I agree that there was a limited time when the apostles taught orally before it was written down. However, we are far past that period and are in the “written age” of the inspired-inerrant Scriptures which takes precedence over any oral traditions.
I don’t think there is such a thing as “the written age,” (when did it begin, if so?) and even if there is, it isn’t here yet, since more than 50% of the population of the earth is still illiterate. Most people still learn the Gospel via the Oral Tradition.
What i’m referring to is the teachings of the apostles which for a time was oral but is no longer. It is their writings that is the authority for the church and not their oral teachings.
When did their oral teachings lose authority? I am not aware of the Church’s declaration that the oral teachings no longer have authority - where are you getting that from?
We don’t know what the apostles taught since its not written down. In other words the only thing we know the apostles taught is found in the NT.
You don’t. It has to do with history.Originally Posted by justasking4
However, we are far past that period and are in the “written age” of the inspired-inerrant Scriptures which takes precedence over any oral traditions.
Lischou;
And where do you find that in the Bible?
Lisa
When and where in history did this happen? (Name of the Pope who made this declaration, the year, the place, etc.)
Yes we do; they passed it down to us by means of the Oral Tradition.
Can you give me a couple of examples of what the apostles taught orally that is not in Scripture?
Everything that we teach orally, that you don’t find in Scripture, was taught by the Apostles, but not written down by them in a way that makes any sense to you, personally.
How are you going to prove some claimed “oral teaching” of the apostles that is 2000 years old was spoken by such and such apostle?
Do you realize how large the Bible would be if every thing that Jesus and the Apostle said and did was recorded in it? We could start the list of the Traditions with the Sacraments and how they are to be done. They are mentioned in scripture but for the most part the how to comes through tradition. over the years most if not all of the teaching have been written down but it is not necessary to place them in the Bible as that is why we have the Church.
Well, for example, we still have the icon that was painted by St. Luke. It’s in a church in Poland; I don’t recall off hand which one. But, there we have evidence that the Apostles, or at least the first generation of their followers, believed that Mary was very important.
Luckily, I don’t have to. What I have proof of, or at least enough evidence to convince me, is that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ. From knowing this, everything else is established and trustworthy. I don’t have to do my own archaeological digging; it’s all been done for me.
This is the first i have heard of this icon by Luke. Would you happen to know the evidence why it is said it was painted by Luke?
Even if this is the case i don’t see any evidence what exactly the apostles said about her here.
All this tells us is what the person or persons may have believed. It does not necessarily mean the apostles did.
My point is that oral communication gets corrupted very quickly for a number of reasons. I’m sure you have been to events and discussed these events and people see and hear different things and these things they remember can change over time.
Problably had something to do with the 12 tribes or something like that. Jesus never did things haphazardly but always with a purpose.
If so, then how can the Bible be trustworthy? Since it wasn’t written until several years after the events they speak about occurred.
Of course. But there were twelve Tribes instead of just one, because God revealed His message to a nation; not to an individual.
In the case of the Scriptures it is believed that God gave the writers of Scripture to write what He wanted. Secondly it is not inconceiable that those who heard the prophets or Jesus teach wrote down what they said. Luke 1:1-4 also speaks of Luke’s investigation into the story of Christ that is to be accurate. We know Paul’ letters were copied by other churches.
true
This is true. This information comes to us via the Oral Tradition. While there is information in the Bible itself regarding the existence of inspired writings, it does not go into any detail to let us know which writings they are.
It’s not likely. The kit for a scribe back in those days was a lot like the kit for a 19th century photographer - there was a lot of very heavy, very delicate stuff. They didn’t have ball point pens, and they had to mix and boil their own ink; they also had to scrape their own vellum to write on (it was sheep skin - they had to scrape the fat off the back, and the wool off the front, and wait for it to dry before they could write on it) - it’s not like they could just grab a notebook and pen, and start writing stuff down, the way we can.
He didn’t go to the library for that. He contacted the people in person and interviewed them.
Yes, they were, but this was a time-consuming process - they didn’t have more than one copy per Church. Nobody was taking them home to read, at that time. (Later, people could do that, after several more copies had been made, but whole Bibles weren’t available to the general public until the time of Gutenberg, in the 1400s. And they didn’t become pocket-sized until the middle of the 19th century. People weren’t hauling 300 pound Bibles around the countryside, preaching.
Have you realized that Scripture are just written down oral traditions?
