I don't get sola scriptura

[amber_lux]

GreggAlvarez;:

Which came first: the Church or the Bible? The Church.

Yet it was because of Biblical texts that the spread of Christianity can be spread across Asia. Texts carved on stone. Texts written on silk. Texts carved on wood.

It is only the presence of those texts, that flip the possible, to the probable, for a number of places that once were, but no longer are Christian places of worship.

There is an interesting parallel with Islam. It spread via traders with their copy of the Q’ran to Timbuktu, Kano, and other places south and west of those trading centres. The imans came later.

You find the same thing in the settlement of the western states. Circuit riders with a Bible, and forty places to preach at every month. As often as not, the circuit rider was learning the Bible whilst traversing from town to town on horseback. Had it not been for those circuit riders, there would have been no churches in the western states.

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

exnihilo;:

Where I struggle is I can read Catholic doctrine and be convinced but then read some other doctrine and find it also convincing. Where I struggle is knowing who to believe.

Suggestion:

Read what the doctrine is, then read the Bible one time all the way through, for that specific doctrine, looking for each passage that supports that doctrine, and each passage that refutes that doctrine. It is up to you to decide which Canon to use. The Samaritan Canon, the Church of Christ Canon, or the Canon of Eighty One, or the Canon of the Church of Syria.

When you’ve finished reading the Bible, you should be able to sift what the Bible says, and how congruent it is, or is not, with the doctrine you read. If you are unable to convince both sides that the other side is correct, you don’t understand either the doctrine, or what the Bible says to support the doctrine, nor what the Bible says to refute that doctrine.

Amber

 

[LaSalle]

First, thank you for answering. I am very interested in this because it is something I struggle with understanding.

It is clear the the disciples did not always, maybe often, understand. But they were loyal and followed, though even they were not perfect in their obedience. It seems like our modern culture is set up to completely reject the value of obedience. We have destroyed the authority of the family and with our libertine attitude destroyed the authority of culture. Maybe conforming your intellect is just a more difficult thing to do when you have been inculcated not to.

Actually, I wouldn’t say I ‘conform’ my intellect to suit the church’s teaching. I am usually convinced by the reasoning, logic and documentary provided (scriptural or otherwise).

I would tend to agree. I have never found a problem with Catholic doctrine when I’ve studied it. Where I struggle is I can read Catholic doctrine and be convinced but then read some other doctrine and find it also convincing. Where I struggle is knowing who to believe. I’d have to say I often find Catholic doctrine more plausible and complete. And in one sense that should be so because even my Protestant Church held to much of that doctrine.

In almost all cases, the arguments would be diametrically opposite so I am not sure how both might seem convincing. I think I might need a specific issue that you may be stuck on to understand your dilema.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

We will start over. Yes, in a sense oral tradition is more reliable than scripture. What I mean is that oral tradition is more reliably UNDERSTOOD. Otherwise they are both equally reliable as they both come from God. Oral tradition initially comes from God through the Church, in the same way as scripture. But our UNDERSTANDING of scripture is not always reliable, as evidenced by our very conversation here.

Are you saying that oral tradition and scripture are the same, but tadition was given in a more easily understood language?

This needs to be repeated: Oral tradition originates from God, was given to the Church and protected by her. Oral tradition is NOT man-made. Oral tradition is the context in which scripture was written and is to be understood. Oral tradition is the teaching in 2Peter3:16. The “untaught” are those untaught in oral tradition. Oral tradition is the teaching of the apostles prior to the writing of scripture. And that teaching, Paul is very careful to point out in the second chapter of 1Corinthians, comes from God, not from man.

2Peter3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Peter is not talking about oral tradition here, but “scripture” and “epistles” both of which are written. Also, I would like to ask where can Ifind this “oral tradition” I’m assuming that by now it is written down.

You were improperly trying to equate the “milk” Paul mentions in 1Cor3:2 with the parts of scripture hard to understand.

Actually with the parts easy to understand. Are you saying that Paul “preached” something other than what is contained in his epistles?

But since this his own preaching and not scripture, the connection can’t be made.

Why not?

Christian scripture didn’t exist yet.

Not true. John5:39

Paul preached the gospel, but Paul did not write any of the gospels, others did that.

Ya?

The “parts of scripture hard to understand” is from 2Peter3:16, where Peter warns that the untaught misunderstand the parts hard to understand of Paul’s letters, as they do the rest of the scriptures. Peter is talking about Paul’s letters, not Paul’s preaching of the gospel.

Above you said “Oral tradition is the teaching in 2Peter3:16.” Now you say above that Peter is talking about “Paul’s letters” which are written down. You seem to be a little confused as to just what Peter is saying.

John 5:39 actually begins, “YOU search the scriptures…” Jesus was speaking to the Jews, who were indeed searching the OT scriptures, but misunderstanding them.
I am disturbed that you omitted the first word of the quote; I suppose by doing that the purpose was to make Jesus’ statement sound like a command for us to search the scriptures.

Jn. 5
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

This is how the KJV bible has jn.5:39. There was no attempt to decieve in any way. Let’s take a look at a little more of Jn.5

37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

What do you think this witness is that the Father bore? 1Jn.5
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Where is this record found Mack if not in God’s word to us. the bible?

38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

Mack what do you think Jesus is refering to when He says “ye have not his word abiding in you” He goes on to explain

**39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. **

Jesus is refering to the written word of scripture. He further explains.

40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

They believed not the WRITINGS of Moses, Moses WROTE of Jesus. This is the record that is being talked about in 1Jn.5

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Again, we must remember the scriptures referred to here are OT scriptures. Okay, what were the Bereans doing? They had listened to Paul’s preaching about Jesus and how He had fulfilled OT prophecies. Then the Bereans went to their OT scrolls to affirm that the parts Paul talked about were actually there, and said what he said. (Remember, no one had pocket bibles in those days! Nor were there numbered chapters and verses, neither.)

They were confirming that the preaching of Paul was in the record that God gave to man. Just like it says in 1Jn.5 The fact that there were no chapter or verse numbers is irrelevant

This passage about the Bereans is sometimes used to support sola scriptura, but it does the very opposite. Because with scripture alone they would have never learned about Jesus. They had to have something more, beyond scriptrure (Paul’s preaching) to learn about Him.

Ok, But the point is that what Paul was preaching was in the scriptures or the bible that they knew. I’m not saying that preaching is not necessary only that the preaching has to be about the one about which the bible was written. Jesus Christ.

Okay. Still, it was human “servants through whom you believed.” 1Cor3:5, NASB

Ok

The scripture wrested is 1Cor 2:11, “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.”

Okay, what does this mean? To me it means no one else knows a person’s thoughts, except the person, the spirit within him. The same with God, only God knows His own thoughts, except the Spirit of God, which is also God.

Now, why is this important? Look at verses 12 and 13. Paul and Apollos had received the Spirit of God, and so were not speaking words of men, but of God!

That is what the whole chapter 2 is about, convincing the Corinthians they were speaking from God, and not from men.

Okay, I think.

I suppose, but notice the word has to fall upon good ground first, one with a receptive and submissive heart. Otherwise, according to these verses, there is no understanding, the grace of God notwithstanding.

Ya this brings up a good point. Whose responsability is it to prepare the ground to be receptive to the word?

 

[1voice]

I always try to look to the source.
This is what God says concerning Sola Scriptura:
“Heaven and earth will pass away. My words will never pass away.” For me … that is a big clue.

That is my perspective on what is most valuable. I dont find the Bible that complicated. Jesus said to learn how to love… and demonstrated what he meant by Godly love as opposed to the world’s concept of love… Even a caveman can do it.

This is a clear directive from God as to the key to Christian life and wisdom…

" Be transformed, through the renewing of your mind … by the washing of the word of God."

and “the Scriptures lead to life and Godliness.”

Paul said … “Against these things there is no law”

 

[exnihilo]

Suggestion:

Read what the doctrine is, then read the Bible one time all the way through, for that specific doctrine, looking for each passage that supports that doctrine, and each passage that refutes that doctrine. It is up to you to decide which Canon to use. The Samaritan Canon, the Church of Christ Canon, or the Canon of Eighty One, or the Canon of the Church of Syria.

When you’ve finished reading the Bible, you should be able to sift what the Bible says, and how congruent it is, or is not, with the doctrine you read. If you are unable to convince both sides that the other side is correct, you don’t understand either the doctrine, or what the Bible says to support the doctrine, nor what the Bible says to refute that doctrine.

Amber

That is both time consuming and would require a knowledge of ancient culture. That is impractical for me and most people. I could not do the job properly without giving up what I do for a living in order to reach a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. This is also impossible for anyone who is illiterate. That seems like a very inefficient and ineffective foundation for a faith. And if that is supposed to be how Christianity is arrived at then we’d have to say the vast majority of Christians throughout history have not been Christians since most couldn’t do this.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I don’t see how verses 12 and 13 support the idea that the Spirit is available to all men. Maybe He is, but if so, verses 12 and 13 do not say so.

How about 14 and 15? Maybe. But now we have the question, how does a natural man become a spiritual man? By reading scripture? That can’t be, since back then there were no Christian scriptures to read, yet apparently there were spiritual men anyway

Do you close your eyes when you read Jn.5

37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

The bible is a Chistian document.

2Peter3:16 is scriptural proof that scripture alone does not guarantee us wise unto salvation, but can do the very opposite. However, those of us who are like Timothy, a learned man of God, scripture can make us wise unto salvation. In particular, scripture is an evangelistic tool for those who are men of God.

Amen.

What these verses exclude is the unlearned, non-Christian person who reads a Gideon bible in his hotel room.

2Tim.3
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

So you don’t believe That the Living Word of God has the power to transform and convert the heart through God’s Spirit?

This question is very important, and the key to the whole controversy.

GreggAlvarez has written an excellent and thorough analysis of this whole question. It needs to be read with an understanding and submissive heart. I hope it’s message does not fall on hard ground.

The sola scripturist starts with scripture, and derives church. Catholics (Orthodox and all of the ancient, universal church) start with church and derive scripture. The inverse process is done by sola scripturists.

That is, for us, church exists first, and then from church, scripture comes to be. Scripture has its home within the church, and is only understood within the church.

“Sola scripturists”, at least this one, are saying that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. You seem to be saying that there is something in your tradition that we need that is not contained in scripture. If you are NOT saying this then you are a “Sola scripturists” You also seem to be saying that God’s church came before His word. Is that what you are saying?

The church’s job is to teach, and within that teaching, scripture is understood.

The job of the church is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is not really the individual’s job to interpret scripture, but the church’s job. After all, it has been only in extremely rare circumstances in the history of the world, that an individual has been in a position to have a copy of scriptures on his own, and also to be able to read them.

Again your not reading what I wrote.

"It is our job to interpret scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit."

In salvation history, the people of God always existed first, and then after a long time, they wrote scripture, by themselves, and to themselves and for themselves, under God’s inspiration. Not to outsiders. So, if you are an outsider, scripture is not for you.

So again you don’t think that the living word of God has the power to tranform through God’s Spirit?

How do you become an insider? Peter answers, “Repent, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

This is how we become insiders
Exodus 19:5
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Isaiah56
6Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
7Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
8The Lord GOD, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8078736 Are you saying that oral tradition and scripture are the same, but tadition was given in a more easily understood language?

They aren’t quite the same, although they overlap. Apostolic oral tradition is simply the teaching given to the Christians prior to the writing of the gospels and epistles. Just like scripture, it is given by God, as Paul explains in the 2nd chapter of 1Corinthians. The advantage of oral tradition is that it was received in a give and take context, where the listeners could ask questions of Paul or the evangelist, to clarify what is being taught. This can be done on the spot. Therefore, oral apostolic teaching is in an already “digested” form, has been pondered over, with questions already answered about the meaning. Even so, problems still arose, and were the occasion, or reason, for the writing of the epistles. Remember the letters of the evangelists and the written gospels themselves, were written to people who were already Christian, who had already received the oral teaching. This oral teaching forms the background in which to understand the epistles; it is the “teaching” that the untaught in 2Peter3:16 are untaught about.

As a further example, compare it to a school classroom. The students have the textbook, whose author goes to great pains to be as clear as he can be. Nevertheless, for proper understanding, a classroom with a teacher to explain the text, is still necessary. A student taught in the classroom where he can ask questions understands the textbook much better than the untaught person who has the textbook alone.

The Church is the classroom and teacher, the textbook is scripture.

2Peter3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Peter is not talking about oral tradition here, but “scripture” and “epistles” both of which are written. Also, I would like to ask where can Ifind this “oral tradition” I’m assuming that by now it is written down.

That’s right, Peter is not talking about oral tradition that is hard to understand, but that the epistles, the written scriptures, are hard to understand, if you are untaught in the oral tradition. After all, what else could this “untaught” thing be?

You find the oral tradition in the classroom of the Church. Yes, it became written down as well. But ultimately, oral tradition is not written down on paper, but in our hearts.

Actually with the parts easy to understand. Are you saying that Paul “preached” something other than what is contained in his epistles?

Why yes, obviously he preached the good news first, similar to that found in the gospels. That is why we have both gospels and epistles in the NT. What do you think he was preaching to the Corinthians about, before he started writing letters to them?

continued…

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8078736

Why not?

2Peter3:16 is talking about Paul’s letters that are hard to understand. At that time, the Corinthians couldn’t be having a hard time understanding Paul’s letters because all they had yet was his oral teaching! The letter of 1Corinthians can’t be referring to itself.

Not true. John5:39

I said, “Christian scripture.” John 5:39 is not talking about Christian scripture, it is talking about Jewish scripture. Christian scripture means the NT. The OT was used by Christians but the complete Christian scriptures include the Christian Greek scriptures as well.

Ya?

The parts “hard to understand” are in Paul’s letters, not in his prior oral teaching of the good news.

Above you said “Oral tradition is the teaching in 2Peter3:16.” Now you say above that Peter is talking about “Paul’s letters” which are written down. You seem to be a little confused as to just what Peter is saying.

Yes, I realize the way I worded it can be misunderstood.

2Peter3:16 talks about those who are “untaught.” Okay, what is it that they are “untaught” in? Well, they are untaught in the oral tradition of the apostles. That is what I meant when I should have said, “oral tradition is the teaching that those untaught in 2Peter 3:16 are untaught in.”

39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

This is how the KJV bible has jn.5:39. There was no attempt to decieve in any way.

I apologize. I thought you had left off the initial word in John3:5. But it wasn’t you yourself, it was your translation that omitted the word “you.” Your translation is the deceiver.

You know, among all the translation I have, I don’t have a KJV! So I don’t know how the KJV translates John3:5! I look at mostly the NASB and the RSV, both of which have “You search…” The NAB, NEB, and the Language of the People also all have an initial “You.” Even the JW’s NWT has “You are searching the scriptures…” The Annotated Scholars version has “You pore over the writings, because you imagine that in them there is real life to be had. They do give evidence on my behalf, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

Maybe the KJV translates it as an imperative, but other translations do not.

Let’s take a look at a little more of Jn.5
37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

What do you think this witness is that the Father bore? 1Jn.5
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Where is this record found Mack if not in God’s word to us. the bible?

First, remember that John5 is talking about the OT, and the Jews inability to recognize that the OT prophecies were talking about Jesus. This is evidence that even those who pore over scripture can very likely fail to get its meaning.

The record is found in Christ’s Church, which He founded. Also realize that God’s word is not exclusive to the bible. The complete word of God is Jesus, the Church and its scriptures.

The first record people had back then of Jesus was via the spoken word, then it was written in the gospels.

38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

Mack what do you think Jesus is refering to when He says “ye have not his word abiding in you”

Okay, I’ll listen to your explanation.

He goes on to explain

39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jesus is refering to the written word of scripture.

Yes, Jesus is referring to the Old Testament, which prophecies testified to Jesus, but which the Jews failed to get. This means that even though the Jews had the very words of scripture, it did them no good, since they failed to understand their own scriptures.

He further explains.

40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

They believed not the WRITINGS of Moses, Moses WROTE of Jesus. This is the record that is being talked about in 1Jn.5

No, I guess they didn’t. Explain the reference to 1John5.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

They aren’t quite the same, although they overlap. Apostolic oral tradition is simply the teaching given to the Christians prior to the writing of the gospels and epistles. Just like scripture, it is given by God, as Paul explains in the 2nd chapter of 1Corinthians. The advantage of oral tradition is that it was received in a give and take context, where the listeners could ask questions of Paul or the evangelist, to clarify what is being taught. This can be done on the spot. Therefore, oral apostolic teaching is in an already “digested” form, has been pondered over, with questions already answered about the meaning. Even so, problems still arose, and were the occasion, or reason, for the writing of the epistles. Remember the letters of the evangelists and the written gospels themselves, were written to people who were already Christian, who had already received the oral teaching. This oral teaching forms the background in which to understand the epistles; it is the “teaching” that the untaught in 2Peter3:16 are untaught about.

You say “They aren’t quite the same” So what’s different? Didn’t Jesus command them

Matt28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Wouldn’t they have taught the things contained in the bible?

As a further example, compare it to a school classroom. The students have the textbook, whose author goes to great pains to be as clear as he can be. Nevertheless, for proper understanding, a classroom with a teacher to explain the text, is still necessary. A student taught in the classroom where he can ask questions understands the textbook much better than the untaught person who has the textbook alone.

I certainly am not contesting the need for evangelical teachers.

The Church is the classroom and teacher, the textbook is scripture.

Define church.

That’s right, Peter is not talking about oral tradition that is hard to understand, but that the epistles, the written scriptures, are hard to understand, if you are untaught in the oral tradition. After all, what else could this “untaught” thing be?

Let’s look at a little more of 2Peter3

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Peter is talking about the end times and the second comming of Jesus and how some unlearned and untaught in the events leading up to and surrounding the greatest event that will ever befall mankind.

You find the oral tradition in the classroom of the Church. Yes, it became written down as well. But ultimately, oral tradition is not written down on paper, but in our hearts.

Come on Mack either it is written down or it isn’t.

Why yes, obviously he preached the good news first, similar to that found in the gospels. That is why we have both gospels and epistles in the NT. What do you think he was preaching to the Corinthians about, before he started writing letters to them?

continued…

1 Corinthians 2
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

2Peter3:16 is talking about Paul’s letters that are hard to understand. At that time, the Corinthians couldn’t be having a hard time understanding Paul’s letters because all they had yet was his oral teaching! The letter of 1Corinthians can’t be referring to itself.

At what time?

I said, “Christian scripture.” John 5:39 is not talking about Christian scripture, it is talking about Jewish scripture. Christian scripture means the NT. The OT was used by Christians but the complete Christian scriptures include the Christian Greek scriptures as well.

The bible is about God’s plan of salvation. ALL OF THE BIBLE. And that plan of salvation is realized in the spilt blood of the precious Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Which makes the whole bible Christian.

Rom.9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Yes, I realize the way I worded it can be misunderstood.

2Peter3:16 talks about those who are “untaught.” Okay, what is it that they are “untaught” in? Well, they are untaught in the oral tradition of the apostles. That is what I meant when I should have said, “oral tradition is the teaching that those untaught in 2Peter 3:16 are untaught in.”

Peter is not talking about the untaught in oral tradition, but as I pointed out above in the second comming of Jesus. And specifically as v.15 points out “15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;”, the longsuffering of the Lord.

I apologize. I thought you had left off the initial word in John3:5. But it wasn’t you yourself, it was your translation that omitted the word “you.” Your translation is the deceiver.

Or perhaps yours for adding it?

The record is found in Christ’s Church, which He founded. Also realize that God’s word is not exclusive to the bible. The complete word of God is Jesus, the Church and its scriptures.

Where else do we find the inspired word of God?

2Tim.3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I ask you to provide the scriptures outside of the bible that fit into the catagory of “inspired”.

Yes, Jesus is referring to the Old Testament, which prophecies testified to Jesus, but which the Jews failed to get. This means that even though the Jews had the very words of scripture, it did them no good, since they failed to understand their own scriptures.

Not all of them.

No, I guess they didn’t. Explain the reference to 1John5.

What do you think this witness is that the Father bore? 1Jn.5
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Posted above.

 

[patricius79]

At what time?

Peter is not talking about the untaught in oral tradition, but as I pointed out above in the second comming of Jesus. And specifically as v.15 points out “15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;”, the longsuffering of the Lord.

.

I would say that the Bible doesn’t say that Peter is not talking about the untaught in oral tradition.

so it would seem your argument violates Sola Scriptura

9 Since everything is to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought (you) to be, conducting yourselves in holiness and devotion,
12
10 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God,…15
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16
speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters.* In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction**, just as they do the other scriptures.
17
Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.
18
But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.) *

I know that Paul says to hold fast to the written and oral traditions. 2 Thes 2:15

so I would think Simon Rock could certainly be referring to those ignorant of “the Tradition” (2 Thes 3:6)

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8078744 They were confirming that the preaching of Paul was in the record that God gave to man. Just like it says in 1Jn.5 The fact that there were no chapter or verse numbers is irrelevant

Yes, they were confirming the fact that Paul’s interpretation of the biblical prophecies and that the prophecies themselves were indeed in their scrolls. The fact of no chapter and verse numbers makes this a longer and more difficult process. It can’t be by telling the listeners to turn the pages of their bibles to such and such chapter and verse. Back them there was a much longer delay process in finding the appropriate passages.

And, of course, not all of what Paul preached to them about was in their scrolls. The very news of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection had to be delivered to them extra-biblically, by his telling them about it.

Anyway, I don’t see how the mention of the Bereans proves anything, nor even what it is intended to demonstrate.

You seem to be trying to establish a link between the Bereans and 1Jn5. Something about a “record.” Of course that word does not occur in either location. 1Jn5 talks about “witnesses,” “witnessing,” or “testifying” and “testimony” according to the translation, but nothing about records. Maybe your translation does, but none of mine do.

Ok, But the point is that what Paul was preaching was in the scriptures or the bible that they knew. I’m not saying that preaching is not necessary only that the preaching has to be about the one about which the bible was written. Jesus Christ.

Okay, but, the thing is, when Paul was preaching, there was nothing in their bible scrolls that gave the news about Jesus’ actual life and death. That is because their scriptural scrolls were written hundreds of years before Jesus lived and died. Therefore, they had to have someone come and tell them about Him, and show to them that He fulfilled the prophecies contained in their scrolls.

Ya this brings up a good point. Whose responsability is it to prepare the ground to be receptive to the word?

Yeah, this is a good point. In the parable of the sower, it seems the seeds were scattered all over, both onto good ground and hard ground. Not onto ground prepared at all.
A farmer today goes to a lot of work to prepare the gound, so all the seeds will grow. How does a missionary prepare the people to hear and accept the gospel? Or does he let the Spirit do all the preparing?
What is your take on this?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I would say that the Bible doesn’t say that Peter is not talking about the untaught in oral tradition.

The bible or more specifically 2Peter 3 tells us in no uncertain terms what Peter is talking about and it’s not the untaught in oral tradition. He is talking about the second comming of Jesus. Which some seem to be twisting to say something that it was not meant to say.

so it would seem your argument violates Sola Scriptura

How does my argument violate the fact that all the information that we need for our salvation is in the bible? SS.

I know that Paul says to hold fast to the written and oral traditions. 2 Thes 2:15

The written and oral traditions being one and the same thing.

1 Corinthians 2
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

so I would think Simon Rock could certainly be referring to those ignorant of “the Tradition” (2 Thes 3:6)

Why would you think that when it says so clearly what he is talking about?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8087075 You say “They aren’t quite the same” So what’s different?

The same as the differences of the gospels themselves. They overlap, but not completely and each has its distinctive flavor and take on the good news. They each have their emphases. Note that Paul delivered his gospel before any of the four written gospels came to be. Paul emphasized “Christ and Him crucified.” Not much about His life and teachings.

There is much disagreement among contemporary Christians about what the Eucharist is, and what baptism is, because they use scripture alone. But within the Church of early times, they knew what the Eucharist was, they knew what baptism was, because they had the interpretation of the apostles’ direct teaching.

Didn’t Jesus command them

Matt28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Wouldn’t they have taught the things contained in the bible?

Well, of course. At least the things taught in the Old Testament, because the New Testament didn’t exist yet. So, to be sure we observe all things whatsoever, it is best to be within the Church Jesus established to teach all nations.

I certainly am not contesting the need for evangelical teachers

Good.

Define church

.
Church is the Body of Christ. Church is that authority established and guided by Christ to be his representative on earth, to baptize and preach His word. We believe that to be the Catholic and Orthodox Church.

Some say it is the invisible collection of all Christian believers, the “invisible church” theory. True, it is the collection of all Christians, and scripture belongs to all Christians collectively; hence, since scripture belongs to all Christians collectively, it is the job of all Christians collectively to interpret scripture. Interpretation is done collectively by the Church for the members of the Church.

Let’s look at a little more of 2Peter3

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Peter is talking about the end times and the second comming of Jesus and how some unlearned and untaught in the events leading up to and surrounding the greatest event that will ever befall mankind.

Finally, another idea of what the “untaught” in 2Peter3:16 is! I don’t agree with it, because what Peter is talking about is that since the end will come soon, it is dangerous to be caught in misunderstanding of any kind, and to be without spot and blameless. He isn’t referring to misunderstanding of the end itself.

But, at least, this is an attempt to come up with an alternative of what “untaught” means.

Come on Mack either it is written down or it isn’t.

This is referring to whether oral tradition became written down. I said it eventually was, but ultimately what is important is that it is written in our hearts. And minds. But this is true of written scripture as well. As long as it remains written on scrolls, it is nothing. Only when the word of God, in whatever form it is, becomes written in our hearts and minds can it become living. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that.

1 Corinthians 2
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Exactly!

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8087175 At what time?

The time refers to when Paul wrote 1Corinthians and when the Corinthians had that letter read to them.

The bible is about God’s plan of salvation. ALL OF THE BIBLE. And that plan of salvation is realized in the spilt blood of the precious Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Which makes the whole bible Christian.

Yes. Of course the split blood of Jesus is told about in the NT, not the OT. When Jesus was speaking the scriptures referred to were the OT, not the NT. Sure, Christians use both OT and NT and consider them both to be Christian. Of course the Jews would not consider the OT to be Christian.

Peter is not talking about the untaught in oral tradition, but as I pointed out above in the second comming of Jesus. And specifically as v.15 points out “15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;”, the longsuffering of the Lord.

As I mentioned before, finally here is an alternative meaning for “untaught.” But it took a long time in coming! It’s a good try, but doesn’t work, because even if “untaught” does include not knowing about the end times, the only way for them to know about the end times would be via oral tradition! So again, there is no way to escape it, “untaught” means untaught in the oral understanding as taught by the apostles.

Or perhaps yours for adding it?

Referring to the question of “Search the scriptures…” or “You are searching the scriptures…”
Maybe my translations indeed add the word “you”, but at least my translations are plural, more than one, not singular, as yours is.

At any rate, the translation “You are searching,” or “You pore over the scriptures,” makes more sense because it refers to what the Jews were doing, but failing to recognize Jesus there.

Now, in the Greek there is just one word. So, how is it to be translated, ‘search’ or ‘you are searching’? The Greek is inspired, the translations are not. So, we have imperfect translations of a perfect inspired scripture. That is why we need evangelists and teachers to teach us what the proper translation should be. Here we go again, the “untaught” are wresting the scriptures!

Where else do we find the inspired word of God?

Only in scripture do we find the inspired word of God. Of course that does not mean that only in scripture is there revelation. Plus, how do we know what “scripture” is? Sure, only scripture is inspired, but how do we know among all the writings which ones are “inspired”?

Not all of them.

i said the Jews misunderstood their own scriptures. Richard replies, not all of them. I don’t know what his point is here. But, at any rate, he’s probably right, the Jews did understand some of their own scriptures. But the point is, they missed out on understanding about Jesus, so they missed out on the biggest thing of all! The only thing that really mattered. And notice they had scripture alone, but to no avail.

What do you think this witness is that the Father bore? 1Jn.5
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Again, I don’t really see what the purpose of bringing up 1Jn5 is. Richard seems to be hunting for any place that seems to say something about a record. Which he wants to mean scripture.
Anyway, the RSV verse 11 reads this way, “And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His son.” The NWT, an extremely literal translation, has, “And this is the witness given, that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in his Son.” Nothing about a “record.”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The same as the differences of the gospels themselves. They overlap, but not completely and each has its distinctive flavor and take on the good news. They each have their emphases. Note that Paul delivered his gospel before any of the four written gospels came to be. Paul emphasized “Christ and Him crucified.” Not much about His life and teachings.

The gospels mention almost nothing about Jesus life it is pretty much all about His teaching. Even the little that is said about His life with Mary and Joseph, being left at the temple, is used as a teaching opportunity.

Well, of course. At least the things taught in the Old Testament, because the New Testament didn’t exist yet. So, to be sure we observe all things whatsoever, it is best to be within the Church Jesus established to teach all nations.

Do you proof read your posts? So, you think “20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” means the things in the OT?

Church is the Body of Christ. Church is that authority established and guided by Christ to be his representative on earth, to baptize and preach His word. We believe that to be the Catholic and Orthodox Church.

I agree with everything here except to be Christ’s representative. Christ empowered no man or earthly institution to take His place. This is called blaspheme.

Some say it is the invisible collection of all Christian believers, the “invisible church” theory. True, it is the collection of all Christians, and scripture belongs to all Christians collectively; hence, since scripture belongs to all Christians collectively, it is the job of all Christians collectively to interpret scripture. Interpretation is done collectively by the Church for the members of the Church.

You seem to contradict yourself here. Do you think it is the job of individuals or the church and how is interpretation accomplished collectively?

Finally, another idea of what the “untaught” in 2Peter3:16 is! I don’t agree with it, because what Peter is talking about is that since the end will come soon, it is dangerous to be caught in misunderstanding of any kind, and to be without spot and blameless. He isn’t referring to misunderstanding of the end itself.

But, at least, this is an attempt to come up with an alternative of what “untaught” means.

2Peter3
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Ok, look at the first part of 2Peter3 he is talking about the second coming. Then in v.16 he says “16As also in all his epistles,(Pauls) speaking in them of these things” meaning the things that he has just talked about or the second coming. Then he says that some twist Pauls writings, about these things, (the second coming) to their own destruction. This is what it says Mack. He is not talking about oral tradition.

This is referring to whether oral tradition became written down. I said it eventually was, but ultimately what is important is that it is written in our hearts. And minds. But this is true of written scripture as well. As long as it remains written on scrolls, it is nothing. Only when the word of God, in whatever form it is, becomes written in our hearts and minds can it become living. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that.

You find the oral tradition in the classroom of the Church. Yes, it became written down as well. But ultimately, oral tradition is not written down on paper, but in our hearts.

You wrote this. Oral tradition is written down, but not writen down, but written on our hearts? I have yet to see a concrete definition of just what oral tradition is. You say it’s similar to the gospels but not exactly the same. Let me ask you this. Is there anything in this oral tradition that is necessary for our salvation that is not in the bible?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The time refers to when Paul wrote 1Corinthians and when the Corinthians had that letter read to them.

How do you know that Peter is talking about Paul’s leter to the Corinthians. He says in v.16 “As also in all his epistles”

Yes. Of course the split blood of Jesus is told about in the NT, not the OT. When Jesus was speaking the scriptures referred to were the OT, not the NT. Sure, Christians use both OT and NT and consider them both to be Christian. Of course the Jews would not consider the OT to be Christian.

You should read Isaiah 53

As I mentioned before, finally here is an alternative meaning for “untaught.” But it took a long time in coming! It’s a good try, but doesn’t work, because even if “untaught” does include not knowing about the end times, the only way for them to know about the end times would be via oral tradition! So again, there is no way to escape it, “untaught” means untaught in the oral understanding as taught by the apostles.

It may be that preaching about the end times was necessay for them to understand, but that has NOTHING to do with 2Peter3:16 which is talking about a faulty understanding of the end times.

Only in scripture do we find the inspired word of God. Of course that does not mean that only in scripture is there revelation.

Revelation from whom?

Plus, how do we know what “scripture” is? Sure, only scripture is inspired, but how do we know among all the writings which ones are “inspired”?

Scripture is the bible.

i said the Jews misunderstood their own scriptures. Richard replies, not all of them. I don’t know what his point is here. But, at any rate, he’s probably right, the Jews did understand some of their own scriptures. But the point is, they missed out on understanding about Jesus, so they missed out on the biggest thing of all! The only thing that really mattered. And notice they had scripture alone, but to no avail.

Well there were the apostles, right? So, you are saying that oral tradition is an exclusively new testament thing?

Again, I don’t really see what the purpose of bringing up 1Jn5 is. Richard seems to be hunting for any place that seems to say something about a record. Which he wants to mean scripture.
Anyway, the RSV verse 11 reads this way, “And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His son.” The NWT, an extremely literal translation, has, “And this is the witness given, that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in his Son.” Nothing about a “record.”

Why don’t you post the whole verse Mack?
Anyway Richard is pointing out that 1Jn.5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son. ASV
the witness, record, testimony that God gave us of His son is the same as in Jn.5

39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are** they which bear witness of me;**

40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.

41 I receive not glory from men.

42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves.

43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not?

45 Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope.

46 For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

And that is the written word of God.

 

[mackbrislawn]

QUOTE=Richard Kastner;8091452

Do you proof read your posts? So, you think “20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” means the things in the OT?

You asked if what Jesus commanded them to teach would be in the bible. I said, of course, at least those thingswhich He commanded which are also contained in the OT, since the NT wasn’t written yet. Richard, you have a habit of putting words in a person’s mouth. I suppose it is a debater’s device, not a way to understand.

I agree with everything here except to be Christ’s representative. Christ empowered no man or earthly institution to take His place. This is called blaspheme

.
I’m glad you agree with somethings, at any rate. However, the Church is the Body of Christ. And when Paul persecuted the Church, Jesus asked Paul whe he persecuted ME. Also, Jesus said, “He who accepts you accepts Me.” This is one of the major disagreements between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants do not think there is an earthly interpretive authority, and Catholics think there is. Yes, Catholics think that the Church takes Jesus place on earth, because Jesus is the head of the Church and guides it from heaven.

You seem to contradict yourself here. Do you think it is the job of individuals or the church and how is interpretation accomplished collectively?

No contradiction. If we use the definition of Church as all Christians collectively, then when the Church interprets scripture, then all the Christians collectively are interpreting scripture. That’s the trouble with an individual interpeting scripture. When an individual inteprets scripture, he is doing it for the whole world, not just himself. Realize that. The Holy Spirit guides Christians collectively in scripture interpretation, not individually. There is empirical proof of that: different Christians interpret scripture differently. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not guiding all of them.

2Peter3
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Ok, look at the first part of 2Peter3 he is talking about the second coming. Then in v.16 he says “16As also in all his epistles,(Pauls) speaking in them of these things” meaning the things that he has just talked about or the second coming. Then he says that some twist Pauls writings, about these things, (the second coming) to their own destruction. This is what it says Mack. He is not talking about oral tradition.

Nope, I don’t see it. Peter is warning them that since the second coming will come like a thief in the night, when you don’t know it, then you had better be prepared. You had better be not caught in any type of misunderstanding or twisting of scripture, you must be found by Jesus when He comes, in peace, without spot, and blameless. You must not be led away by the error of the wicked, must not fall from your own steadfastness.
Peter is not talking about things hard to understand about the end times, but things hard to understand, period, that Paul talks about, unless you have been previously taught and so already understand what would be otherwise hard.
Pay attention to the apostolic teaching and you will understand scripture.

You wrote this. Oral tradition is written down, but not writen down, but written on our hearts? I have yet to see a concrete definition of just what oral tradition is. You say it’s similar to the gospels but not exactly the same. Let me ask you this. Is there anything in this oral tradition that is necessary for our salvation that is not in the bible?/

Here is a person who doesn’t know that what is not written down can also later become written down. But however it is delivered, preached, or read by a reader, all of God’s teaching must be written in our hearts for it to be any good.
Oral tradition is that teaching preached by the the apostles and evangelists by which the early Christians became Christians. It was taught before and during the period in which the early Christians were also writing. It forms the background and context in which the Christian Greek scriptures came to be; it is the context in which scripture is understood.

These questions have already been answered. The last as well. It refers to “material sufficiency.” I don’t know the source of the term–probably one of the early Reformers. Material sufficiency is the pious belief that all of God’s revelation eventually became written down in inspired scripture, at least in seed or incipient form. Catholics do not disagree with this notion.

Formal sufficiency means that scripture is in a form that is understood. This notion is much more controversial. Empirical evidence shows that it is NOT in a form easily understood, since there are so many different understandings of it. Obviously, there are so many different understandings because there are so many wrong understandings.

So, yes, there is something in oral tradition that is not in the bible: understanding.