The Place of Oral Tradition

[RachelBibleStudent]

Oral tradition had its place before the Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings were compiled to be our Old Testament. Granted, it was compiled by the faithful among men, but the actual work is Yahweh's work.

It only takes reading the first lines of Genesis to know what oral tradition in the line of men who remembered the Father contributed to the writings, with the Holy Spirit guiding these holy men.

actually i think very little of genesis is actually based on any oral tradition...there appear to have been written records from before moses' time that were incorporated into the text...

for example...genesis 5:1..."This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God."

to go into more detail...we know from archaeological excavations of an archive in the ancient city of ebla that the semitic word 'toledoth'...which in english bibles is translated as 'generations' or 'account'...was used to identify records written on cuneiform tablets by author or primary subject...

so i think it is very likely that when the bible uses a phrase like 'these are the generations of noah'...what we are getting is a quotation from a text written by noah...

the first thirty-six chapters of genesis can be explained in this way...so that only the rest need have any oral tradition behind it...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Again - to say that the Written Word of God nullifies all other Tradition is false.

Where in Scripture so we see the Canon of Scripture?
Where do we see the Trinity being referred to?
Where do we see the Incarnation being referred to? Yest, these are basic tenets of the Christian faith.

2 Thess. 2:15 clearly states:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an ORAL statement or by a letter of ours."

There is no expiration date or statute of limitations on this verse.

actually scripture pretty much endorses its own canon internally...for example jesus endorses the law and prophets and psalms...paul endorses the gospels...peter endorses paul's letters...and so on...

the trinity is not referred to by name in scripture...but the doctrine is clearly spelled out over multiple verses... the same is true of the incarnation...

2 thessalonians 2:15 mentions traditions taught by word of mouth from the apostles...-however- second thessalonians was also one of the earliest new testament books...you cannot prove that these word of mouth teachings were not later written down in the other books of the new testament... specifically these 'oral traditions' are almost certainly the gospel biographies themselves...which had not been written down when paul wrote this letter...

 

[ChurchAuthority]

actually scripture pretty much endorses its own canon internally...for example jesus endorses the law and prophets and psalms...paul endorses the gospels...peter endorses paul's letters...and so on...

the trinity is not referred to by name in scripture...but the doctrine is clearly spelled out over multiple verses... the same is true of the incarnation...

2 thessalonians 2:15 mentions traditions taught by word of mouth from the apostles...-however- second thessalonians was also one of the earliest new testament books...you cannot prove that these word of mouth teachings were not later written down in the other books of the new testament... specifically these 'oral traditions' are almost certainly the gospel biographies themselves...which had not been written down when paul wrote this letter...

First of all - can you show me where Scripture "endorses its own canon internally"? There are SEVERAL other books that didn't make it into the Canon that do the very same thing you claim about the Canonical ones The Epistle of Barnabas, Paul's Letter to the Laodecians, Letters of Clement, Gospel of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, etc. The Deuterocanonical Books were thrown out by Protestants, yet Jesus and the NT writers quote or allude to them over 100 times in the New Testament.

Secondly, I agree with you about the Trinity and the Incarnation. My point is that the words Trinity and Incarnation are Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church - as is the Canon of Scripture.

Finally - the Early Church Fathers write about many of the Traditions not taught in Scripture that were handed down by the Apostles such as Infant Baptism. The Didache (AD 50) was written while most of the Apostles were still alive. It is also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles and it talks about confessing your sins to the Church and the specific formula for baptizing including pouring water over the head. Neither of these things are explicitly found in Scripture.

 

[Xanthus]

The traditions of man are not from God, otherwise they would be commandments, statute or ordinances.

Prove it.

I for one, recognize that the Traditions of the Church have Eternal value on a level beyond myopic Sola Scriptura fallacy.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

First of all - can you show me where Scripture "endorses its own canon internally"? There are SEVERAL other books that didn't make it into the Canon that do the very same thing you claim about the Canonical ones The Epistle of Barnabas, Paul's Letter to the Laodecians, Letters of Clement, Gospel of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, etc. The Deuterocanonical Books were thrown out by Protestants, yet Jesus and the NT writers quote or allude to them over 100 times in the New Testament.

Secondly, I agree with you about the Trinity and the Incarnation. My point is that the words Trinity and Incarnation are Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church - as is the Canon of Scripture.

Finally - the Early Church Fathers write about many of the Traditions not taught in Scripture that were handed down by the Apostles such as Infant Baptism. The Didache (AD 50) was written while most of the Apostles were still alive. It is also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles and it talks about confessing your sins to the Church and the specific formula for baptizing including pouring water over the head. Neither of these things are explicitly found in Scripture.

i already explained that...jesus endorsed the old testament and can be considered to have 'canonized' it...likewise with paul endorsing the gospels and peter endorsing paul's letters...there is no need to appeal to extrabiblical traditions to establish the validity of the canon...

the words 'trinity' and 'incarnation' are just terms...the doctrines they represent are true and proven from scripture regardless of whether or not we actually use those terms...

numerous protestant churches derive things like infant baptism directly from scripture without referring to any traditions mythically handed down by the apostles...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Prove it.

I for one, recognize that the Traditions of the Church have Eternal value on a level beyond myopic Sola Scriptura fallacy.

paul would have disagreed with you...he recognized that apostolic authority needed to be in submission to the authority of scripture...

 

[ChurchAuthority]

i already explained that...jesus endorsed the old testament and can be considered to have 'canonized' it...likewise with paul endorsing the gospels and peter endorsing paul's letters...there is no need to appeal to extrabiblical traditions to establish the validity of the canon...

the words 'trinity' and 'incarnation' are just terms...the doctrines they represent are true and proven from scripture regardless of whether or not we actually use those terms...

numerous protestant churches derive things like infant baptism directly from scripture without referring to any traditions mythically handed down by the apostles...

You didn't prove anything. You made some general statements that some books support others but that doesn't make them Canonical.

As I told you, there are a LOT of books that didn't make it into the Canon that were read from pulpits for 300 years as though they were Canonical Books of Scripture. I even names a few of them for you. Why weren't they included in the final Canon? Because the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) did not declare them to be Canonical, that's why.

Why didn't Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans make it into the Canon?
Jesus and the NT writers quoted the Deuterocanonicals from the OT over 100 times in the NT. Why did Protestants throw those books out?

 

[ChurchAuthority]

paul would have disagreed with you...he recognized that apostolic authority needed to be in submission to the authority of scripture...

Jesus told the Apostles to excommunicate a member of the Church if they did not LISTEN to the Church (Matt. 18:15-18).
He didn't say to excommunicate them if they didn't read their Bibles. Jesus gave full and supreme Authority to His Church that whatever it ordained on earth would be ordained in heaven.

NOWHERE in Scripture do we see that kind of Authority being given to Scripture.

 

[Xanthus]

paul would have disagreed with you...he recognized that apostolic authority needed to be in submission to the authority of scripture...

heh.

"Paul would have disagreed..." How presumptuous of you (to boldly claim to know what Paul would have agreed or disagreed with at this late date? hmmm...)
You didn't even go to the trouble to reference the scripture to back that up.

Perhaps because ChurchAuthority has already cut you off at the pass?

2 Thess. 2:15 clearly states:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an ORAL statement or by a letter of ours."

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

You didn't prove anything. You made some general statements that some books support others but that doesn't make them Canonical.

As I told you, there are a LOT of books that didn't make it into the Canon that were read from pulpits for 300 years as though they were Canonical Books of Scripture. I even names a few of them for you. Why weren't they included in the final Canon? Because the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) did not declare them to be Canonical, that's why.

Why didn't Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans make it into the Canon?
Jesus and the NT writers quoted the Deuterocanonicals from the OT over 100 times in the NT. Why did Protestants throw those books out?

the books of the bible endorse one another making them a unit...either you accept them all or you don't accept any of them...

the noncanonical books may have been read in churches...but they are not endorsed by scripture the way the canonical books were...

john 16:12-15 was written to the apostles...not your church...

it isn't certain that there even -was- a pauline epistle to the laodiceans...not only is it not in the canon but there is no record of -anyone- ever actually having a copy...

the apocryphal books are not sacred scripture because they contain historical and doctrinal errors...for example jesus condemned a saying from the book of sirach...and judith is obvious fiction on the same historical reliability level as the 'scorpion king' movies...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Jesus told the Apostles to excommunicate a member of the Church if they did not LISTEN to the Church (Matt. 18:15-18).
He didn't say to excommunicate them if they didn't read their Bibles. Jesus gave full and supreme Authority to His Church that whatever it ordained on earth would be ordained in heaven.

NOWHERE in Scripture do we see that kind of Authority being given to Scripture.

in matthew 18:15-18 jesus is talking to his disciples...not to your church...

luke praised the berean christians for examining the scriptures to verify if paul's teaching was true or not...this indicates that the authority of scripture as a source of truth is -superior- even to the authority of an apostle...let alone their supposed successors...

 

[Xanthus]

the books of the bible endorse one another making them a unit...either you accept them all or you don't accept any of them...

False.

Didn't the Lutherans accept most of them but not all of them?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

heh.

"Paul would have disagreed..." How presumptuous of you (to boldly claim to know what Paul would have agreed or disagreed with at this late date? hmmm...)
You didn't even go to the trouble to reference the scripture to back that up.

Perhaps because ChurchAuthority has already cut you off at the pass?

2 Thess. 2:15 clearly states:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an ORAL statement or by a letter of ours."

i figured everyone already knew the scripture that backed it up...but i guess those churches that so callously demote the scriptures don't know a lot about what they say...

acts 17:10-11..."The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

now maybe you can prove that the 'oral traditions' mentioned in 2 thessalonians 2:15 were not later written down in scripture...considering second thessalonians is one of the oldest new testament books...predating the gospels and most of the other epistles...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

False.

Didn't the Lutherans accept most of them but not all of them?

lutherans accepted all of them...luther himself questioned the 'antilegomena' for a while...as did some in the early christian church...but this was based on authorship and not canonical authority...and luther ended up accepting them all in the end...

 

[Xanthus]

the apocryphal books are not sacred scripture because they contain historical and doctrinal errors...for example jesus condemned a saying from the book of sirach...and judith is obvious fiction on the same historical reliability level as the 'scorpion king' movies...

Didn't Jesus also say that "it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out of it..."

According to your logic that would mean a few more canonical OT books will also need to be tossed out...
Right?

 

[Xanthus]

lutherans accepted all of them...luther himself questioned the 'antilegomena' for a while...as did some in the early christian church...but this was based on authorship and not canonical authority...and luther ended up accepting them all in the end...

Then why is the Protestant Bible short about 7 books?

 

[ChurchAuthority]

i figured everyone already knew the scripture that backed it up...but i guess those churches that so callously demote the scriptures don't know a lot about what they say...

acts 17:10-11..."The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

now maybe you can prove that the 'oral traditions' mentioned in 2 thessalonians 2:15 were not later written down in scripture...considering second thessalonians is one of the oldest new testament books...predating the gospels and most of the other epistles...

I already gave you the biggest one of all:
The Canon of Scripture. NOWHERE, doe the Bible say which books belong in it.

As for the Bereans, they searched the OLD TESTAMENT for truth about Jesus because that is all that was written at the time. They ultimately belived an ORAL tradition:
That Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

That's NOT in the Old Testament Scriptures . . .

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Didn't Jesus also say that "it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out of it..."

According to your logic that would mean a few more canonical OT books will also need to be tossed out...
Right?

this doesn't even make sense...what in the old testament books would defile them?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Then why is the Protestant Bible short about 7 books?

protestants only rejected books that were never scripture in the first place...

 

[ChurchAuthority]

lutherans accepted all of them...luther himself questioned the 'antilegomena' for a while...as did some in the early christian church...but this was based on authorship and not canonical authority...and luther ended up accepting them all in the end...

Ummm, if it hadn't been for his friend, Philip Melanchton, Luther would have removed The Books of Hebrews, James and Revelation.. These guys were all over the place, inserting words that didn't belong and removing Books that did.

If Jesus and the Apostles studied from the Deuterocanonical Books - why did Protestants remove them?