The Place of Oral Tradition

[Xanthus]

i pointed out that jesus openly contradicted the book of sirach...
you responded by insinuating that jesus must have also contradicted leviticus...a notion that i reject...

you made an argument bringing the agreement between the gospels and leviticus into question and now you are attempting to deny it...

No, Rachel. I did not. I insinuated nothing. I made an analogy of what appeared to me to be false logic on your part in the comment about Sirach -- in order to point out the error of your logic.
I did not make an argument bringing the agreement between the gospels and Leviticus into question -- I presented an obvious turnabout which you fell right into by voicing the logical error in the gospel<==>Leviticus relationship, which only makes my point about your original error. Unless you can improve your bogus 'condemnation' of the entire book of Sirach based on some ambiguous hand waving on something you never clearly identified... you have merely buttressed my argument.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Many books accepted today were in question long before Constantine.
Maybe you ought to investigate the Muratorian Canon history and the early disputes. Some believed even that the Gospel of John was heresy. If early 'dispute' is your criteria the Bible would be MUCH smaller than it is today.

My 1000 year comment follows the commonly accepted timeline and history.

Just curious, do you accept the Book of revelation?

some of the books were questioned much more than others...for example jerome didn't question the new testament antilegomena but rejected the old testament apocrypha...julius africanus similarly questioned only the addition of susanna to the book of daniel...

the fact that so many books were questioned indicates that there was no real 'canon' other than the established hebrew one for the 1,000 years that you are talking about...

and yes i accept the book of revelation...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

No, Rachel. I did not. I insinuated nothing. I made an analogy of what appeared to me to be false logic on your part in the comment about Sirach -- in order to point out the error of your logic.
I did not make an argument bringing the agreement between the gospels and Leviticus into question -- I presented an obvious turnabout which you fell right into by voicing the logical error in the gospel<==>Leviticus relationship, which only makes my point about your original error. Unless you can improve your bogus 'condemnation' of the entire book of Sirach based on some ambiguous hand waving on something you never clearly identified... you have merely buttressed my argument.

you made a rather bumbling attempt at pointing out a nonexistent error in my logic...

sirach is not inspired scripture so it is no problem for me that jesus condemns one of its teachings...
leviticus is inspired scripture so i assume a priori that jesus did not contradict it...any contradiction on the level of jesus contradicting sirach that you perceive between jesus and leviticus is just a misunderstanding on your part...

the passage from sirach in question is sirach 4:4-5..."Give to the devout, but do not help the sinner. Do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly; hold back their bread, and do not give it to them, for by means of it they might subdue you; then you will receive twice as much evil for all the good you have done to them."

jesus on the other hand says this in luke 6:30..."Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back."

 

[ChurchAuthority]

actually luther quoted from hebrews and james and revelation in his smalcald articles and small and large catechisms...these are hardly the actions of someone who wanted to remove those books from the bible...

the apocryphal books were never part of scripture in the first place...as jerome recognized over 1,000 years before your bogeyman luther came along...

WRONG.

First of all, Luther called the Book of James the "Epistle of straw" and had it not been for Philip Melancton, he would have removed James, Hebrews and Revelation from his German translation. This is a point of HISTORY.
You cannot change that fact.

As for Jerome, He had issues with the Deuterocnonicals but acquiezced to the Authority of the Church on the matter. In his later life, He used the Books of Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit and Judith in his debates and referred to the as HOLY SCRIPTURE.
That is another point of HISTORY that you simply cannot argue with.

Funny thing about history - you can't change is no matter HOW much you don't like it . . .

 

[my_adonai_]

oh man this is tensed up in here. Knowledge, History, Theology i guess vs OP lol..

Brother JaumeJ. i would say, if whatever tradition brings your heart closer to GOD, and nothing brings someone closer to GOD than HIS revealed word. then Have at it, but if it creates a sense of Getting used to the word of GOD, or repititive BORING things ai. then i aint need no part in that, MY GOD makes ALL things NEW, and HE can teach me how to pray, or do whatever in A TOTAL different WAY EVERYDAY.... HE does not lack this, and it is not a challenge to HIM.

and usually My FATHER always leads me back to Scripture, and i have seen those very Scriptures to AID ME and AID my brethren HERE in CC, they can testify to that. and i give all GLORY TO HE that is, and was and IS TO COME.

Joh_6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. Joh_6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh_6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Who wants to dine with me?

 

[ChurchAuthority]

it says they examined the scriptures to verify paul's teaching...that means the scriptures are the standard by which they tested even the teaching of an apostle...so the authority of scripture is -superior- to the authority of an apostle...or their so called successors...

you don't grade a student's paper based on another student's paper...you grade a student's paper according to the answer key!

Bad analogy.
As i have stated twice already - Jesus of Nazareth was not mentioned in the Old Testament. The Bereans, therefore, believed in something that was not explicit in Scripture but WAS explicit in ORAL teaching.

Please show me where Scripture is declared as authoritative as the Church.

 

[wdeaton65]

Is it possible that YHWH wanted 66 books for us at the end?????
I got to give this to Rachael masoretic and the septuagint line up with the dead sea scrolls better than all.
Alex the great I dont think would of allowed a shaby copy thats my fellings. They didnt call him great because he let people disobey his orders LOL
Not to mention the markers in the Masoretic.
Rachael is doing a great job so I thought I would give her a public at a girl way to go Blessings

 

[my_adonai_]

Jas 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
Jas 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
Jas 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
Jas 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
Jas 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Jas 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

WRONG.

First of all, Luther called the Book of James the "Epistle of straw" and had it not been for Philip Melancton, he would have removed James, Hebrews and Revelation from his German translation. This is a point of HISTORY.
You cannot change that fact.

As for Jerome, He had issues with the Deuterocnonicals but acquiezced to the Authority of the Church on the matter. In his later life, He used the Books of Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit and Judith in his debates and referred to the as HOLY SCRIPTURE.
That is another point of HISTORY that you simply cannot argue with.

Funny thing about history - you can't change is no matter HOW much you don't like it . . .

the 'epistle of straw' comment only appeared in the original 1522 edition of luther's bible...he saw fit to strike that comment from all future editions...

here is what luther says about the epistle of james in his preface..."Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God."

and as i mentioned already...luther quoted from the hebrews and james and revelation in his smalcald articles and small and large catechisms...

what you are preaching is myth...not history...

the really funny thing about history is that roman catholics invoke it so often yet know so little of it...if you truly knew history you would be a protestant...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Bad analogy.
As i have stated twice already - Jesus of Nazareth was not mentioned in the Old Testament. The Bereans, therefore, believed in something that was not explicit in Scripture but WAS explicit in ORAL teaching.

Please show me where Scripture is declared as authoritative as the Church.

the bereans checked the oral teaching of paul by comparing it to scripture...in other words if paul had said something that wasn't supported by scripture then he would have been considered -wrong-...and that means paul the apostle was subject to the authority of scripture...

paul indicated that he was in no way inferior to the other apostles...so if paul was subject to the authority of scripture...then so were -all- the apostles...

so scripture is more authoritative than the apostles...and the church is built on the foundation of the apostles...so scripture has authority over the church...

-your- church on the other hand is nowhere declared authoritative...because your church didn't exist back then...

 

[wdeaton65]

the bereans checked the oral teaching of paul by comparing it to scripture...in other words if paul had said something that wasn't supported by scripture then he would have been considered -wrong-...and that means paul the apostle was subject to the authority of scripture...

paul indicated that he was in no way inferior to the other apostles...so if paul was subject to the authority of scripture...then so were -all- the apostles...

so scripture is more authoritative than the apostles...and the church is built on the foundation of the apostles...so scripture has authority over the church...

-your- church on the other hand is nowhere declared authoritative...because your church didn't exist back then...

GAME SET MATCH!! I was wondering when you would slam the door with that point Rachael good job over and out

 

[JaumeJ]

First, you do know I refer to written history of man in the Word as being derived from the previous oral traditon by Moses with the inspiration of Yahweh, correct? Lay history is not tradition of man, in case you believe this is what I thought when posting. Traditions of man are not necessarily oral history, but they are not commandment from out Father either.

As for the writings, does everyone here know that the Apocrypha was included in the original KJV translation? I have seen refernces to some of the writings in the New Testament also.

I have read the Apocrypha a few times, but again I do not read it every time I read the Writings.

Do you really want to go there?
I have VOLUMES of NT passages that prove you wrong.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

the bereans checked the oral teaching of paul by comparing it to scripture...in other words if paul had said something that wasn't supported by scripture then he would have been considered -wrong-...and that means paul the apostle was subject to the authority of scripture...

paul indicated that he was in no way inferior to the other apostles...so if paul was subject to the authority of scripture...then so were -all- the apostles...

so scripture is more authoritative than the apostles...and the church is built on the foundation of the apostles...so scripture has authority over the church...

-your- church on the other hand is nowhere declared authoritative...because your church didn't exist back then...

And you have YET to show me a verse where it states that the Scriptures are more authoritative than the Church. I have provided the verses that state just the opposite.

Look, here's alittle advice about debating: Try to bring some evidence to the table instead of mere opinions. I'll start by showing the Supreme Authority of the Church:

The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).
Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).

Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).


About His Church, Jesus said the following:

Matt 16:18-19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:17-18If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke 10:16Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."
Sorry, but you cannot win this argument on your anti-Catholic opinions.
They MUST be Scripturally-based.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

First, you do know I refer to written history of man in the Word as being derived from the previous oral traditon by Moses with the inspiration of Yahweh, correct? Lay history is not tradition of man, in case you believe this is what I thought when posting. Traditions of man are not necessarily oral history, but they are not commandment from out Father either.

As for the writings, does everyone here know that the Apocrypha was included in the original KJV translation? I have seen refernces to some of the writings in the New Testament also.

I have read the Apocrypha a few times, but again I do not read it every time I read the Writings.

The problem here is in your insistence upon using the term "Traditions of man".
Sacred Traditions are derived from GOD not from mere men.

As I have stated - ad nauseam - the Canon of Scripture is a Tradition of the Church - and it is 100% from God.

 

[JaumeJ]

When we believe the Word we know that coupled with the Holy Spirit the Word is always Authoritative because our Savior IS the Word. No assembly of God is above the Head, again, Who is the Word.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

When we believe the Word we know that coupled with the Holy Spirit the Word is always Authoritative because our Savior IS the Word. No assembly of God is above the Head, again, Who is the Word.

And nobody ever said that the Church is above Chriost. Jesus is the one who gave Authority to His Church - His BODY.
Jesus and His Body are inseperable.

As for the fallacy that Scripture is the final authority - why are there 50,000 or so Protestant denominations? 50,000 different interpretations created 50,000 different disjointed, splintered sects - ALL claiming to have "the Truth". The Truth is not relative. It is not objective.

Jesus did not leave His Church in chaos. That happened at the "Reformation", when flawed, sinful men thought they had a better way than God.

 

[JaumeJ]

What you say here is true, about the denominations. Once a label is placed on a system of belief outside the teachings from the Word Itself, you will discover apostasy has begun to set in. None of the named religions are correct, they are all in part apostetic. The only true faith is believing the Savior. Coming together in His name with authorities teaching His Word is the Way. There are true disciples of Christ in all religions of the Word, but you and I are not privileged to be judges either way. This is why we do not judge to condemnation, lest we be judged with the same judgment, however the same Teacher Who teaches us this lovely and beautiful teaching also teaches us to judge for ouselves what is right, otherwise He says we would be hypocrites. God bless you always, amen.

And nobody ever said that the Church is above Chriost. Jesus is the one who gave Authority to His Church - His BODY.
Jesus and His Body are inseperable.

As for the fallacy that Scripture is the final authority - why are there 50,000 or so Protestant denominations? 50,000 different interpretations created 50,000 different disjointed, splintered sects - ALL claiming to have "the Truth". The Truth is not relative. It is not objective.

Jesus did not leave His Church in chaos. That happened at the "Reformation", when flawed, sinful men thought they had a better way than God.

 

[Xanthus]

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...

Rachel, this statement of yours underscores your lack of knowledge on the history in general, and not just Canon history... not to mention your loose grasp of logic and rational debate.

There was no written Hebrew language in the time of Noah! Finding ONE single word in cuneiform does not explain anything.(What a patently absurd claim!) Nowhere has it been shown that a rendering of the Hebrew Old Testament is found in cuneiform. I believe the earliest full text of any OT book is dated to about 300BC.

Even by the Rabbinical tradition the Hebrew script came late in the time of Moses.

This is pushing it though. In 1000 BC the first coherent Hebrew samples of writing are found and they are rough proto-sinaitic type scratching on rocks amounting to a few phrases here and there.

This alone proves that there had to be millennia of oral tradition before the written accounts could even be recorded.

Any book length scripture of a Hebrew story before 500 BC had to be passed down by oral tradition.

In other words... not just ALL of Genesis but MOST of the Old Testament had to be oral tradition.

 

[JaumeJ]

Hello Rachel, there may have been writings before the Books of the OT were put to paper, or parchment, but anything previous, even if written here and there must have at one time been oral tradition. I believe in my heart and soul that Moses was inspired to write down all to keep things straight between man and His Maker. There is actually one part of the writing where it say before there were any strange gods among you.............etc. I think we should go off somewhere and pray for the members of that Body of Yeshua, that would incude us! God bless you....

 

[Abiding]

what do you do when you find yourself in a place in history
where no tradition can be trusted? Whos tradition? being it was
just made clear there are 50,000 of them.