They wrote Down the Important Stuff

[Truthstalker]

From another thread:

Tom:

I’m sure you didn’t mean to put the “not” in that sentence “was not written”. LOL. I don’t recall anywhere in Scripture reading that everything that was important was written down. Could you give me some help here? Some reference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthstalker
If I were going to leave someone clear instructions on something, I would write it down. So would anyone.

Are you saying God must follow what you would have done? Remember Jesus was with His disciples for 40 days between the resurrection and His ascension, yet where is all that He spoke of during those 40 days. Or did He just remain silent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthstalker
By its nature you cannot prove anything oral was spoken during apostolic times, because it was not written down, and we do not have tape recordings.
They would have written the important stuff down, and the Holy Spirit would have seen to it that it made it into the Bible.

According to your reasoning He must have remained silent during those 40 days, or was His teaching unimportant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthstalker
There was an initial paradosis (tradition) Paul and John mention. There is no indication that anything that was to be followed would not be written down.

But it is specifically indicated that NOT all was written isn’t it? So Scripturally speaking your reasoning is at fault, or else you think that some things that Jesus taught and said were meaningless and not important? During those 40 days between His resurrection and His ascension He formed His Church, He taught His disciples, for one thing we know, He opened up all Scripture that referred to Him, where is this teaching written? I’d love to read His own words about all Scripture of the OT that referred to Him, wouldn’t you think that was important? But it isn’t written is it? It was orally transmitted, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit from day one to today, it rests in the teachings of His Catholic Church.

Most of the Gospel of Matthew is the Scriptures opened up to show Jesus the Messiah.

All He taught was important. That does not mean that it was not repeated. I don’t think He did a 40 day symposium on how to build a church with lecture at 9, workshop at 10, lecture at 1, etc. Acts 1 may contain all the teaching He did during the 40 days - teaching He had already given. You cannot prove that He taught anything not mentioned in the Bible. You can only assert that there is such material, but there is no record of it, because it was oral, meaning it was not written down.

Written testimony outweighs oral testimony every time.

 

[jemfinch]

Most of the Gospel of Matthew is the Scriptures opened up to show Jesus the Messiah.

But is it important that it is the Gospel of Matthew? Because that’s not written anywhere.

You cannot prove that He taught anything not mentioned in the Bible.

You cannot prove that He didn’t teach something not mentioned in the Bible. I suppose we’ll have to listen to the Apostle Paul when He says that we should obey everything we learned from, whether by spoken word or by letter.

You can only assert that there is such material, but there is no record of it, because it was oral, meaning it was not written down.

Eventually it was written down, in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Just because it wasn’t written in inspired writings doesn’t mean it wasn’t written.

Written testimony outweighs oral testimony every time.

Fortunately, we don’t have to choose between one or the other

Jeremy

 

[Mintaka]

“Written testimony outweighs oral testimony every time.”

Not in the ancient world.

As Papias said, “I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord’s disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.”

Books were considered just a pale substitute for the living voice of a reputable teacher, or the living memory of someone who learned from that teacher. Books were inherently unreliable and at the mercy of copyists, unless those copyists were very careful. Books could only describe a teacher’s manner and way of life; only the teacher could show you what he meant. Chains of teacher to teacher were important. (And they still are today, particularly in classical music circles.) Only such people could fill in with authority what the books didn’t mention, or assumed you knew, and what it all meant.

Reading and writing were considered highly destructive to the memory, unless this tendency was countered by your teachers making you do a great deal of memorization and oral repetition. (And indeed, the laziness of our memory skills is one of the big differences between primarily oral and primarily literate societies.)

Even today, if you really want to learn, say, sean-nos songs in Gaelic, or a specific philosophy, or a new medical technique, you don’t read about it in a book or even watch it on a video unless you have no better choice. It’s better to get it from the horse’s mouth – live and in person.