The Place of Oral Tradition

[ChurchAuthority]

I have been on the receiving end of your posts, tad curt? Certainly all the ones I read here could be viewed that way...you may have knowledge, but it is nothing if we do not have love....that's in the Bible....I think for those of us who are not so well- learned, we respond better to a gentle, more patient approach. Fruits of the Spirit? If we have no in dwelling of the Spirit, no amount of Knowledge will ever achieve anything in His name. God Bless you for your passion! many here try to put their beliefs rather forcefully, treating those that do not immediately agree with them as a bit dim...I am sure you are not doing that. We need to remember, many think they are right, but there is only one Truth. Regardless of what Bible we read, i trust in a God of the impossible, and for those with a seeking heart, He will guide them and reveal His Truth to them.....even through The Message! God Bless you. <><

If it's any consolation, my posting style is simply my posting style. I don't get angry or frustrated on these types of forums. The bold text is simply used to drive home a point.

That being said, being right is the Church's job - and it's always right in matters of faith and moral teaching. I simply parrot what the Church has always taught - from the Apostles to now.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

i also witnessed yesterday twisting of Matthew 18 for the purpose of
a wrong application of church authority...but that prolly comes as no surprise

Are you saying that Matt.18:15-18 doesn't illustrate Church Authority?

PLEASE enlighten me.

 

[Abiding]

If it's any consolation, my posting style is simply my posting style. I don't get angry or frustrated on these types of forums. The bold text is simply used to drive home a point.

That being said, being right is the Church's job - and it's always right in matters of faith and moral teaching. I simply parrot what the Church has always taught - from the Apostles to now.

I nver developed much of a posting style. Wondered are you ever wrong? If so do you
suggest i tell you in all CAPS? should i make it in BOLD?

 

[Abiding]

Are you saying that Matt.18:15-18 doesn't illustrate Church Authority?

PLEASE enlighten me.

Well of coarse i am. Depends how you view it. I view it as teaching how to deal
with personal issues in the church....this applies to all in the church. Not just leadership.

 

[Xanthus]

It was also history that Columbus discovered America. Then history had to be rewritten two more times after that to finally tell the truth of who actually did. History is not always recorded facts...... sometimes it's something written from one's own point of view. You couldn't add a point of view to a dollar and get a cup of coffee with it......

Actually, in a practical sense, Columbus really did discover America. If you must nit-pik, the Norsemen were actually
first or maybe the Chinese... but the others never made much of the 'discovery' so it is really neither here nor there.
I remember back in the 1950's and 60's it was taught that the Norsemen landed at Newfoundland before Columbus found central America but the kudos went to Columbus for making something of it.
Columbus not only "discovered" land in a heretofore unknown place, but also a practical TRADE ROUTE to the New World that stuck and THAT makes all the difference.
I do not understand this need to continually mouth the inane observation that history needs to be rewritten occasionally... ?... so what? what is the point?... What difference does it make in a PRACTICAL sense?
Why state the obvious?
It kinda looks like an attempt to muddy the waters in order to justify ignoring an otherwise valid point being made by someone whose statement is emotionally objectionable.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

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.

i already proved from scripture and commonsense logic that the scriptures are more authoritative than the church...if you need an even simpler exposition...

scriptural authority > paul's authority
paul's authority = apostolic authority
therefore...scriptural authority > apostolic authority
apostles = foundation of the church
therefore...scriptural authority > church's authority

to claim that i did not bring any evidence...when actually i have made my points from scripture and basic logic...is just plain dishonest...and shows that you are not interested in having an honest debate...

i agree that the church is the body of christ...and christ is the head of the church...but this says nothing about the church having any doctrinal authority...

i also agree that jesus promised that the holy spirit would guide the church into all truth...however the burden of proof is on you to show that this has happened already...and that it is not an ongoing process of learning and discernment instead...

and i agree that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth...but notice that it does not say that the church is the source or the arbiter of truth... the church's job as a pillar is to -uphold- the truth that is given...not to declare 'truth' by fiat...

your next two references basically have the same answer as the first...

jesus' teaching on the keys is about proclaiming forgiveness of sins...not establishing doctrine...

taken in context matthew 18:17-18 is about how to deal with a christian who sins...so again this has nothing to do with authority to establish doctrine...

finally luke 10:16 is addressed specifically to the seventy-two...not to the church...

and i will say again that the church mentioned in the new testament is -not- your church...which didn't exist yet...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

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".

why are there four -other- large denominations that make the same claim as yours about being 'the church' jesus founded?

 

[Xanthus]

why are there four -other- large denominations that make the same claim as yours about being 'the church' jesus founded?

Those other four are part of the 50,000... right? So their claims carry as much validity as the rest, despite larger numbers and greater antiquity than many of the other 50,000.
The Church that claims lineage to St. Peter and can demonstrate such has the most valid claim to authentic apostolic pedigree, right?
Again, I recommend reading "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

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.

nobody claimed that there was a written hebrew language at the time of noah...so you are already setting up a 'straw man' fallacy...another dishonest debating tactic...

the fact is that the semitic word 'toledoth' was an ancient label for cuneiform tablets...which has been amply demonstrated at ebla...in light of that fact it is very plausible to suggest that the first thirty-six chapters of genesis originally existed in the form of a series of cuneiform tablets...

and it is you who evidently has little knowledge of history...it is a well known fact that the script you are calling 'hebrew script' was not the script originally used to write the bible...the 'hebrew script' you are referring to is actually an aramaic derived script that came into use in the fifth century BC...prior to that time the jews used a phoenician derived canaanite script commonly called 'paleo hebrew'...which was in already in use by the tenth century BC at the latest...

so the israelites did -not- have to wait until 'hebrew script' was invented before they started writing down their sacred texts...the torah in its original form was in the much more ancient paleo hebrew script...as indicated by fragments of the dead sea scrolls that were still in paleo hebrew script...

finally if the book of genesis is derived from earlier cuneiform tablets as implied by the occurrence of the term 'toledoth'...and given the fact that cuneiform writing dates back to the uruk period...then there is no necessity whatsoever for oral tradition to play any role in the composition of most of genesis...

also i will point out that the proto sinaitic script you refer to actually dates to the eighteenth century BC...not 1,000 BC...you are only 800 years off...i hope you stop talking about historical knowledge before you embarass yourself any further...

finally i will point out that the bible indicates that there was a -book- of the covenant that could be -read- in moses' time...and there are numerous other biblical references to -books- long before 500 BC...so your 'oral tradition' theory is in disagreement with the bible...

 

[Xanthus]

nobody claimed that there was a written hebrew language at the time of noah...so you are already setting up a 'straw man' fallacy...another dishonest debating tactic...

Wrong again, Rachel. You basically made that claim by stating that a Hebrew word was found in cuneiform.
My statements were honest and truthful.

The rest of your lecture was totally irrelevant gibberish.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Here is the FIRST bit of evidence that the Deuterocanonical Books from the Septuagint were quoted or alluded to in the NT writings over 100 times.

Eph. 6:13-17 - the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield, etc. is from Wisdom 5:17-20.

Let's see if you can refute this one because I've got about 100 more . . .

you actually bothered?

as i already explained...showing what you believe are new testament allusions to the apocryphal books -prove nothing-

in acts 17:28 paul quotes from aratus' 'phaenomena'
in 1 corinthians 15:33 paul quotes from menander's 'thais'
in titus 1:12 paul quotes from epimenides' 'cretica'

so are you going to argue that these writings should be in the canon too?

 

[Xanthus]

also i will point out that the proto sinaitic script you refer to actually dates to the eighteenth century BC...not 1,000 BC...you are only 800 years off...i hope you stop talking about historical knowledge before you embarass yourself any further...

finally i will point out that the bible indicates that there was a -book- of the covenant that could be -read- in moses' time...and there are numerous other biblical references to -books- long before 500 BC...so your 'oral tradition' theory is in disagreement with the bible...

And, I said "rough proto-sinaitic type scratching on rocks" -- again you put words in my mouth and then refute something I never said. I saw the script myself and made that non-scientific assessment for a lay audience. My point stands.

And yes, some OT scripture does fly in the face of archeology, evolution etc.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Those other four are part of the 50,000... right? So their claims carry as much validity as the rest, despite larger numbers and greater antiquity than many of the other 50,000.
The Church that claims lineage to St. Peter and can demonstrate such has the most valid claim to authentic apostolic pedigree, right?
Again, I recommend reading "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn.

three out of the four i was referring to predate the reformation by many hundreds of years...

there are a total of at least five churches that claim apostolic lineage...and they all 'prove' it in the same way...basically just by giving unverifiable lists of bishops...

your church -cannot- demonstrate a lineage going back to peter...and i have challenged many in your church to try...

if you want you can start by documenting from contemporary sources that 'pope anacletus' -actually existed-

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Wrong again, Rachel. You basically made that claim by stating that a Hebrew word was found in cuneiform.
My statements were honest and truthful.

The rest of your lecture was totally irrelevant gibberish.

actually i was very careful to state that 'toledoth' was a -semitic- word...as such it is present in multiple semitic languages...including both the eblaite language of cuneiform tablets discovered at ebla...and the hebrew language of the bible...

if you knew anything about the history of semitic languages you would have understood all of this...

 

[zone]

It is NOT in history that Iraq was "responsible" for 9/11
The case made before before the UN involved WMD's (true)
Resolution 1441 violations (true)
Saddam's Open Support for Terror (true)

Iraq DID have WMD's
read; "Saddam's General" by General Georges Sada

bo-gus.....uh-uh.
objection.

 

[Xanthus]

three out of the four i was referring to predate the reformation by many hundreds of years...

there are a total of at least five churches that claim apostolic lineage...and they all 'prove' it in the same way...basically just by giving unverifiable lists of bishops...

your church -cannot- demonstrate a lineage going back to peter...and i have challenged many in your church to try...

if you want you can start by documenting from contemporary sources that 'pope anacletus' -actually existed-

Predating the reformation is not even a little bit relevant.

Do you believe "any" church can demonstrate a lineage going back to St Peter?

 

[Xanthus]

bo-gus.....uh-uh.
objection.

How so? Please elucidate. (Did you at least check Amazon for General Sada's Books?)
Also - please google the General Powell speech before the UN -- I counted the lines per topic
The case made before before the UN involved
WMD's (true) 40%
Resolution 1441 violations (true) 30%
Saddam's Open Support for Terror (true) 30%

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

And, I said "rough proto-sinaitic type scratching on rocks" -- again you put words in my mouth and then refute something I never said. I saw the script myself and made that non-scientific assessment for a lay audience. My point stands.

And yes, some OT scripture does fly in the face of archeology, evolution etc.

your 'non scientific assessment' was completely incorrect...

confusing proto sinaitic with paleo hebrew is like confusing arabic with ethiopic...they are not even close... you shouldn't even bring up these things in a debate when you clearly don't know what you are talking about...

and like i pointed out...proto sinaitic dates back to the eighteenth century BC...

furthermore the pre fifth century BC paleo hebrew writing was more than just 'rough scratching on rocks'...for example there is the mesha stele...

and if you disagree with what the bible clearly indicates...well so much for what you said about not claiming to be above the word of God...

you should just quit...you are embarrassing your church both intellectually and morally...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Predating the reformation is not even a little bit relevant.

Do you believe "any" church can demonstrate a lineage going back to St Peter?

it was claimed that the infamous reformation was the start of doctrinal confusion and denominationalism...i pointed out that there are four pre reformation churches that all claim to be 'the church founded by jesus'...so christian unity was broken long before the reformation...and it was actually due to arguments over traditions and church authority...not due to any sola scriptura principle...

it is 'theoretically possible' for a church to demonstrate a lineage going back to peter...but in practice the evidence just isn't there...

 

[Xanthus]

actually i was very careful to state that 'toledoth' was a -semitic- word...as such it is present in multiple semitic languages...including both the eblaite language of cuneiform tablets discovered at ebla...and the hebrew language of the bible...

if you knew anything about the history of semitic languages you would have understood all of this...

heheheh... this is getting a little ridiculous... as you know, Hebrew is a semitic language. And it sounded like you were trying to connect a cuneiform word to somehow establishing that Old Testament books existed long before they actually did (which you were) and my incredulous reply stemmed from that intimation.