Certain authors of the NT cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture...

[joe370]

Bluegoat;7487666]Well, I don’t particularly support SS.

I guess, if you don’t support sola scriptura then you must support something that lies outside of scripture alone, as well???

But you can’t assume that just because the Jews, or even the first Christians used oral tradition, that post-scriptural Christians are meant to.

Could you please elaborate?

Jews or early Christians did not use the NT at all, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t!

There were some NT writings in circulation. But for the most part, the NT, as we see it today, was conveyed via oral tradition, and those oral traditions were eventually committed to writing. The NT is a product of sacred tradition. Should I not assume the following:

Just because the Jews, or even the first Christians used oral tradition, (regarding the NT) - does not mean that post-scriptural Christians are meant to? Or, should we except those NT oral traditions that were committed to writing and eventually codified by the CC?

 

[SyCarl]

The writers of the Bible could reference non-Scriptural sources which are hence verified as true because they have now been incorporated into Scripture by God inspired writers.

Can you provide any non-Scripturally verified Old Testament traditions that are we are required to believe now?

 

[elvisman]

The writers of the Bible could reference non-Scriptural sources which are hence verified as true because they have now been incorporated into Scripture by God inspired writers.

Can you provide any non-Scripturally verified Old Testament traditions that are we are required to believe now?

**Sure. How about the OT canon itself. **

**There is nothing in the OT about which books are supposed to compile the OT. The very same can be said about the NT canon of Scripture.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Well, I don’t particularly support SS. But you can’t assume that just because the Jews, or even the first Christians used oral tradition, that post-scriptural Christians are meant to. Jews or early Christians did not use the NT at all, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t!

Nobody is say we should not used the New Testament. Oral Tradition and Scripture go together like a horse and carriage… You can’t have one without the… Otherr… Love and marriage Love and marriage… You get the point.

 

[Bluegoat]

**The problem I see with your statement is that it is rejected **by Scripture itself (2 Thess. 2:15).

Well, I didn’t say anything about what Scripture said on the issue. That wasn’t really what the /OP was asking about - it was asking about the Jews using oral tradition. I don’t see how your point is pertinent to that.

I guess, if you don’t support sola scriptura then you must support something that lies outside of scripture alone, as well???

Undoubtedly.

Could you please elaborate?

I said:
"But you can’t assume that just because the Jews, or even the first Christians used oral tradition, that post-scriptural Christians are meant to. "

You asked how one could support SS when it is clear in the NT that the Jews seem to refer to Jewish oral tradition. While that is true, and I would say it is suggestive, it doesn’t prove in any way that after the Bible was available Christians were meant to rely on oral tradition. God could have had a different plan.

There were some NT writings in circulation. But for the most part, the NT, as we see it today, was conveyed via oral tradition, and those oral traditions were eventually committed to writing. The NT is a product of sacred tradition. Should I not assume the following:

Just because the Jews, or even the first Christians used oral tradition, (regarding the NT) - does not mean that post-scriptural Christians are meant to? Or, should we except those NT oral traditions that were committed to writing and eventually codified by the CC?

The position of any intelligent SS advocate is likely to be that before a reliable NT was available, God protected the essential Christian teachings in the oral tradition. They likely also think that God intended Scripture to be the repository of the essential teachings that had previously been passed down orally.

The fact that Jews and early Christians used oral tradition wouldn’t really matter to such a person.

 

[joe370]

Bluegoat…

They likely also think that God intended Scripture to be the repository of the essential teachings that had previously been passed down orally.

From a purely sola scriptura standpoint, (which you do not support) - where is that taught in the bible? 2 Tim. says all scripture, not only scripture.

 

[joe370]

The writers of the Bible could reference non-Scriptural sources which are hence verified as true because they have now been incorporated into Scripture by God inspired writers.

Can you provide any non-Scripturally verified Old Testament traditions that are we are required to believe now?

See my OP, regarding your question. The entire bible is a product of tradition. It did not come with a table on contents.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Withholding Baptism for infants?

I’ve never heard of one baby that asked to be baptized turned away. I see absolutely no evidence from the Bible where infants were baptized. Every time baptism is done in the NT, it’s done by desire of the one being baptized.

Evidence? Show us the evidence where the Bible teaches about explicitly or else it is false? My friend, the Bible is a book of faith,not a history book per se or science book where evidence must be absolute or conclusive. We both know Paul says he baptized households and more than likely infants were included. Now the question remains:

When did the Jews not consider infants as part of the household?

Of course the first Christians were baptized due to desire because they were adults.
If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible. The Bible never says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants”; it simply says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.”

God Bless

 

[elvisman]

Well, I didn’t say anything about what Scripture said on the issue. That wasn’t really what the /OP was asking about - it was asking about the Jews using oral tradition. I don’t see how your point is pertinent to that.

That’s okay because I wasn’t responding to you.
**I was responding to my friend, SyCarl. **

 

[SyCarl]

See my OP, regarding your question. The entire bible is a product of tradition. It did not come with a table on contents.

The passages you gave do contain things not found in the Old Testament, although there are suggestions that Nazerine has to do with various prophecies refering to the coming Messiah as being a branch springing from Jesse or David.

The point is that those things not coming from the Old Testament are now part of Scripture whatever their original source might have been. Having now been incorporated by inspired writers, they are no longer oral traditions.

With respect to the canon, tradition did not provide an unanimous list even after the various councils which purportedly established the canon. The Orthodox Church has a diffferent Old Testament canon from the Catholic Church as does the The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The Jews, to whom the Old Testament was entrusted have yet another canon, which is the one generally adopted by Protestants.

 

[JohnnyReb]

SemperReformada, your thoughts regarding the OP?

Certain authors of the New Testament clearly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture. In some instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, which, to me anyway, seems to undermine the doctrine/practice of sola scriptura. Certainly, for the apostles, oral Tradition must have been trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith. Examples of Jesus and the Apostles’ reliance on oral Tradition:

Matt. 2:23 - The prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” must be an oral tradition. It is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles must have relied on oral tradition, otherwise…

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John may be inferred from scripture, just as, is the case with Mary being full of grace, according to non-Catholics, but it must be explicitly derived from oral tradition.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. Exodus 17:1-17 and Numbers. 20:2-13.

Heb. 11:37 - The author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. Yikes…This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Ephesians - 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Jude 14-15 - Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Here is a tradition, (a prophetic revelation) - which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) - and then in an inspired document, in the New Testament. This clearly shows that the writers of the New Testament regarded oral tradition as divine revelation.

My I offer my thoughts, provided this discussion does not get off track from the original post?

In regards to Matthew 2:23: Do you have any other Messianic prophecies that were not written down? If not, that is only one. That would mean that all others were written down. This makes the prophecy more an exception. I think establishing a rule of faith on a exception puts a person on shaky ground.

In regards to Matthew 23:2, my reasoning is similar. Jesus taught close to 100 times from the sacred scripture, and only in isolated cases from oral tradition. He gives alot more weight to scripture. Such action does not provide adaqute support of the partim-partim view of sacred tradition and sacred scripture as taught by the RCC.

As for many of the others, it seems to me like an error of moving from parts to a whole without proper warrent to do so. On these forums, I can quote parts of a post I agree or disagree with, but that does not mean I agree or disagree with the entire thing, only the parts addressed. When oral traditions are quoted, they become written, and only the written part is authoritative.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[elvisman]

My I offer my thoughts, provided this discussion does not get off track from the original post?

In regards to Matthew 2:23: Do you have any other Messianic prophecies that were not written down? If not, that is only one. That would mean that all others were written down. This makes the prophecy more an exception. I think establishing a rule of faith on a exception puts a person on shaky ground.

In regards to Matthew 23:2, my reasoning is similar. Jesus taught close to 100 times from the sacred scripture, and only in isolated cases from oral tradition. He gives alot more weight to scripture. Such action does not provide adaqute support of the partim-partim view of sacred tradition and sacred scripture as taught by the RCC.

As for many of the others, it seems to me like an error of moving from parts to a whole without proper warrent to do so. On these forums, I can quote parts of a post I agree or disagree with, but that does not mean I agree or disagree with the entire thing, only the parts addressed. When oral traditions are quoted, they become written, and only the written part is authoritative.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

It’s silly to think that everything that came from Jesus’s lips was written down in Sacred Scripture. Some of what Peter, Paul and John taught in their epistles were never written down as having been uttered from the lips of Christ. In his lifetime, Jesus may never have uttered the words Paul used in 2 Thess. 2:15 so why then, would Paul place Oral Tradition on par with Scripture if it hadn’t come from Jesus. Paul claims that his teachings came directly from Christ.

Your claim that since Jesus quoted the Scriptures more than he did from Oral Tradition, that this somehow diminishes the importance of Oral Tradition is preposterous.**

In the gospels, Jesus never explicitly preaches about the evils of homosexuality - but Paul sure does (Rom. 1:26-28).
Jesus didn’ explicitly mention the importance of Oral Tradition or claiming it equal to Scripture - but Paul sure does.

Sola Scripturists don’t** have a leg to stand on, especially in light of 2 Thess. 2:15,**Luke 10:16,****2 Thess. 3:6, ****2 Tim. 2:2, ****1 Cor. 11:2, ****1 Tim. 3:15, 2 Tim. 1:12-14 and others.

 

[PJD1987]

Just for the record, there is a great website that details all of these arguments which I believe may be helpful and edifying to all (scripturecatholic.com/). The tough thing is to argue Catholicism from a Protestant perspective. If Protestants do not heed the word of the Early Church Fathers, who are not in the Canon, then how are Catholics supposed to defend Oral Tradition. When it is a requirement to defend Oral Tradition simply on the merits of Scripture alone it defeats the whole purpose. It still can be done, as the website provided shows, but the many great Early Church Father quotes will immediately be tossed aside, again forcing Catholic’s to rely on Scripture alone to defend Oral Tradition; which, in my humble opinion, makes little sense. Anyway, hopefully the website is helpful to someone, it certainly was to me.

 

[joe370]

JohnnyReb;7490031]My I offer my thoughts, provided this discussion does not get off track from the original post?

In regards to Matthew 2:23: Do you have any other Messianic prophecies that were not written down? If not, that is only one. That would mean that all others were written down. This makes the prophecy more an exception. I think establishing a rule of faith on a exception puts a person on shaky ground.

Even if it’s one, my point is, they trusted oral tradition when it came to that one Messianic prophecy as well as other things. Why should the apostles trust something that was not written down, from a sola scriptura standpoint?

In regards to Matthew 23:2, my reasoning is similar. Jesus taught close to 100 times from the sacred scripture, and only in isolated cases from oral tradition. He gives alot more weight to scripture. Such action does not provide adaqute support of the partim-partim view of acred tradition and sacred scripture as taught by the RCC.

But He did not steer away from oral tradition, just as some sola scriptura advocates do, as if it was untrustworthy.

When oral traditions are quoted, they become written, and only the written part is authoritative.

They must become written, and only the written part is authoritative. OK…So you do not believe that Matthew was right when referencing the following oral prophecy, (found nowhere in the OT) - to make his point: “He shall be a Nazarene…?”

 

[Bluegoat]

That’s okay because I wasn’t responding to you.
I was responding to my friend, SyCarl.

Perhaps then you should have avoided quoting my post? Why would i think you were responding to someone else after quoting my post?

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat…

From a purely sola scriptura standpoint, (which you do not support) - where is that taught in the bible? 2 Tim. says all scripture, not only scripture.

I wasn’t under the impression that this was the topic of the thread? It isn’t a question I’m interested in discussing - it’s been discussed to death.

 

[joe370]

I wasn’t under the impression that this was the topic of the thread? It isn’t a question I’m interested in discussing - it’s been discussed to death.

I started this thread and I certainly don’t mind if you answer this off topic question. Your answer might be helpful regarding the OP.

 

[elvisman]

Perhaps then you should have avoided quoting my post? Why would i think you were responding to someone else after quoting my post?

My bad - I got my posts mixed up.
I was responding to your post #17 when I responded with 2 Thess. 2:15.
Your statament:
"But you can’t assume that just because the Jews, or even the first Christians used oral tradition, that post-scriptural Christians are meant to."

---

**I think that this passage, along with Luke 10:16, Thess. 3:6, **2 Tim. 2:2, ****1 Cor. 11:2, 1 Tim. 3:15, 2 Tim. 1:12-14 proves you wrong.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Even if it’s one, my point is, they trusted oral tradition when it came to that one Messianic prophecy as well as other things. Why should the apostles trust something that was not written down, from a sola scriptura standpoint?

All SS and its other forms teaches is that everything we need, basically the entire gospel, is found within the pages of scripture, right now. Obviously that was not always the case. Its a praxis, not a doctrine to be believed. Its the practice of varifying everything taught by the church and in the church, with scripture.

But He did not steer away from oral tradition, just as some sola scriptura advocates do, as if it was untrustworthy.

No he didn’t, you are correct about that, but how does that support the partim-partim view taught by Rome?

They must become written, and only the written part is authoritative. OK…So you do not believe that Matthew was right when referencing the following oral prophecy, (found nowhere in the OT) - to make his point: “He shall be a Nazarene…?”

No, see above.

 

[joe370]

JohnnyReb;7491829]All SS and its other forms teaches is that everything we need, basically the entire gospel, is found within the pages of scripture, right now. Obviously that was not always the case. Its a praxis, not a doctrine to be believed. Its the practice of varifying everything taught by the church and in the church, with scripture.

I know that is what SS teaches; perhaps you could show me where I can find that teaching in scripture alone? 2 Timothy 3 does not say: only scripture is inspired…

The CC also verifies everything taught by the church and in the church, with scripture + tradition. The NT is a product of tradition. Tradition put the table of contents in the bible; tradition attached the names Matthew Mark Luke and John to those books. Every church regardless of denomination, has its own magisterial leadership.

Where is the following text, to which Matthew is referring, found, in the OT? Did Matthew find it in the scriptures?

He came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: He shall be called a Nazarene. Matthew 2:23