Posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:01 PM PDT by 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?
No one I know of ever tried making the claim that the "visible" church was singularly (and only?) a Baptist church in Dallas. If they did, I'd have a bone to pick with them over that.
So--- take the strawman arguments like that -- and shove them.
Your own church doesn't (from more official levels) cut off all others as much as Romanists often resort to doing [rhetorically] here on the pages of FreeRepublic.
Meanwhile...all the evidence is stacked up against the claim that the church of Rome (and any affiliate in it's thrall) is the "one true church". That is just so much Romanist fantasy which God would possibly laugh at, if the implications of that sort of thinking were not so grievous (AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN IT TO BE).
Without the Reformation --- the RCC would have been entirely lost. It is only to the extent which it has conformed itself to the intended return of the original charter of Christ's own Church that the ecclesiastical bodies which comprise the RCC today can even call itself a part of that church.
But "they" don't do that, now do they? They do not declare themselves to be "a part of" what the Lord intended as to how church should function -- but instead, at their very most generous moments towards all others, like to refer to themselves/itself as being the center of everything (Christian), the end all to beat all... go the various claims.
Given it's decidedly mixed...and upon occasion MOST FOUL self-history...if that was God's own best intents towards mankind, then God could be fairly enough seen as capricious & duplicitous.
I thank God He has drawn me towards Himself using channels other than those defined and claimed by the church of Rome, as singularly, exclusively their own, but instead or more as Himself making good upon what is promised in the scriptures, concerning how He may be known.
God is good in that way. Good enough for me.
If I had never learned a thing about Roman Catholicism, or had to contend with it's various adherents (who do not all agree with one another on all that is said must be agreed to, etc.,) my own relationship with Him would be much simpler. Easier, even. But for the sins of man...I must suffer also. It's the nature of the beast of this world we all live in...
It could be worse, I suppose. I could have been born at another time and place(?) or be made to suffer needlessly at the hands of those who claim authority for themselves in His name, rather than just be irritated with the ceaseless blathering on of Romanist fantasies (which can vary dependent upon which Romanist is doing the asserting --about what)
I appreciate the effort for verbiage.
But if the visible Church is not the Baptist Church of Dallas, who are you proposing?
How insulting.
What part of "part of" do you not understand in this context?
If those of the church of Rome would but read Paul's Epistle to the Romans and understand it -- then compare that to a few [ahem] doctrinal developments which have arisen since that writing --- they would be shocked into shutting their pie-holes (out of which flows all sorts of distortion and wickedness engaged in, in the name of God) and repent. After which they would need further challenge or reform their own church from within (ha! good luck with that) or need leave and join an Orthodox, a Lutheran, or possibly Orthodox Presbyterian, even some humble and lowly "Baptist" or Methodist, or Pentecostal congregation.
BUT --- Romanists obviously do not understand the Epistles to the Romans.
Try Chapter 7
No doubt a lot of memorization was going on in following generations. However, we do have affirmations of the following which shows us what God said was Written:
Exodus 31:18 KJV
And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.(KJV)
And once again under Joshua:
Joshua 24:25-26 KJV
So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.(KJV)
Joshua 8:31-32 KJV
As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord , and sacrificed peace offerings. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.(KJV)
Here also:
Deuteronomy 31:9 KJV
And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord , and unto all the elders of Israel.(KJV)
And for Christians? Jesus Christ left no doubt. He did not say “it is said” or “tradition says” but “it is written.”
Matthew 4:4, 7, 10 KJV
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Jesus said unto him,
It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Are you referring to Exodus 24:12, where:
Yahweh said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain, and stay here, and I will give you the tables of stone with the law and the commands that I have written, that you may teach them."
Unless you are speaking of a different passage, I don't see where God was speaking of an Oral Torah/Law. Moses later explained to the people about what God gave to him:
"So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. "The LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4:13,14)
Again, I see no mention of an Oral Torah that Moses commanded be followed that was not also codified BY Moses.
a joy given to us by HaShem ?
or
A burden placed on us by men ?
The Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around (man made for the sabbath).
I don't think that for yourself (either of you whom I have addressed) I need cite where in the NT that was expressed, or who said it. ;^')
Very true! We see Jesus confronting the Jewish religious leaders of His day who nullified the word of God by their oral traditions. (Mark 7:13) The sacred Scriptures remain the only objective and reliable authority for the rule of faith we have because we can separate the traditions of men from what God revealed as the truth for the faith.
That would depend on what is meant by "foundation", wouldn't it? The church was to uphold, support and buttress the truth, it didn't invent what was the truth. The first Christians were given the truth from Jesus Christ that was passed down to His apostles and disciples and which they, in turn, codified in Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures. They were the same as the prophets of the Lord from the old covenant - they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and not from their own thoughts and interpretations.
Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day for nullifying the word of God through their traditions. Just because they were the religion's leaders, they had no authority to do so. They, as the church is for Christians today, are to buttress and support the truth given to them by God as HE ensured was preserved in His word. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of God will never pass away. That's pretty certain to me what is the authority for truth.
I have always thought through practices and observance and rituals that the Church of Rome....aside from the glaring difference....shares a lot with observant Judaism
Peter created first a church for fellow Jews to accept Jesus
Whereas Paul ...my guy...created church of Antioch afresh for the goyim
I know anecdotal prolly
Actually, I think the burden is on you to prove that this was speaking of an organized church which was headquartered in Rome or even in Jerusalem. Assemblies of Christians met in homes, catacombs, fields, etc. - wherever they could. So talking about knowing how to behave in the "house of God" could NOT have meant a physical "church" building but a metaphor for the spiritual house of which is made of all believers who are living stones of which Peter spoke of. Paul also reiterated this thought in I Corinthians 3:16, "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst?". The Body of Christ is intended to BE the pillar and support of the truth - the truth revealed to believers by the Holy Spirit and codified in Holy Scripture. We ALL have that duty.
Well stated. Thanks again... your focus (as usual) is upon that which matters.
And what do you think "pillar and foundation" (1Tim. 3:15) mean as well as that "the gates of hell will not prevail?" Does the former mean the RCC in particular is the superior authority over Scripture? So that Scripture is not the supreme authority as transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims?
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means such is the perpetually assuredly infallible interpreters of it, and thus disagreeing with it is rebellion against God?
If one rejects a Baptist preaching the message say of Acts 10:36-43 then is he rejecting Christ? (Lk. 10:16)
And is "gates of hell will not prevail" a defensive or offensive term?
Nor now in Christiandom, though largely the same.
(By this tripartate division, David and Solomon were considered Prophets, so Samuel and Psalms were considered among the books of the Prophets.)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures , (Luke 24:44-45)
It’s not that Catholics “added” books to the Canon; it’s that Catholics never infallibly defined a canon until the Council of Trent.
They added as infallible books that aforetime and during Trent were yet subject to scholarly dispute. You last statement, while true, many RCs find unsettling, as they see Luther as dissenting from an indisputable canon, as well a man Prots follow as a pope (which would make them rather Catholic).
Thus, there was no distinction between “oral tradition” and “scripture.” What was “scripture” was what was accepted by tradition as doctrinally correct.
Separating what was wholly inspired and authoritative, which Christ thus opened the eyes of the disciples to (which were more than the 11) from that which was not.
And as was the case before there was a church, both men and writings of God came to be est. as being so essentially due to there unique and enduring Heavenly qualities (Ps. 19; 119) and attestation, which the magisterium is to confirm, but which are such regardless. Thus the church began in dissent, with the common people recognizing what the magisterium did not/would not. (Mk. 11:27-33)
This notion can still discerned within the ambiguities of the Council of Trent: The canon is defined as those which contain unique doctrine which must be defended. “Greek Esdras” is left in a limbo: unnecessary, since it contains virtually nothing unique, but not condemned. Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees, commonly read at mass by the Orthodox, but lacking among Western masses, go unmentioned.
Yes, unlike as against Prots, this disparity never seems to be an issue, and the Byzantine Rite is not so technical as the West. And yet there is discussion among Catholics as whether Trent infallibly closed the canon.
As local Traditions diverged, Scripture emerged as a test of what comprised authentic Tradition: nothing contrary to Scripture could be regarded as authentic.
RC Tradition cannot contradict Scripture as Rome alone is authoritative on what a contradiction is. Yet even o the EO "opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” - Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135
Thus, we come to the authority of the Pope: where a doctrine has gone without contradiction
What teaching, or part thereof (Bulls, encyclicals, etc.) constitutes an infallible teaching is itself a matter of interpretation (as is often their meaning to some degree), with some seeing an extensive list, but usually it is a very small list. Yet "without contradiction" does not mean it is actually taught in Scripture or even that its veracity is based upon or requires weight of Scriptural substantiation, or even that the reasons or arguments upon which it may be based are infallible.
Nor on our end is he necessarily consistent with it. Its veracity rests upon the premise of the assured infalliblity of Rome. As Keating states as regards there strictly being zero proof from Scripture for it, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275; http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption].
Thus, it’s not a matter of a Pope lacking the free will to affirm a false doctrine; it’s a matter of him lacking the authority to do so.
No one has authority to teach false doctrine, with Scripture being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced .
God has affirmed that the Pope cannot with proper authority infallibly declare what is false (”Whatever you declare bound on Earth is bound in Heaven.”).
That this translates into Rome's magisterial perpetual formulaic assured infallibility is an extrapolative interpretation, and which presumes this is necessary for the binding and loosing we see in Scripture, and by which Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
In a sense, then, the issue of whether a tradition carries authority, the answer is that it is a matter for the Church to decide as a whole (as in an ecumenical council that is approved by the Pope), or for the Pope to discern has been decided.
And as the latter's authority is unlimited, incalculable, and can punish every one, allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice, being subject to no one, and cannot be deposed, then it is the height of individual autocracy and interpretation.
No need to worry about that Jesus fellow this way.
Did you mean the COUNTER reformation?
I honestly can’t speak about the Jewish oral tradition because I’m not Jewish, but I believe even secular historians acknowledge that they had oral tradition far longer than any Scriptures.
This it’s quite similar with Christianity (or really Catholicism within Christianity). Both religions started off with an oral tradition (teaching) that was passed on person to person, until the most important of those teachings were written down. This is what we call “the Bible” or “Scriptures” today. They are the product of Tradition. This is often overlooked or ignored in Scriptural discussion. There almost seems to be an unspoken presumption that the Scriptures came first and then oral traditions were tacked on later. This is the exact opposite of what occurred in both religions.
For Christianity specifically, for me I don’t think it’s reasonable to view its “evolution” so to speak in any other way. That is (as I’ve said before, not on this thread but other times) it isn’t believable, for lack of a better word, to claim after Jesus ascended into Heaven that immediately, the apostles hurried home, wrote down the Gospels, and then carried copies of what they just wrote and used that to “convert” people.
No, what clearly happened was, right after Pentecost really, the Apostles went forth and preached what happened to THEM. That is, they spoke from experience. Their own experience. And just as anyone can easily discern when a man is different, when he is changed in some way, the Gospel was preached not via men standing up on a pulpit and reciting words from the Bible, but by sharing what happened to themselves with others. By being a witness for Christ in every sense of the word.
Now, this is how the Church started and flourished through the first days, weeks, months and years if it’s beginning. This is how it was done, until one by one the Apostles met their earthly death and went to be with their Lord. But do we honestly believe that with the death of the last Apostle, that the Church suddenly changed direction, and started to only use the Gospel writings, (and letters) to share the Good News? That this perfectly natural perfectly human way of being Christian and sharing Christianity with others suddenly stopped?
Of course not. What the Bible was and has always been is again, a PRODUCT of Tradition. So thus, the initial teachings (of Jesus Himself) were recorded in the Gospel books we know today. Written record of their testimony. Why? Because they had a love for their God (Jesus) that commanded them to keep as much as they could recorded, so that all important teaching would be preserved. A perfectly reasonable thing to do. But this clearly wasn’t enough.
As we also know, the Bible (Christian) contains letters (mostly of St. Paul) addressing certain concerns in the Church at the time. Some of the letters that he wrote (and a few others) are now known to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, ie, are Scripture. But not all.
Does anyone believe it’s reasonable to believe that the teachings of St. Paul (much less those of St. Peter and the other letter writers) are all contained in what they wrote “for” the Bible? That is, does anyone seriously believe that they went around, and, after writing these letters just pointed to them and said “read this” when ANOTHER question about the Faith came up? Please.
It’s obvious what occurred then, and what continues now (at least obvious to me). Christ’s method for saving humanity was not to give us a book and say “read it and you’ll be converted”. He gave His Holy Spirit to guide us, as human beings, to live as human beings and by doing so, in doing this (living our lives but with renewed focus on him) THAT is how Christianity is spread. Where Scripture comes in is precisely in this need to know more about what has changed this person I have met. What we point to when someone asks, “What has changed you? Who have you met? I’d like to know more?” It’s our Tradition.
But not all of our Tradition. Just as the Jewish Bible (which is what the early Church had) was not the entire Christian Tradition, so is our Christian Bible not the entire Word of God. It’s what is the most vital for salvation but it isn’t everything there is to know about the Gospel. Even St John claimed this IN the Bible when he wrote not everything Jesus did was in what he wrote (cf John 21:25). So if not everything of what Jesus DID is in the Bible, why should we believe everything He TAUGHT is in the Bible? Much less the teachings of any of the Apostles?
Indeed, there is much more to learn even today. It would have been impossible to put everything Jesus had to teach about every human being who lived or was going to live, in the Bible. This is because while we share a common desire for Christ, we are all different people, so it’s not possible to put down in writing teaching that is perfect and complete for 6 billion (or more in the future) different people. (Note, 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not say “All Scripture alone...” Or “Only all Scripture...” And yes, as verse 17 says, Scripture is necessary to be complete and furnished for every good work, but again the word “only” or “alone” does not appear in that passage).
We are all on a shared journey to Christ but we each have our own cross to bear. It is by bearing this cross we are led to Christ, become converted, and truly educated in the Faith. That is, by simply living and engaging in reality. It’s through this “shared individualism”, that we are Christians today. It’s a matter of faith, really, to believe that our oral Tradition today is indeed a part of the Word of God but I submit it’s not that difficult given one’s own experience.
In conclusion, for me it’s just not reasonable to believe our faith is “based on the Bible”. For me, it seems more reasonable to claim that Chrisitianity is actually an unbroken line of 2,000 years of friendship. For just as when one has a problem that can’t be faced alone (and there are many that can’t many more than we care to admit) we go to a friend for help. Help in solving the problem, facing the problem, living WITH the problem.
And this is Christianity. We go to others for help, in humility (thus the importance of humility) because indeed, what could be more important than our soul, our Faith? Certainly not a problem to be faced alone. The only “difference” is that in Christianity, we not only have our friends alive here on Earth to help us, but also those that went before us, such as St. Paul through the Scriptures, but ALSO all the other saints who have written helps through the ages, NOT that their written words are the Word of God, but that they themselves, their lives, their WITNESS are a sign for all of us to discover and then wonder, “Who did this for them? How can I meet the same person?”
We then can meet Him today, in His Church. In every way that matters, in every way that saves, in the EXACT way the Apostles encountered Him: through and in, REALITY.
The problem is that the way that is presented is that the *church* IS truth.
Scripture, God's word, is truth, which the church is responsible to support or uphold as truth, which is what a pillar and foundation do for a structure.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.