Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
Oh, so it's NOT really oral tradition after all. It's something written down, eh?
They were teaching in accordance with what was written. It was all of one accord. There were no contradictory revelations, teachings or traditions. Traditions in contradiction were condemned. The Gospel as taught by the Apostles was not to be strayed away from under threat of being accursed. It was itself written down and was scripture as well. Test every teaching, doctrine, belief and spirit against scripture, we are told to do this. That which is at odds or in contradiction is not of God.
“Read the Early Church Fathers who were around when Jesus was there and when the Mass started. They knew the apostles and got a lot of stories from them that aren’t in the Bible.”
OK
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cath 4.17)
Oops!!!
See post #103. I quoted one of those early church “fathers” he mentioned.
I’m sure you have a source that you excerpted that from. Oops!
And I am sure it was not the entire quote.
FYI, I am a widow not a “he”
But the author here must think we're not going to notice the difference twixt a house fly and a house flying, to wit:
If there is a body of “oral Tradition” that stands with equal authority and has come down to us from Christ and/or the spirit inspired apostles, where may I find it?
Is it in full agreement with written Scripture?
Is knowing and believing and following this “oral Tradition” necessary to my perfecting as a Christian?
Do the written Scriptures contain enough information, enough “truth” though a gist of Christ's and the apostles’ teachings, to allow us to become “sanctified”, made holy for use by God? (John 17)
Or must we have some part of “oral Tradition” in addition?
I don't see these as really difficult questions.
“I’m sure you have a source that you excerpted that from.”
Yeah, it’s in the parenthesis. But here’s also a link to the same work. It’s paragraph 17.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm
Not that I expect you to read it though.
Tim Staples is pretty good at setting up his own imagined strawmen and then presenting himself as the heroic Catholic apologist in knocking them down. Trouble is, his article is as full of holes as his theology. Just another repeat of the weekly game of Catholic vs. Protestant, “Let’s You and Him Fight”.
I guess a better question would be, "What does the Bible lack that would keep an interested person from reading, understanding, and appreciating the Good News of the Gospels. What does it lack to keep a person from making the decision to accept Christ as the Savior?"
You really need to get out more, meet people, learn how the memory of man is able to pack data.
People who work extensively on government regulations MUST commit the existing structure and text to memory ~ or to heart as the ancients would say. Only then can they CATCH and CORRECT the errors the mechanical processes create in any text! That means that somewhere there is someone wholiterally knows the federal tax code. Somewhere else there's a person this very day who KNOWS the USPS book of books, the Domestic Mail Manual.
Chinese languages have been until the creation of pin yin transmitted in whole by oral methods. The written language ~ the actual language at the base of the character system ~ is not the same as the spoken languages yet, with training it is intelligible to all.
The mind is tricky ~ when reading written text it was recently discovered that your eye/brain systems look at the first and last letters in a word to begin the search into your vast warehouse of memorized vocabulary to find a match. That's pretty efficient but it's also a source of error. Reading, then, is dependent in substantial part on the quality of the memorization of the words, and parts of words that we've assembled into our memories.
We only imagine printed text to be superior.
The Bureau of Printing and Engraving has on staff highly trained copy editors who are able to overcome the limitations imposed on reading quality. The Congressional Record and the Federal Register are read and corrected by such people. For less skilled text editors you might want to have them read it backwards!
This is off the track of the main argument which is that there are actually 'materials' of relevance to the practice of religion that are never written down, or never written down in the main text described as 'scripture'. Memory palace techniques are not explained in the Bible ~ but the memnonic devices used to structure them are there. Those who have knowledge will understand.
Speaking just for myself; I am counting on purgatory, ain't now way this mothers son is going to be perfect enough for heaven with out a bit of dusting off.
This is an outright lie; IF THE KJV WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR JESUS AND THE APOSTLES, THEN IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME./SARC
I am putting the sarc tag here since I am convinced that some people will not understand it.
The writier did a very good job explaining in detail.
Even Pope Francis is preaching based on the Bible.
On the contrary, Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord and in Hebrews, that it is appointed to men once to die and after this the judgment.
It is so cute when you act like you have actually read the Bible.
When Jesus dies on the cross where did he go?
Did He go to Heaven? According to your out of context quote He must have. But that is not what the Bible says is it?
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 1Pe 3:19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 1Pe 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
And of course don't forget this one:
1Pe 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
And we know he did not go to Hell/ Hades to do this.
Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Let's not forget this one:
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Not in Heaven , not in Hell. Hmmmm must be in a third place. I know let's call it purgatory.
That's not surprising, since the Church wrote, preserved and canonized the Bible, and because every Mass contains three reading from Scripture (one from the Old Testament and two from the New) which form the basis of the priest's homily.
First of all, remember that Paul was not one of the twelve apostles; he received the teaching of Christ orally. Hence, everything he passed on was already oral tradition. Some of what Paul taught is recorded in Scripture.
Secondly, "Tradition" does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
How do we know?
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
They were to make disciples for Christ by teaching what Christ had taught, commanded, so is there some tradition or set of traditions that Christ taught that must be taught IN ADDITION to what the written Scriptures teach as Christ's commandments? If so what are these traditions?
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking how do we determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human?
The situation in 325 AD is outlined in post #29
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.