Replies

Both are infallible and both have been written eventually. The only real difference is that it takes more time to cull the contents of Apostolic Tradition. Neither can be "modified", although our understanding of EITHER can vary over time.

Oral teaching is infallible? I must have misunderstood. So, oral teaching that is handed down from generation to generation over thousands of years never changes? Every retelling is always exactly as the first?

Are you saying the teachings of the Apostles were not inspired by God?

I wouldn't imagine so, but I don't know what the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles really were. All I have is the say so of interested, extra-Biblical, fallible men. I don't see how oral tradition could be passed down flawlessly over this many years. The only evidence we have that it is all God-inspired is the word of the men who depend on that being true, along with a Bible passage or two massaged to fall in line with this view.

I don't understand how you can toss out their teachings based on whether THEIR hand actually wrote something or not. Did Moses write about HIS own death? But you still see Deuteronomy as inspired by God?

I never necessarily toss out anything, I just test it against the Bible as the Spirit leads me to interpret it. If a required interpretation strains logic and reason beyond all bounds, then I can't accept it. I don't believe God wrote the Bible for the purpose of hiding it from us. As for Moses, doesn't it seem reasonable that Joshua appended the obit?

So I couldn't write an Esther, a Philemon? I don't think it would be too difficult to write something that agreed with what was written before, ...

I don't think you could under the conditions of the original "authors". You have the unfair advantage of having studied the complete Bible as much as you have. None of them had that. You could parrot what the Bible already teaches, but they didn't have anything close to your knowledge. You would have been a "super priest" to them. :)

What is to prevent someone from claiming to write something ELSE that is "Scripture" and claim it is from God? The Scripture says nowhere that the canon is closed! That is Apostolic Tradition!

Well, considering how many extra books have been added to the Bible over the last 1600+ years, I don't see this as a huge problem. I'm sure that if someone did claim to find an unknown work it would be put through every test imaginable and there would be a big fight about it regardless.

I have never argued that external evidence is useless. It is especially useful to disprove something. I was only saying that while there is plenty of external evidence also in support of the Bible's authenticity, I do not need the RCC to bless it for me to know that it is God's word. The Bible speaks for itself.

The Bible is a compilation of letters. Some of them, at first glance, don't appear to belong or are not exactly what you would call "edifying" writings.

Well, that's why we take second, third, and tenth glances. It all still fits. I'm not sure if you are arguing that some evil, ingenious team of miscreants could manufacture an equal to the Bible as a whole. I don't think they could, because I know God would not be behind it.

It is writings such as that [Ps. 58] which led MANY people to believe that there were two separate Gods, the Demuirge of the Old Testament and the God of Love of the New Testament. Can you honestly tell me that Psalms 58 and the Gospel of Luke is written by the same God - WITHOUT EXTERNAL WITNESS??? ... It is ONLY the witness of the Church that tells us that BOTH are from the SAME GOD.

I don't think it is fair to compare one passage from the OT to one from the NT and then say they are incompatible without the guidance of the Church. In many senses, the OT and NT covered very different material. Any comparison has to be against the work as a whole. To understanding, the Spirit will lead us as He will, and on His timetable.

So, oral teaching that is handed down from generation to generation over thousands of years never changes? Every retelling is always exactly as the first?

Yesterday or the day before, I explained that Catholics don't follow "oral tradition" passed down for thousands of years! "Oral" Apostolic tradition, as I have explained it, is just a teaching that didn't get placed into 1 Corinthians. This doesn't mean that it wasn't written in the Didache, which was written only a few years later. The point is the source of these teachings are both Apostolic - whether Scripture or Apostolic Tradition.

You have yet to point out to me where the SCRIPTURES say we are to drop all oral traditions taught by Apostles. Why are you following an extra-Biblical - NO - ANTI-BIBLICAL teaching? And you give Catholics a hard time because "Mary is sinless" is not written in your concordances?

I don't know what the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles really were. All I have is the say so of interested, extra-Biblical, fallible men.

Yes, the same ones who saw Jesus risen from the dead, who wrote the Scriptures, and who taught the next generation of Christians. It appears that the second generation of Christians completely flubbed the teachings of the Bible - since we know that the Apostles consulted the Bible first when they taught. Sorry for the sarcasm, but we just seem to be going round and round with the same lines. You refuse to see that the same Christians who lovingly protected the Scriptures and vouched for their authorship are the same ones who vouched for and wrote down the Apostles "other" teachings such as infant baptism. I find this lack of logic frustrating, I suppose. It appears that you believe that they are ONLY trustworthy when when protecting the written teachings - as if the other teachings were not worthy to be continued.

I don't see how oral tradition could be passed down flawlessly over this many years.

See above. They were WRITTEN, just not in the letters of the Apostles...

I don't think you could under the conditions of the original "authors"

Meaning what? Let's just switch gears. Tell me how you know that Esther is part of the Word of God. And don't tell me because it is bound with the rest of the books in the Bible! If you found the Esther scroll, aware of its existence along with many other writings, how would you decide that it belonged?

My point is that INTERNAL EVIDENCE is insufficient to determine the canon of Scripture. Thus, the Bible is NOT self-attesting.

You could parrot what the Bible already teaches

Anyone could, and do it in 50 AD. Many DID do it.

I have never argued that external evidence is useless

No, you said it wasn't needed. I say this is ridiculous, it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to determine that THIS is what God is - not a duality, a ying and yang, not a non-personal God like Allah, not many gods, not "no" god, not the Gnostic vision of levels of dieties, not a Jesus with one nature, divine, in a "man" suit. You are totally lost as to WHAT is truth by relying only on the hundreds and hundreds of writings available that discuss the attributes of God. The Bible is one book among many, actually, 73 books among many. Without the reference of the Apostlolic Church, you wouldn't know if the Nicean Creed was orthodox, or heterodox - while the Gnostics were REALLY correct and Jesus was married and had a kid...You would have no clue whatsoever without outside witness and evidence that the Bible is THE teachings from God - the others are imitations.

The Bible speaks for itself.

So what does it say about Esther belonging within its bindings?

Well, that's why we take second, third, and tenth glances. It all still fits

That's special pleading. How are you going to convince a non-Christian that Psalm 58 is in synch with the rest of the concept of a loving God? And can't a Mormon say the very same thing? "It all still fits"? Or the Muslims? "No, you have to read it in Arabic". "No, the original Arabic". Come on.

"...because I know God would not be behind it.(a fake Scripture)

In all seriousness, I ask you "how?" And don't bother with the "Spirit will tell me". The Mormons say that EXACT same thing... And those naive people are wrong.

I don't think it is fair to compare one passage from the OT to one from the NT and then say they are incompatible without the guidance of the Church

Now we are getting somewhere! Not only "I don't think it is fair", but "I don't think it is POSSIBLE"!

Regards