Lets talk about acts 20 ; 35 and see what it is saying

[Bill_Pick]

I do not get this at all. I have never read anyone make this claim. Paul did not need John’s approval; nor did Luke need John’s approval in writing his account. There are several things only said to one person where no one else was around. It also is difficult to reconcile with most views of the inspiration of scripture.
Would you elaborate?

it is oral tradition

 

[BrianH]

it is oral tradition

No it is not. It is conjecture. It is not official Catholic teaching and ralphinal has not claimed any differently. Now he asked if his view was illogical. No. It is a reasonable theory but it is not an oral tradition. He never claimed it was.
He did reference an oral tradition that John wrote following reading the three gospels but that is not specifically what we are talking about.

There is absolutely no oral teaching that supports this particular contention which started the discussion.

Had Paul been the only one who ever heard him say it, John would have objected to it.

 

[mark_a]

The phrase is in scripture by the same person who wrote Luke.

Are you skeptical that Luke wrote Luke and/or Acts? Just curious.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Originally Posted by NDfan

Please show me something that the Apostles passed on to the early church leaders that was only communicated orally, never written anywhere in scripture, and is still only communicated orally today as sacred tradition.

I responded:

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Then you didn’t respond.

No comment?

 

[ralphinal]

No it is not. It is conjecture. It is not official Catholic teaching and ralphinal has not claimed any differently. Now he asked if his view was illogical. No. It is a reasonable theory but it is not an oral tradition. He never claimed it was.
He did reference an oral tradition that John wrote following reading the three gospels but that is not specifically what we are talking about.

There is absolutely no oral teaching that supports this particular contention which started the discussion.

Actually, the fact that Paul could quote Jesus IS proof of Oral Tradition. It is clear that before the Gospels were written, everything was taught ORALLY.

The question is not if there was ORAL TRADITION. The question should be did oral tradition get obliterated by scripture

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

acts 20;35 and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
I can not find this any place in the bible that OUR LORD said this so is this what some call oral tradition.

Hello Bill,

I’ve been discussing points from the New Testament that show things written that could have only been learned through oral tradition. The verse you chose is one of them. Below, are two more examples, written by St. Paul.

**1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.) **

How did St. Paul know about the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert? It was not written about anywhere else in scriptures, including the Old Testament! St. Paul could have only learned that through, oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

Remember the story of Pharoah’s magicians? You know they turned their staffs into snakes and Moses staff/snake ate them both. How did St. Paul know their names? They are not named anywhere else in the Bible! St. Paul could have only learned this through, oral tradtion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

This passage shows several things. Number one, how did the people know what Christ was talking about when he spoke of the “chair of Moses”? The chair of Moses was not written anywhere else in the Bible, including the Old Testament. Christ did not have to explain what he was talking about as He did when people did not understand what He was talking about, because the people knew about the chair of Moses through oral tradition.

Number two, Christ is teaching to follow oral tradition, “…whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do…”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh) is the oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the “written Torah” (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The Mishnah is the record of the oral Torah.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah (“teaching”) from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the oral law are a guide to that interpretation of the written law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) is the premise that the written law is inherently bound together with an oral law.

The “oral law” was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and Midrash.

The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).**

Remember, Christ and many of His followers were also Jewish.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.”
2. The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.”
3. The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”**

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hello Bill,

I’ve been discussing points from the New Testament that show things written that could have only been learned through oral tradition. The verse you chose is one of them. Below, are two more examples, written by St. Paul.

**1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.) **

How did St. Paul know about the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert? It was not written about anywhere else in scriptures, including the Old Testament! St. Paul could have only learned that through, oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

Remember the story of Pharoah’s magicians? You know they turned their staffs into snakes and Moses staff/snake ate them both. How did St. Paul know their names? They are not named anywhere else in the Bible! St. Paul could have only learned this through, oral tradtion.

Ggod post thank you for the help,God bless

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oral tradition was the form used to teach during the time of the Lord. He never wrote anything, nor had anything scribed. Why?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

Scriptures do not teach scriptures alone, or Bible alone. Yet it seems to be a belief among Protestants.

Mark wrote an entire Gospel, yet he was not an eyewitness to Christ. His knowledge came through Peter, orally.

The Apostles taught oral tradition and wrote about following oral tradition as well as the written.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

 

[mark_a]

Oral tradition was the form used to teach during the time of the Lord. He never wrote anything, nor had anything scribed. Why?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

Scriptures do not teach scriptures alone, or Bible alone. Yet it seems to be a belief among Protestants.

Mark wrote an entire Gospel, yet he was not an eyewitness to Christ. His knowledge came through Peter, orally.

The Apostles taught oral tradition and wrote about following oral tradition as well as the written.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

Good stuff Prodigal Son 1. Thanks!