
4. Not only was the OT the sole authority for the Jews, it was the only authority used by Philip and Paul when they preached. You won't be able to find any other, save the words that Paul himself wrote that eventually did become Scripture.
5. "a Holy Bible epidemic"? Now that is a novelty? Instead of making clay pigeons fly, he should have taken rocks and made New Testaments?? Is that your idea? God is a God of order. Everything is done decently and in order. You don't get to play God.
6. Early Christians could read--even the slaves could read. Greek was the common language of the day: the lingua franca. It was the gift that Alexander the Great left to the world.

Notice:
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. (John 19:19-20)
--Everyone could read. The Jews knew Hebrew as well as the other languages. Everyone knew Greek, as well as Latin. Latin was the official, but not common language. All business transactions had to be made in the Latin language. Thus even when a common person would pass by Christ, he knew what it said.

False premise leads to false conclusions. Almost all could read. Check carefully your historical facts.

This has nothing to do with the RCC which didn't even come into existence until the 4th century.

I was. It is a tradition. It may not be part of the sacred Oral Tradition of the RCC, but it is a tradition that can be found in the "Lost Books of The Bible."

Some years ago there were Catholic apologists on this board whom we did debate, one of them studied under Scott Hawn. l have no trouble with that. The RCC is not and never was a Christian Church; it is pagan. Its teachings are pagan. They are superstitious in nature. They are not founded on the Bible, but apart from the Bible. You cannot defend what the RCC teaches by the Bible. You must make a choice: Either choose what the Bible teaches or choose what the RCC teaches. I made that decision long ago, and am thankful for the decision I made. The Lord has opened my eyes to the heresies of the RCC that I left.

No man having put his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.
I don't look back. I rejoice in that I go forward with Christ. I go forward by studying the Word. I don't have a religion; I have a relationship with Christ who saved me. It is not the church; it is Christ. He alone can saved. Not my church, nor the RCC is able to do anything. Only Christ saves. But the RCC won't admit that. In fact in an article I posted yesterday, a bishop stated "The Church is Jesus." That is heresy. The Church (RCC) can't save you. Only Christ can. He is not the church or a church of any kind. Don't be deceived.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

 

The Biblicist & DHK, I don't believe the Bible claims to be the 'e rule of Faith '. I mean the man made 'tradition of men ' Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is itself unbiblical. Please show me where the Bible claims such a status for itself???


I know ,your going to bring up this passage most commonly brought up by you Protestants and that is 2 Timothy 3:16–17. In the KJV, the verse reads this way: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." -That verse does not mean that it is all that is needed for a sufficient rule of Faith Eating food and drinking water are sufficient to stay living but it isn't 'everything " needed for life , good air that we breathe is also necessary.

You Protestants claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (a Greek word meaning; that is, helpful.? correct me if I'm wrong ] Many things can be profitable for moving someone toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting that person to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what you and all other Protestants think the passage means.

The context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is this: Paul is laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ( I believe that the Greek word means"God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially told to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. He reminds us of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have "HEARD"from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" , and ". . . what you have" HEARD "from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to "ORAL "teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.

The few other verses that might be brought up to "prove" the sufficiency of Scripture can be handled the same way. Not one uses the word "sufficient"—each one implies profitability or usefulness, and many are given at the same time as an exhortation to hold fast to the "ORAL TEACHING' from our Lord and the apostles. The thing to keep in mind is that nowhere does the Bible say, "Scripture alone is sufficient," and nowhere does the Bible imply it. Taken from the Holy Bible.

DNK you wrote; "An admission that the RCC cannot lay claim to it? Good for you! Yes, the trinity can be found in Genesis one: "Let us make man in our own image--thousands of years before Christ. There are other references in the OT as well. One can well deduce the trinity out of the OT alone. Good to see that you are coming around."

I wrote that in your reference to your othr other lame accusations that the inventions [ as according to you ] of the Catholic Churc h stems from earlier pagan mythology. And I was simply supplying you with the Trinity, that you also accept but was also from pagan roots. You do at times show your true colors.You really do hate the Catholic Church.

 

I can see oral traditions working well between Adam and Noah... where Adam lived to be 930... knew Methusala for 243 years... and Methusala knew Noah for 600 years. An oral tradition would have been pretty easy to maintain where people live for 900 + years and can maintain it.

But after that, you really have to start writing things down, don't you think?

 

Gup20,not when the majority of the populace of the World was illiterate. Oral Traditional Teaching was the standard of communication, even after the invention of the printing press , majority of people were still unable to read and comprehend. Not only that, but the majority of the Christians of the world couldn't afford the price of the high cost of a Bible.

 

DHK, I'm wondering if that 'Catholic Apologist' you mentioned was Carson Weber? I know he was a student of Scott Hahn. I'm currently reading Mr. Hahn's book 'Rome Sweet Home'. Apparently, Mr. Hahn was previously the head of a Reformed seminary before converting to the Catholic Church. My aunt decided to leave the Baptist Church and become Catholic after following Mr. Weber's posts on this board for some time. I have read some position papers of his that my aunt has given me. I'm finding that what I once thought were obvious contradictions between RCC teaching and the bible are in need of closer examination. I'm not ready to jump ship yet, but it certainly deserves a closer look.

 

Looked closer at Dr. Hahn's bio. Scott Hahn was on the faculty of Dominion Theological Institute, which is "now Chesapeake Theological Seminary":
1982-1983: Assistant Professor, Dominion Theological Institute; McLean, Virginia (now Chesapeake Theological Seminary; Baltimore, Maryland)

I have read on another forum that he would have been considered a Reconstructionist.