Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
Many translations of the Bible are ancient so it is not necessary to cite those sources, e.g. King James, Douay-Rheims. However, if the translation is recent and copyright protected it must be sourced, e.g. The Message.
CCEL is a good online source for those wanting to see excerpts of ancient texts in context, e.g. the excerpt being questioned.
Not precisely my question but worthy ones to be sure. No, as you said, “These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.”....
If the the two, apostolic tradition and teachings in Scripture,”...largely (perhaps entirely) overlap”, then I should be able to read the Scriptures to find the apostolic traditions that were taught orally. Furthermore these sacred traditions then would NOT comprise a separate body of ideas contradictory to Scripture, but would be a sort of oral Scripture, which leads to:
“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”
This narrows down the definition and role of “Tradition” in Christian teachings but raises then the question of doctrine or teaching supported only by what “Tradition” is not, i.e., “....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”.
The authors statement that “oral Tradition” and written Scripture stand with equal authority then is pointless if the two are essentially the same except for mode of transmission. It would seem he sees them as quite separate things.
“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.”
But if the following as stated earlier is so then oral or written would make no difference:
“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.”
Paul, though not one of the twelve, did receive his apostolic authority from Christ as they did.
“Some of what Paul taught is recorded in Scripture.”
If only “some”, then do we have any way of knowing what he taught that is NOT “recorded in Scripture”?
Or is all that IS “recorded in Scripture” of Paul's teaching sufficient to say that any oral teachings, “oral tradition”, would not alter in any way Paul's inspired writings?
As you wrote, “These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.”....
Then “these teachings”, oral tradition in the restricted sense you earlier gave, are available to all in written Scripture.
How then can anyone say that the Scriptures with it's written down oral traditions, is not a sufficient guide to Christian belief and practice?
“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).”
I didn’t see your answers, maybe I overlooked them, but in any event, throw away lines of assertion and assumption are not answers to anything.
You are free to have a go at those questions too! There’s still plenty of space for your comments.
Only to the dull and ignorant.
Did you read what you wrote before you posted it?
Those questions have been answered thousands of times, in myriad ways. Pretending they have not is just that -—pretense.
I assume the good intentions and sincerely of the posters, perhaps wrongly at times, and that relieves me of any need to engage in personal tit-for-tat and ill feelings.
So disagreement with I say is not a cause to me for hurt feeling or taking offence.
But I do enjoy the give and take of debate in its best form. Eye gouging in the name of removing a splinter is not debate, it's just eye gouging.
Hopefully we can continue to objectively debate here. Cheers!
READ PAUL who God used and HE NEVER met JESUS as He was already RISEN - and there was no mass.
Keep counterfeit teaching where it came from - the pit behind the closed doors of the vatican.
Precisely. Though I guess there can be good come of it...at times I do wonder if such continual DAILY set-ups coming from a handful, shouldn't lead to zot city for sake of pattern & practice of repetitive contentiousness.
Even if one took the time and effort to pluck apart the strawman constructions, unravel the errors, carefully applying truth where it need rightfully be -- then what? The "attack" begins. Tear down the freeper who dares...or just ignore it all, claiming it's too long of a reply/comment, but run 'round pushing the same specious questions under other noses, instead.
I have been taught that Christ is the cornerstone of the church, and that the prophets and apostles are the foundation built into that cornerstone. (Using, of course the “building” metaphor.)
And that is in response to my original question which was “Didn’t they read the scriptures?”. Christ often said “it is written”. Paul commended the Bereans because they “searched the scriptures daily”. Now you try to infer that they didn’t have “scripture” until after the “Catholics” somehow decided what they were! It’s simply astounding that anyone takes the RCC or any of its followers seriously.
So if someone quotes scripture to you (by word of mouth) or you read it from scripture it’s different teaching then is contained in scripture? Can you prove that what they taught by word was different than if the people had read it in scripture? You would need to prove that if your contention that “oral teaching” is teaching something that isn’t in or isn’t backed up by scripture. Now if you can’t prove that is what he was saying then what you content is just “traditions of men”.
Christ did found the Catholic Church on himself. But he knew he was going to ascend to the Father, so he breathed the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and gave them the ability to forgive sins. And then he founded his Church on Peter, the Rock.
Yes, Peter denied him three times, but he also professed his faith in Christ three times.
Christ’s response?
Feed my sheep.
Tend my lambs
Feed my sheep
Certainly reads straight from the Bible that Christ passed on his authority to the Apostles.
Sorry you don’t believe these passags from the Bible.
I’ll read the Gospels from people who met and walked with Jesus first. Paul came later.
Please show proof that what they taught “person to person” was different or not contained in the written word.
It’s truly sad that you haven’t “put on Christ”.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
That means that the Father sees Christ when He looks at us, not our old sinful nature. That’s why we are able to approach the throne of God in prayer at all.
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Philippians 3:9 AV)
Now if each of us who truly have accepted Jesus as our savior possess the righteousness of Christ would you please tell me who has more righteousness then Christ?
Perhaps it’s time accept Christ alone as your savior and rely on His righteousness and perfection rather than your own.
Do you not understand the difference in before and after Christ’s death and resurrection? Do you not realize what the rending of the veil meant? Before Christ’s perfect and final sacrifice no one could go before the Father in heaven. Thus the need for Hades or the holding place for those who were faithful prior to Christ’s death who would later be “set free” by Christ. To claim the need for that holding place or “purgatory” as the Catholics refer to it is to deny the all sufficiency of Christ’s death and resurrection.
I believe in them, just not as how you and some others present them to be, then proceed from there carrying implication to extent and ends contrary to much else which is plainly enough written.
Newman lost count of the "acorns". But then again the Lord never likened himself to a tree, but instead a vine, with his disciples (not alone capital 'A' Apostles) be the branches.
Paul didn't "come later" as being instructed by others, or was much subservient to them either, beyond the called for submitting oneself, one unto the other.
And who would that be? Peter himself wrote no "Gospels" but instead a pair of epistles.
If by reading from people who met and walked with Jesus first, that still includes Paul, for it has long been accepted that Paul, in a quite powerful encounter, "met" directly with the Lord, with Christ there being also at the right hand of the Father at the same time (in a manner of speaking).
What then did Paul tell us that he did? He did not go and fling himself prostrate before Peter and the other Apostles, now did he?
**Besides, Jesus will not tolerate it. He didn’t in Revelation when He chastised the seven churches there and how many of them are in existence today?**
All seven. The same seven Spirits of God are still in the world today. God told Moses to make the tabernacle according to the pattern he was shown on the mountain. He didn’t tell Moses to put out one candle after an hour or so, then another after another hour or so, etc. He was told to light all seven of them, and keep them burning continually (or at least continually from evening until morning. Lev. 24:2-4). You can find examples of each of those churches in countless places around the globe. Each still has the same requirement: “he that overcometh...”.
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.