i agree that the apostles taught orally. However the only things we have from them is their writings. It does you or anyone else to claim some kind of oral traditions outside the written Scriptures does not help since we don’t know exactly what that was.
Here’s one Tradition we know:
* Matthew
* Mark
* Luke
* John
* Acts
* Romans
* 1 Corinthians
* 2 Corinthians
* Galatians
* Ephesians
* Philippians
* Colossians
* 1 Thessalonians
* 2 Thessalonians
* 1 Timothy
* 2 Timothy
* Titus
* Philemon
* Hebrews
* James
* 1 Peter
* 2 Peter
* 1 John
* 2 John
* 3 John
* Jude
* RevelationYou know, ja4, Luke spent a long time with Paul, and chronicaled his missions and teachings. Do you really think, if Paul did not agree with what he wrote about Mary, that he would have published it?
Well, I am glad we agree about something!
Jesus taught the disciples about the Kingdom. He explained “everything” to them. When He was ready to ascend,He commissioned them to “teach all that I have commanded”. This is what the Apostles did. Not a single shred of the doctrine came from scripture, but all from God Himself. Later, when it became clear to them that Jesus was not going to return so immediately, they committed some of the Teachings to writing, and these became our NT. It is not the source of Christian doctrine. Jesus is the Source.
I don’t blame you for this error, ja4, I believe it was taught to you. It is an error that goes back about 500 years. “written age” is not biblical, it is a tradition of man. The Sacred Traditions handed down from the apostles have never been discontinued. In fact, the NT demonstrates that they are to be held at the same level of esteem as the writings.
I understand what you are saying. It is a tradition of men, a Protestant invention to support the abandonment of those whom Jesus sent. Using this, one can also reject the appointed authority.
I don’t think any matters of faith can be 'proven". We receive what was handed on to us by faith.
This reasoning denies the Power of God to preserve His word. In invalidates the entire OT, which was preserved orally for thousands of years. You are saying that God is a weakling, and is unable to watch over His word to perform it.
Most definitely.
Observing worship on Sunday (The Lord’s Day) as well as the traditional Jewish Sabbath. The understanding of three persons in One God, the two natures of Christ in One Person, the communion of saints the list goes on and on.
We have evidence for all these Teachings in the Early Fathers. They were held intact and affirmed at the Council of Nicea four centuries later.
No. I’m referring to any of the oral teachings of the apostles. These oral teachings have no authority in the church since we don’t know exactly what they were unless its in Scripture.Originally Posted by justasking4
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.
guanophore
Are you saying that oral proclamation of the Gospel is no longer valid?
This is a very interesting formulation. “it is believed”.
They may not for you, ja4, but scripture clearly states that we should esteem them as equal to the epistles.
How do you “esteem them as equal to the epistles” if you don’t have any record of what they taught orally?
Then please tell me EXACTLY what there oral teachings of the apostles were not recorded in Scripture?
I agree the NT Scriptures were produced by the Apostles.
There are records the teachings of the Church[QUOTE said:
They are recorded go back and read all the Writings of the 1st and 2nd century that are contained in the library with regards. If all were to be placed within the Bible you could not carry it around. It would be impossible.
They also said and taught things that are not recorded in the Bible. Why is that so hard to understand? When the the Bible was compiled in the 3rd century there was a lot of writings not included. The members of the council selected those we have to be include in the cannon but not because they include all the teaching that were needed but they contained the core. If we go Only by what we have written in the Bible then we must assume that the only Apostle that ever wrote or said anything about the Life and teaching of Christ would be Matthew , Mark, and John. that the only ones that had anything to tells us about how we should live and What was expected of us would be John, Peter, and James. And other than Paul, Jude and James no was teaching anything.
How about just 2-3 examples of what the apostles taught orally that is not in the NT?
If they are found there why doesn’t someone just a couple of examples of these oral sayings of the apostles that are not in the Scriptures and show us?
I agree that the Scriptures say this but what i’m asking is: what exactly are these sayings not recorded in the NT? How do you know exactly what they were? Claiming that they can be found in some library is amazing claim in and of itself. I would have thought that if this was the case the church would have produced them by them since there are many who would like to know what else Jesus said that is not recorded in the Scriptures.
i think we can assume they did teach orally and may have written also. However just because its probable that they did does not mean we know what it was since we have no documentation of what exactly it was.
This is true. John writes in 20:30-31 says –
Because we have received the Apostles’ Teaching, and have obeyed the instructions we were given:
**
You are creating a dichotomy that does not exist for Catholics, ja4. Catholics don’t separate the Sacred Tradition from the Sacred Writing. There is no point to go in search of things “not in the NT”. The NT is the product of the Oral Teachings of the Apostles, that is why there are not contradictions between the two. They come from the same Source.
You have been given dozens of examples, ja4. You have an authority problem, is all. It is ok, though. God gave you free will, and you are free to reject the word of those whom He sent.
Why are you trying to create a standard that does not exist? There is no “rule” that the Apostles Teaching cannot be found both in writing and in practice! I think it really has more to do with how the scriptures are understood. For example, the Apostles taught that Jesus meant to literallly eat His body, that is why this passage is found as such in Jn. 6.
Because Catholics were obedient, and kept them, just as they were instructed to do. Do you think that God is so weak that He cannot watch over His word to perform it? How do you think the Word was preserved in the thousands of years from the creation until Moses wrote the Torah?
The Church is very open about the Teachings of Jesus. If you want to hear them proclaimed, I recommend EWTN, TV or radio. Many of the Teachings of the Apostles are found in the Liturgy, prayers, and practices of the Church.
You have explained that when you use this royal “we” you mean to represent “true Christians” (Bible). In this context, what you are saying is that Catholics are not “true Christians” because we have kept the Traditions of the Apostles. You also say that to be a “true Christian”, one must reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.
That being the case, one must conclude that you have found your salvation in the Bible. So, it begs the question, why are you here on CAF? Do you have any other goal besides to disparage Catholics and the Church?
1.The apostles further appointed: Forty days before the day of the passion of our Saviour fast ye, and then celebrate the day of the passion, and the day of the resurrection: because our Lord Himself also, the Lord of the festival, fasted forty days; and Moses and Elijah, who were endued with this mystery, likewise each fasted forty days, and then were glorified.( Lent)
I must be barking up the wrong tree then. When i say the Scriptures, Bible, OT and NT which can all be found in the 66 books of the Bible or the 73(?) in the catholic Bible and you not only would probably agree with this but you would also use another term that means exactly the same thing i.e. Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition = Bible. Nothing more or less. Correct?
You are barking up the wrong tree in attempting to get Catholics to limit their experience of the Divine Revelation to Scripture only. Yes, the Bible, OT and NT are a product of Sacred Tradition. Not, they are not the sum total of that Tradition, as there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not written in them. In fact, the Bible itself commands us to preserve Sacred Tradition, and never states that the fullness of that Tradition can be found in the pages.
No. The Bible is a product of the Sacred Tradition; it is not the Sacred Tradition itself. It is one of many things produced by the Sacred Tradition, such the Councils, and the Mass and the Sacraments, and the stories we hear about Mary and the other Saints, and the Rosary, and the Divine Mercy Chaplet, and the letters and documents of the Early Church, and the encyclicals of the Popes beginning with the First Letter of Peter on down to the most recent one produced by our current Pope - and not forgetting the zillions of hymns, and paintings and sculptures and other inspired works of art and architecture that also remind us and teach us the things of our faith.
Are these Sacred Tradition inspired-inerrant also?No. The Bible is a product of the Sacred Tradition; it is not the Sacred Tradition itself. It is one of many things produced by the Sacred Tradition, such the Councils, and the Mass and the Sacraments, and the stories we hear about Mary and the other Saints, and the Rosary, and the Divine Mercy Chaplet, and the letters and documents of the Early Church, and the encyclicals of the Popes beginning with the First Letter of Peter on down to the most recent one produced by our current Pope - and not forgetting the zillions of hymns, and paintings and sculptures and other inspired works of art and architecture that also remind us and teach us the things of our faith.
The Bible came together in its final form, as we know and love it today, in 405 AD. In the years leading up to it, people were transmitting the sacred information (Holy Tradition) about Jesus and about everything and everyone related to Jesus via all kinds of different methods - art, music, poetry, prayers, rituals, etc.
No one knows what the “many things that Jesus said and did that are not written in them” are?
What specific Sacred Traditions are you referring to? Can you give me a couple of examples?
No catholic can ever know “the fullness of that Tradition” since the church itself has opened itself up to a so called developing understanding of scripture (Mary’s assumption is on example of this and unknown in the second century for example) and you don’t know when or where Mary will appear again and give some new revelations as she supposedly in the past has.
Here is what He said on this: John 5:39-40