Does Jewish Oral Tradition Equal Roman Catholic Oral Tradition? (Also, Are They Similar In Nature?

3/27/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

A.) Is there an existential difference between that Jewish Oral Tradition handed down over the centuries (or even millenia from the time of Moses until that Oral Tradition was codified) and Roman Catholic Oral Tradition passed on from Bishop to Bishop until it was later codified?

B.) If an Oral Tradition is carried from person to person over a period of time (from say 33 A.D. until 90's A.D. - around the time of John's death) and that New Testament Oral Tradition was being codified during that time period, is that codification different or greater in authority (given that it could have been subject to the Apostle John's acceptance or rejection) than Oral Tradition that is/was codified over a much larger expanse of time - say from after John's death up until the Counter Reformation?

How do we know that that Oral Tradition which emerged after John's death has any veracity or authority at all? If we say "We know that it is truthful and authoritative because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop and because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop we know that it is true," isn't that circualr reasoning?

If so, doesn't that hold true for Jewish Oral Tradition that is outside of the canon (Torah) or the canon (Genesis to Malachi) - whichever one of the two one accepts as being authoritative?

How do we know that the Oral Interpretation of the codified letter (the book of Jeremiah or Genesis for example) that may have been given much later - say hundreds of years later - carries any veracity or authority at all? Did those Jewsish authorities who interpreted those written scriptures and later codified their interpretation(s) (or had their interpretation(s) codified by others "down the road a bit") have some authority that was almost Ex Cathedra in scope or nature?

As a digression, when one speaks Ex Cathedra, do they lose Free Will? Does God take over so that that Pope cannot commit error? If so, is that equal to what the Apostle Paul said in the New Testament: "All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine..."

In the end, if any Oarl Tradition is equal in veracity and authority (be it Jewish or Roman Catholic) why not - for example - place that codification in a canon and include it right alongside say Genesis to Tobit and Baruch to Revelation?

The same for Jewish Oral Tradition?

[Elsie]

I have made my point and you have proven it. Game over

SURE you have.

[Elsie]

Jesus knew that not everyone would be open to hearing the Church.

Jesus knew that false teaching would abound; that's why He left us the unchanging SCRIPTURES.

No synods, councils or magisteriums needed.

[Elsie]

And once again,my original point is proven that my time answering the question is a wasteful and futile endeavor for there are some here more interested in furthering lies about what the Church holds as true and teaches.

Some?

WHO; exactly?

If you are going to ACCUSE someone; be brave enough to directly challenge them, instead of hiding behind a big tar brush.

[Elsie]

I have made my point and you have proven it. Game over

(See "E")

---

A. If you say something along the lines of “the moderators might ban me for saying this, but…” then you lost.

B. Anyone who says “well, ban me if you want to, but…” is actually saying; “in the name of a loving God, please ban me because I am losing this argument so badly that my only hope of escaping it with a shred of dignity is if I can make myself out to be some sort of martyr to free speech.”

C. If you claim to have supporting evidence available online, but instead of linking to it you say “Look it up yourself,” you lose. Similarly to the banning thing, “look it up yourself” clearly means “please please please don’t look it up yourself.” It’s an admission of failure.

D. If you invoke the name of a logical fallacy without explaining its relevance, you lose. Logical fallacies are not Harry Potter spells. You don’t just get to shout them out and wiggle your wand to make magic happen. Plus, there’s a logical meta-fallacy: Just because someone’s making an error in reasoning doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

E. If you claim to be winning, you lose. This should be self-evident: If you’re so desperate that you have to tell someone you’re winning, you’re obviously not. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/alt-text-internet-arguments

 

[Jvette]

Just realized that you have brought the discussion over from another thread. I don’t think that’s allowed.

[Phinneous]

Now see Blue Dragon... my response wouldn’t have been so nice.

Anyway, Uriel,

Are silly poems all u got?
Or have you just never experienced “oneg Shabbat?”

Nyeh Nyeh Nyeh

The idea of modern Orthodox law as a burden is short-sighted. If the Creator told you to dig a hole and fill it—would you not be thrilled at having a message from the creator? G-d forbid to liken Jewish observance to Democrat make-work programs (the latter being actual hell,) but to understand Judaism is to live an entire life in service to the Creator. The varsity level is to further understand that His laws are good and enable a Jew to live a truly fulfilling life. But darn, no cell phone on Shabbos, and we don’t roll on Shabbos, either (for Jewish bowlers.)

Bro, if you’re really a Jew contact your local Chabad House and give it a try.

[Elsie]

Just realized that you have brought the discussion over from another thread. I don’t think that’s allowed.

You mean there are TWO threads that you are NOT ready to give an answer?

[Elsie]

Just realized that you have brought the discussion over from another thread. I don’t think that’s allowed.

Since there are an awful lot of CATHOLIC threads being responded to here at FR; it is likely that many of the same themes will crop up.

You always have the option; like you've said in other threads, to...

"I am declaring victory and leaving the field of battle."

[dangus]

My attempt was not to decisively “win” every Protestant v Catholic theological debate, but merely to give outlines of the Catholic position. I would make a few quick clarifications, however, then move to a point about the Orthodox.

>> That a supreme infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome was ordained by Christ, and manifest historically is only an assertion begging the question.
(1) The answer predates the question. (2) Although non-Catholics interpret the bible differently, the answers based on scripture.
Not only are there specific verses where Jesus gives such authority to Peter, and that such an office shall not go vacant, there is the simple precedence that Peter is referenced more than three times as often in the gospel as all other disciples combined; even in the gospels, with Jesus right there among them, they ask Peter to ask Jesus questions, rather than asking Jesus himself. How odd is that, if not that the gospel writers were selecting incidents to demonstrate a precedent?

>> True, but as the abundant use of OT (24 different books) saw no recorded conflict with the Jews, then it indicates it was not a issue, at least in the gospels and Acts. <<

But that’s just it! There was NOT abundant use of all 24 books! Most of the Khetuvim / Writings / Hagiography are barely mentioned!

>> And this dissent through centuries and right into Trent is not explained as being due to the Jews. More. <<

It’s true as your source insists that Hippo and Carthage were not infallible. (I actually erred in stating that Trent established the canon infallibly; Florence did, but I mentally glossed over that since Florence was fairly close in time to the Reformation. Florence was infallible.) But regarding their historical value, so what? Do they no less establish that without dissent the entirety of the bishops gathered assented to the “larger” canon? And in fact, Florence was so much more remarkable than Trent, since it gained the assent of not only the Catholic bishops (that vote, incidentally, is wildly misleading, but too tangential to argue about), but each and every Orthodox bishop present.

>> You mean some considered them fit for doctrine and church use, and others did not. Merely referencing something does not give the whole work it authority, else the pagan poets Paul quoted were authoritative. <<

No, I stated, “referenced them authoritatively,” meaning that they referenced them as providing authority for a theological assertion.

ABOUT THE ORTHODOX:

The Catholic doctrine about purgatory is:
Christ’s atonement is complete and entirely effective for the eternal effects of sin.
People whose contrition for their sins has been imperfect suffer temporal effects of their sins before entering Heaven. This state is called purgatory.
The suffering in purgatory is qualitatively different from Earthly suffering because those in purgatory are sustained by certain faith, which is undistracted by worldly matters
The suffering of those in purgatory can be lessened and shortened by prayers for the dead, by acts of charity dedicated the deceased, and most especially by the Holy Sacrifice of Mass.
Those in purgatory are certain to go to Heaven.

That the Ancient Church prayed for the dead is undeniable. Paul even refers to baptizing non-believers “for the sake of the dead.”

Pope Shenouda’s invention of the “toll-booth theory” is scandalous: It’s an attempt to rationalize why people might pray for the dead in the absence of purgatory. But it is theologically absurd and has no basis in history. In contrast, the Catholic position is laid out very plainly in the 2nd Book of Maccabees, which the Orthodox accept as canonical: to attain forgiveness for the sins of the dead. Not only is the practice illustrated, but a prophet of God proclaims the practice just and effective, and that the prayers are an expression of confidence in the resurrection of the dead.

Now, Pope Shenouda is Coptic, which was in schism long before the Great Schism. So I’m not sure how much of the Tradition of the Orthodox-Catholic church the Copts assent to, but the Catholics interpret Paul in 1 Cor 3:11-15 as describing (admittedly with possible metaphor) purgatory. This interpretation was argued by St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Origen and St. Gregory. Admittedly, these are mostly “Western” Fathers, but their testimony lies in the deposit of faith of the Eastern Churches as well, and they find support as well in St. Cyprian, St. Bernard, St. Bede, St. Isadore.

Yet, the Orthodox wiki cannot repudiate Shenouda’s facially ridiculous speculation? How sad and tragic.

[BlueDragon]

) Although non-Catholics interpret the bible differently, the answers based on scripture. Not only are there specific verses where Jesus gives such authority to Peter,

Oh, just STOP IT.

It's not simply a matter of "non-Catholics" interpreting scripture "differently", but is also a matter that the entire church did so in earliest centuries.

By which I mean many centuries passed before any bishop of Rome began to assert that they themselves above and beyond all others, were singularly "Peter's successor".

Which would leave the first many centuries church be a collection OF IDIOTS for having not noticed this now central feature of Roman Catholicism for SO LONG!

To more fully understand the history of the church, one simply must cease to be a Romanist --- or have to come up with special pleadings such as Newman's theories of "development", for among those things which cannot be found within the understandings of the earliest of ECF's, and what they spoke of as the original charter of the church --- is there being a singular 'papacy' in Rome (alone) or anywhere else which all others were to unilaterally submit themselves to.

Papacy as it is known today was simply not a feature of the early church. Deal with it -- and include that aspect in any pondering, writings or discussion regarding the matter -- or else one will be repeating untruths while representing those sort of thoughts/statements as being factual.

[BlueDragon]

Now see Blue Dragon... my response wouldn’t have been so nice.

I admit to having some favorable prejudice towards UriÂ’el-2012...and perhaps should have thanked him for his asking if the Sabbath was joy given to us [by Hashem, as he put it], for it was not instituted by men -- or else we cannot trust Moses to have been speaking truth.

The idea of modern Orthodox law as a burden is short-sighted.

It didn't come across to me, that he was saying or intending as much. Rather...there can be some room (if one were to be assuming what else the man may have in mind that has not been said) that as far as Orthodox law does conform to traditions of old, provided those are faithfully enough transmitted to this day & age (?) then those things are likely to be viewed by him as being from God --- and if any regard those things burdensome, then for our own good?

The idea of modern Orthodox law as a burden is short-sighted.

Oo-kay. Why now? Why wait? Is the Jewish Sabbath over with, in your own physical locale?

Are you attempting to bait the man into "using a computer" on the Sabbath day?

Are you trying to bait ME into doing something you may then wag a finger at?

Just what is it...? I do wonder if past Christian witness either of us may have shared, has gotten under your skin.

If so, no real worries, eh? I cannot convert anyone much. So one is safe wherever they are at...

Aah, but the Lord of Lords by his own spirit can, in fact I do believe He must, or else there is no approaching that one who is propitiation of our sins, Him being fully enough so to take all sins of the entire world upon Himself -- if all would but take those to Him.

As the Christ spoke out loud (when He was living on this earth in the genuine form of a man);

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

[BlueDragon]

As to who sat in Moses's seat --- what was the practice of the Jews during the time or era of Christ?

Among the priests of the temple, the high-most position was not one of life-long duration, but rotated by turn among the many priests.

Caiaphas, being the chief priest at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, prophesied concerning the situation as can be seen written of in John 11 [from Young's Literal Translation]

45 Many, therefore, of the Jews who came unto Mary, and beheld what Jesus did, believed in him;

A moment's interruption here, for this Mary was sister to Martha, and to Lazarus, whom the one known to us today as Jesus Christ raised [Lazarus] from the grave, as is detailed in in the same chapter link has been given to.

46 but certain of them went away unto the Pharisees, and told them what Jesus did;

47 the chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees, gathered together a sanhedrim, and said, `What may we do? because this man doth many signs?

48 if we may let him alone thus, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and will take away both our place and nation.'

49 and a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being chief priest of that year, said to them, `Ye have not known anything,

50 nor reason that it is good for us that one man may die for the people, and not the whole nation perish.'

51 And this he said not of himself, but being chief priest of that year, he did prophesy that Jesus was about to die for the nation,

[dangus]

>> It’s not simply a matter of “non-Catholics” interpreting scripture “differently”, but is also a matter that the entire church did so in earliest centuries. <<

So you (falsely) claim. Tertullian (208 AD): “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him, if he has been questioned and made confession [of faith].”

Cyprian (248 AD): “He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?”

Irenaeus (178 AD): “By pointing out the apostolic tradition and faith announced to mankind, which has been brought down to our time by successions of bishops, in the greatest, most ancient, and well known church, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome, we can confound all who in any other way… gather more than they ought.”

Now, Ignatius (115 AD) appealed to the authority of bishops as apostolic successors: “void divisions, as the beginning of evil. Follow, all of you, the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the father; and follow the presbytery as the apostles. Let no man do aught pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church” What’s very surprising is that even though he is bishop at Antioch, he also looks to the chair of Peter to claim authority, when there are squabbles among bishops.

And of course, there is the biblical precedent that the apostles do not address questions directly to Jesus, but ask Peter to ask for them.

Many Protestants object saying Paul told Peter he was wrong. But that precisely proves the point! Paul saw Peter allowing people to violate to the doctrine that PETER established! Does Paul correct them? No, he gets PETER to correct PAUL’S own flock!

[dangus]

There is no suggestion I am aware of that the Papacy was meant to be a continuation of the Moses seat; and I can say with certainty that there is no evidence that the Bishop of Rome, or any other diocese, was ever a rotating position.

[BlueDragon]

So I falsely claim?

No sir, rather it is Romanists such as yourself who are "false" when quoting such snippets from ECF's as you have brought here, reading into those that Peter's successors be only single-file in order as "bishop of Rome" with all others needing be forever organized under that sole bishopric -- for as I made mention of, that sort or organizational hierarchy, --- was not evident from the beginning of the church, as history clearly enough shows, if one would but take the Romish-rose colored glasses off long enough to see it (when studying history of the church).

But do us a favor. When citing ECF's include showing what document you are quoting from, would you? Like -- with a "clickable" link also, as one of your own number has often times demanded that all Protestants do, so those may be examined in wider context from which they are derived... among other considerations.

As for anyone saying that the church of Rome was founded personally by Peter --- that's sort-of nonsense when one considers that Paul journeyed to Rome at least once, and possibly TWICE (and once--beyond?) before Peter himself ever set foot in that city.

In most all accounts (and as scripture also indicates) Peter is said to have founded the church at Antioch (or at least have been present there) long before his own going on to Rome, such as is accepted by most historians.

The insurmountable problem which Papists have, is that the facts of history as can be seen in the earliest writings taken in aggregate, along with scripture itself also --- shows there was a sense of order not reliant upon singular "succession" to "Petrine" office, but that those gifts and calling of God were rather instead shared liberally among the faithful (and thus bishops, wherever those may be found) --- with the original sense of Peter's own "primacy" as it in later centuries came to be regarded or referred to, be in the very earliest beginnings of the Church, much more as example for Christians to learn from, and each believer personally follow (as to faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah) rather than some bestowal of unchallengeable administrative power of authority which all must submit themselves towards --- to be seen later (after Peter's own death) as being singularly and only found in bishopric of Rome, for that sense did not come to the fore for many long centuries, regardless of the cherry-picking of a handful of citations (such as you bring here now) while ignoring all which can otherwise be found in history which would refute this singular inherited 'primacy' idea -- which according to the rest of present day RC theology (that theology itself having "developed over span of many centuries) equals also by default there being a "Supremacy" for the bishop of Rome.

History refutes that latter Supremacy nonsense, as does sense of scripture also (if not viewed through Romish pre-supposition).

[BlueDragon]

Can you not see that the Tertullian quote which you cite --- does not support that there was view towards singular papacy derived from Petrine "keys" as it were, but much more the opposite?

As what you bring from Tertullian (a valuable witness in this regards, as to what the "sense" of the church was in his own very early-on time in the history of the church) unless there be interpretation of his use of the word "everyone" be not literally everyone, but instead only those "everyone's" which later on become bishop of Rome, is primary witness against the later developing idea of singular papacy be inherited only by those who do become bishop of Rome.

[BlueDragon]

There is no suggestion I am aware of that the Papacy was meant to be a continuation of the Moses seat

Huh? Only "Peter's seat" then(?) while otherwise there is reasonable enough consideration (and PLENTY of talk and "suggestion") of "the church" stretching not only back all the way to Moses, but through him also, back all the way to Abraham(!) else we loose our original moorings -- for those two men where in no wise cut off from the original branches of the Vine (who Christ testified He himself was).

"... and I can say with certainty that there is no evidence that the Bishop of Rome, or any other diocese, was ever a rotating position."

Must that portion of your response be so wooden?

Part of the reason I brought mention of Caiaphas being used of the Lord to prophesy, is to highlight how the Lord will indeed utilize the office in spite of the lack of understanding and/or abundance of misunderstanding which any particular occupant may have --- which concept cannot but be also part of the contemplations which had been engaged in as part of the "faith" as it were that "the Church" be infallible in it's teachings, with the begging question there being always, at all times and instance -- "what and who precisely --- is the church?"

I suggest Tertullian in part, did provide answer;

"... remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him, if he has been questioned and made confession [of faith].”

What now? Are we to limit this to only those who have been questioned by certain and particular interrogators?

Tertullian himself included no such stipulations, which can result in the keys referenced being inheritable beyond those having qualified themselves in some form by having received ordinations from men.

[Phinneous]

His question was certainly to negate the authority of orthodox Judaism (the oral tradition/Talmud/rabbis...) Don’t kid yourself.

To better understand my rhythmic and rhetorical retort, “Oneg” means ‘enjoyment.’ It is a law, yes a law, to enjoy the Sabbath. So it is fundamentally impossible, to a Jew, to take Uriel’s bait. Once again,

Are silly poems all u got?
Or have you just never experienced “oneg Shabbat?

And this was a message for a self-identified messianic, b’shem ploni. If he’s a Jew, then he is missing out on Judaism, thus-far, and can remedy that with davening, cholent, and singing with his brothers at a real Shabbos table.

Hey all messianics (Jews) and general deniers/wonderers about your Oral Torah— give it a try. The G-d you don’t yet believe in (Melech Malchei hamelachim) I also didn’t believe in once...

[BlueDragon]

And of course, there is the biblical precedent that the apostles do not address questions directly to Jesus, but ask Peter to ask for them.

Other Apostles...not addressing questions to Christ directly you say?

Balderdash.

Shall I now need go fetch examples for the contrary? How about doubting Thomas? Or those who questioned Him as who would be greater in the Kingdom of Heaven.... The list of those sort of interactions can go on, while at the same time, many of the responses of Christ to Peter --- can be seen in the texts as being addressed to the many (as the early church most certainly did most often interpret the NT) and most usually not given to Peter alone, as in being meant for Peter alone, but more sensibly also, to be commentary/instruction/teaching and answer being provided for all as to issues and aspects of God, and His truth.

Otherwise...should all now be required to listen to such as the Sermon on the Mount only from a [Roman] Catholic priest? We don't see there, or pretty much anywhere else Christ saying to Peter, "hey Petros 'ol pal, now that I have spoken -- would you interpret and explain what I just said directly to the multitudes?".

What can be seen later of course, is Peter standing up and explaining things to the Jews of his time, after the Assumption of the Risen Christ.

Many are called to that same mission...as was Paul.

How about instead of myself going and digging out scriptures where other Apostles do directly interact with the Christ, you go play fetch and bring to us here multiple instances of the other Apostles shrinking back, and in actuality pushing Peter forward while saying at the same time to Peter "you ask for us", instead of there being instances of Peter's own boldness of stepping forward (on his own 'get-go', as it were) rather than being "asked".

Even the one quote in Matthew 16, wherein "keys" were first mentioned by Christ as being given over to Peter, was itself spoken of again in Matthew chapter 18 with Christ there addressing all those whom were there assembled -- which leaves it reasonable enough for us to assume was much the reason why this later so-called 'primacy' of Peter, was understood in the early church to be a thing accessible to all through faith, with Peter (god bless him) frequently serving as example to the rest, and even to us still, to this very day.

[BlueDragon]

His question was certainly to negate the authority of orthodox Judaism (the oral tradition/Talmud/rabbis...) Don’t kid yourself.

That's not the way it came across to myself at all.

To better understand my rhythmic and rhetorical retort, “Oneg” means ‘enjoyment.’ It is a law, yes a law, to enjoy the Sabbath. So it is fundamentally impossible, to a Jew, to take Uriel’s bait.

Did he say it was not a law to enjoy the Sabbath? No, all he did was pose a question. As I understood his approach to be, it was meant as 'food for thought' with himself (I must assume) rather favoring the position that the Sabbath be intended by God for man to enjoy.

For anyone to assume differently, judging from what the man did say, one must engage in a form of mind-reading and end up attributing motive to him -- which simply is not there.

Yet you seemed to have forced myself into attributing motive also, though I dare say that attributing positive motives, like unto giving a person benefit of doubt, rather than a deliberate with-holding of that benefit and instead a reversal of such towards accusation, is allowable enough, while accusation based upon mind-reading and attributing motive is frowned upon, in this FR forum.

Returning to question of Sabbath --- the one known in the NT as Jesus pointed out that the Sabbath was made for man, rather than man made for the Sabbath (to serve it as duty).

Do you have any problem with that ?