Replies

I’m not Hoss, but I’ll give an answer:

“So all the traditions that Paul taught were recorded in the Scriptures?”

The essential ones, yes, most definitely—WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN.

The Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, holds many of the characteristics of a covenant or contract (why they are called TESTAMENTS), and one of those is the written nature of covenants, and the authority of that written nature.

If you sell real estate (or a car, or anything highly valuable) you will have a written contract—as well as a new deed, proving title to that property. Why? The English Parliament in the 1660s...after many (many) disputes after the great fire of London, established that real property ownership HAD to be backed up IN WRITING, or else the courts would not bother to defend ownership. This means at least written title must exist—recorded and stored by the government (usually in your local courthouse). In contract law too, this means that there is no legally enforceable agreement for conveyance of real property—unless it is in writing—signed by all relevant parties.

All successful countries today have similar rules—that things be in writing—for contracts and property ownership. In real estate—even though we’re talking about transactions that take place in usually just a matter of days or weeks—the principle is: If’s it not in writing....it cannot be required.

The reason for this is obvious—even persons of good will, forget, and mix up the details of property lines, sale price, dates, etc...and of course the world doesn’t even have that many persons of good will. Therefore, sinful, error-prone, humans NEED to back up important promises in writing.

So too with God’s covenants. The earliest one of any detail...was WRITTEN, BY Moses...in the 10 Commandments and the Torah. That way, foibles in institutional memory, or leaders or persons of influence who had flawed memory, or were not necessarily of good will—would not confuse, contradict, or add to, the Law of God, and give traditions of men (Jesus’ term) equal weight, to the Word of God.

The testimony of the Apostles, that is the New Testament, continued in that Old Testament tradition—namely of writing down what was essential, and what was enforceable.

One of the funny things I find about Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox)idea of hidden “tradition” passed on from the Apostles (besides it being a Gnostic idea)... is the total implausibility of it...

Just play a game of “telephone” with kids (or adults) where you whisper a simple story in one person’s ear, and have them whisper it to the next person—down through 8 or 10 persons. Invariably, the story told by the last person will bear little if any resemblance to the original. Were people TRYING to mess up? No...but to err is human.

Many of the doctrines of Rome or Constantinople based solely on tradition—don’t show UP in history—until HUNDREDS of years AFTER the Apostles were gone. Is their source being the Apostles at all plausible? NO!

And no, its not enough for the Church to tell me—it is because we say so. That’s putting your brain on a shelf.

If a story cropped up today—with no identifiable history or provenance—of George Washington visiting France, would we regard it as credible? We know from the records that Jefferson and Franklin visited France, but not Washington. Suppose a powerful scholar, and University president (and advocate of France) with many untenured scholars directly under his control, insisted that Washington visited France? Is it possible that those under his control....whose UNTENURED career and very livelihood was in that University president’s hands...would go along with his zany idea of Washington-in-France? Of course they would. Then suddenly you have a powerful source—with impeccable credentials...advocating this novel theory as fact—backed up by numerous scholars.

This is the kind of atmosphere (in spades) found in the Middle Ages. With a strict hierarchy of leadership in the Church—if the Pope or a powerful Cardinal or Bishop supported a particular “tradition” (no matter how shaky its historic foundation), particularly if it were a popular story (take the Assumption of Mary for example...)than by golly—his priests, his monks, his University...his underlings—at all levels...would be supporting it too (if by nothing else than silence...). It’s easy to see how down through the years, all kinds of extraneous ideas and pseudo-histories were added to the facts of the testimony of the Apostles (the New Testament) through the back-door of “Tradition,” combined with the abuse (whether intentional or not...) of power.

My issue is I just do not understand why the bogus nature of unwritten tradition (like unwritten promises in a contract...)....after 2000 years...isn’t obvious to everyone.

I’m not saying chuck out all tradition, as there are many “neutral” traditions...but, if you cannot back up a tradition in the Word of the Apostles, the New Testament—which is, simultaneously, the Word of God, it cannot be required—because, after all, it’s not in writing.