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

[Bill_Pick]

Paul was speaking the words of Christ not sacred tradition. Again I don’t understand the point here. You’re implying that since scripture doesn’t actually record Christ as saying these words, it’s not considered scripture if Paul tells us that Christ stated these words.

ITS CALLED ORAL TRADITION

 

[Rightlydivide]

No one is denying that there was an oral tradition. Goodness gracious people.
Now, if the purpose of this thread is to give additional sayings found among the early Christian writers directly from Jesus, Peter, John, etc, please provide them.

 

[NDfan]

It’s a clear example of oral tradition among the apostles.

If Luke had not written these words of Paul would they be less true?

I would agree in this case that it is better to give than to receive. But it seems you are trying to make the case that other statements of Christ have been passed forward that are not recorded anywhere in scripture. Scripture is the entire contents of the Bible. If Luke records Paul communicating something he received from Christ then it is scripture.

If Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp,(each of whom personally knew apostles) and other apostolic successors agree on the words of the apostles, do you think it is wise to ignore them?

No I don’t think it’s wise to ignore them. So Ok then I have a challenge for you. 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.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It’s a clear example of oral tradition among the apostles.

If Luke had not written these words of Paul would they be less true?

If Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp,(each of whom personally knew apostles) and other apostolic successors agree on the words of the apostles, do you think it is wise to ignore them?

Interesting words for Ignatius:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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.

“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).

 

[NDfan]

When Paul spoke those words there was no new testament scripture(other than a few of Paul’s letters).

How do you know?? Mark’s Gospel is dated to the late 30sAD. Around the same time as some of Paul’s letters.

And again why would it matter if not all of scripture existed. We still had the Apostles or at least some of them alive preaching what Christ said.

 

[joshua_b]

I believe the point is in the words used, and the fact that the words point to an appear of Tradition.

The exact wording, “remember the words of the Lord Jesus”, coupled with the fact that they are found nowhere written other than here, makes a presupposition that the intended audience of this writing would ALREADY be familiar with these words Jesus spoke, and that familiarity would have had to come somewhere other than Scripture.

If Scripture is to contain the full and complete revelation of God to man, and these words can not be found in any Scripture prior to this one, how could the author make the presumption that the intended audience would already have knowledge of these words Jesus spoke?

 

[NDfan]

Only the most irrational person would say that there was no oral tradition in the early Church. Paul was taught this phrase by the Apostles, and he used it when he saw the need. Luke, who had not been told the context of it, had no prior notation for it.

The question should not be if there was no oral tradition or what its importance was: there was no NT writings to pull from, so it was primary. The question should be when and why Oral Tradition is no longer valid.

Ralph you don’t know that Paul heard this from another Apostle. You simply cannot make that statement. Paul may have received this as a revelation from Christ and Luke simply recorded it which makes it scripture.

As far as dismissing tradition, I don’t dismiss it. I just don’t equate it to what scripture tells us when it comes to our salvation. There’s a big difference here. Sacred tradition can never contradict scripture in matters of salvation. That’s the whole premise behind scripture alone.

 

[NDfan]

ITS CALLED ORAL TRADITION

Bill again what is the point of this thread? If you would like to discuss oral tradition not found in scripture that is critical for our salvation then please take the discussion that way. Don’t keep throwing the words ORAL TRADITION at me with a very poor example from scripture.

 

[NDfan]

Interesting words for Ignatius:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

OK I’ve seen this quote like a million times from Ignatius. Do you have any knowledge as to why Ignatius stated these words??

 

[NDfan]

I believe the point is in the words used, and the fact that the words point to an appear of Tradition.

The exact wording, “remember the words of the Lord Jesus”, coupled with the fact that they are found nowhere written other than here, makes a presupposition that the intended audience of this writing would ALREADY be familiar with these words Jesus spoke, and that familiarity would have had to come somewhere other than Scripture.

If Scripture is to contain the full and complete revelation of God to man, and these words can not be found in any Scripture prior to this one, how could the author make the presumption that the intended audience would already have knowledge of these words Jesus spoke?

Joshua the author is not making any assumption. He’s simply recording the words of Paul as he’s addressing the Ephesians.

Paul’s statement of remember the Lord’s words doesn’t imply that they came from scripture as I fully acknowledge that the entire contents of the NT weren’t recorded and compiled into a nice book. Paul isn’t addressing them as if they already know what Christ stated. He’s simply teaching them what Christ stated. Whether Paul received it from another Apostle or Christ Himself doesn’t matter.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

OK I’ve seen this quote like a million times from Ignatius. Do you have any knowledge as to why Ignatius stated these words??

He is giving instructions in order to teach and build unity, IMO.

Do you have a problem with anything he said?

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph you don’t know that Paul heard this from another Apostle. You simply cannot make that statement. Paul may have received this as a revelation from Christ and Luke simply recorded it which makes it scripture.

As far as dismissing tradition, I don’t dismiss it. I just don’t equate it to what scripture tells us when it comes to our salvation. There’s a big difference here. Sacred tradition can never contradict scripture in matters of salvation. That’s the whole premise behind scripture alone.

I slightly disagree. Had Jesus not said it, it would not have made it into the Scriptures. Had Paul been the only one who ever heard him say it, John would have objected to it.

Nothing in Sacred Tradition is against Sacred Scripture

 

[BrianH]

I slightly disagree. Had Jesus not said it, it would not have made it into the Scriptures. Had Paul been the only one who ever heard him say it, John would have objected to it.

Nothing in Sacred Tradition is against Sacred Scripture

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?

 

[ralphinal]

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?

John was the last of the 12 to die. The collection of Scriptures was all but complete by the time that he had died. Had he been aware of anything in them that was not correct, he had the authority to say something. In other words, Acts would not have been made part or the Cannon of Sacred SCriptures.

When would Jesus have told Paul this saying? If the other Apostles had not heard it, do you not think someone else would have corrected him later?

 

[BrianH]

John was the last of the 12 to die. The collection of Scriptures was all but complete by the time that he had died. Had he been aware of anything in them that was not correct, he had the authority to say something. In other words, Acts would not have been made part or the Cannon of Sacred SCriptures.

When would Jesus have told Paul this saying? If the other Apostles had not heard it, do you not think someone else would have corrected him later?

A very interesting account of what might have happened. It is an opinion and as such I just wanted to hear your rationale.

 

[ralphinal]

A very interesting account of what might have happened. It is an opinion and as such I just wanted to hear your rationale.

Is it illogical?

 

[BrianH]

Is it illogical?

Well, it presupposes that John was skeptical about Paul. It hearkens back to a view(unintentionally because I do not think that is your intention) held by some that heightens the differences between the Jerusalem Church and Paul.
I do not know of any reason to think that John would needed to have verified something that Paul said occured.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, it presupposes that John was skeptical about Paul. It hearkens back to a view(unintentionally because I do not think that is your intention) held by some that heightens the differences between the Jerusalem Church and Paul.
I do not know of any reason to think that John would needed to have verified something that Paul said occured.

Actually, there is a reason that has nothing to do with skepticism, which I did not intend to portray. It seems to be that John wrote his Gospel to fill in areas that the other three left out. It gives us a story that would not have been told, but was accepted as part of the faith. It is logical that any of the books were shown to him so that those saving the texts could be sure that they were authentic and not forged or false.

Paul was incidental to this. It is more about being sure that the story is true and verified.

 

[BrianH]

Actually, there is a reason that has nothing to do with skepticism, which I did not intend to portray. It seems to be that John wrote his Gospel to fill in areas that the other three left out. It gives us a story that would not have been told, but was accepted as part of the faith. It is logical that any of the books were shown to him so that those saving the texts could be sure that they were authentic and not forged or false.

Paul was incidental to this. It is more about being sure that the story is true and verified.

My view tends not to be as tidy as more conservative people on this forum. But I do understand your viewpoint.