What is Oral Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter SolaScriptura
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My job is not to “correct” your private interpretation…only to try and lead you to Truth.

Before the new Testament was written, the Apostles carried on the teachings and traditions of the Church…many of which were not included in the Holy Scriptures, but none the less significant.
God’s peace be with you~
SolaScriptura said:
So will you correct my private interpretation with your private interpretation? Do you not have the ability to state in one or two sentences what this means in reference to the question I asked?
Click to expand...
 
I can answer this with one simple statement. Calling us (Catholic Christians) “you people” is dennegrating to say the least.

Please read the answers to your many other threads that you have started. Each of them has answered your question.

I am sorry you are not here to learn but IMHO to insult us.
 
Lampo said:
The word of God that is in the NT had to be transmitted orally before the NT was written. Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.
Click to expand...
So is the content of Oral Tradition different from the content of Scripture or are they the same?
 
reneeville said:
My job is not to “correct” your private interpretation…only to try and lead you to Truth.
Click to expand...
How do you lead me to the truth if you don’t correct my private interpretation? :confused:
reneevile:
Before the new Testament was written, the Apostles carried on the teachings and traditions of the Church…many of which were not included in the Holy Scriptures, but none the less significant.
God’s peace be with you~
Click to expand...
So it seems you are saying Oral Tradition has different content then the Scriptures. Is that true?
 
SolaScriptura said:
So is the content of Oral Tradition different from the content of Scripture or are they the same?
Click to expand...
Well, since nothing in the Catholic faith contradicts Scripture and nothing in Scripture contradicts the Catholic faith, I’d say no difference. Keep in mind, I’m only about a “1st Grader” when it comes to fully understanding my faith.
 
SolaScriptura said:
So will you correct my private interpretation with your private interpretation? Do you not have the ability to state in one or two sentences what this means in reference to the question I asked?
Click to expand...
You hve been gvien reams of information on it.I suspect you have not read any of it. You prefer that we distill it into a bumber sticker slogan so you can then attack that persons one line description of Oral Tradition.

Lets face it-you didnt come here to learn about oral tradition. you came here to pick a fight. are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you feel a need to denigrate others?
 
Me thinks SS is trying to setup a trap…for you to say yes, the content in Tradition is different from Scripture. Then he can lay some kind of attack on you.

Tradition is simply the way that Christianity has always operated and developed from the time of the Apostles, on. The ‘Church throughout all’'s job in this was to maintain this Tradition and make sure that it was the frame of reference one took when practicing being a diciple of Christ.

300-400 years later, the Good News was canonized and put into book form, and now we had an addition to Tradition to help us grow closer to Christ, and to help validate all that was taught through Tradition. (ie, the beginning of Luke to Theophilus). Our early church still had to rely heavilly on tradition, due to the absence of the printing press and the average Joses’s abillity to read.

Really, when you think about it, the entire New Testament, (and I’m sure lots of the Old) were Tradition written down (divinely inspired, of course!). It wasn’t like we had a ‘field reporter’ that was writing down everything as it happend.

I guess the confusion to the non-catholic, is that some parts of Tradition didn’t get written down. So with the Bible-Alone thing, Tradition just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore. I know I don’t write down my yearly traditions, I just pass them on year after year. Due to our ‘organized religion’, however, our Traditions are valid. The Apostles and their students would not have let Tradition get corrupted to the point where it was no longer Christian.

Makes sense to me!
 
hehe I agree -
His first line: Catholic loves to attach sola scriptura

With him posting here on Scriptures and other things, I surely know he knows the answers from the replies, he is not here to be convinced but to set up some arguments.

I have no problem understanding the answers to his questions without having answered each one of them in the way he expected users to answer.

Scottgun has given great answers there! 👍
 
This is not an official teaching of the church, only my opinion. The oral and infallible traditions of the Church, for instance the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother, are found in Scripture. It is not a doctrine that can been seen/understood with a cursory reading of the text. One has to read and understand the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. Scripture is literal, metaphorical, natural and supernatural, as well as many other things that cannot be contained in the ramblings of a creature such as myself. This is why Christ gave us the infallible Church, to teach us, orally, those teachings of Christ that could not be contained by the written word. (that is somewhere in Scripture, but darned if I know the verse.)
 
water said:
hehe I agree -
His first line: Catholic loves to attach sola scriptura

With him posting here on Scriptures and other things, I surely know he knows the answers from the replies, he is not here to be convinced but to set up some arguments.

I have no problem understanding the answers to his questions without having answered each one of them in the way he expected users to answer.

Scottgun has given great answers there! 👍
Click to expand...
One would have to read the answers in order to understand them.😃
 
Lampo said:
Well, since nothing in the Catholic faith contradicts Scripture and nothing in Scripture contradicts the Catholic faith, I’d say no difference. Keep in mind, I’m only about a “1st Grader” when it comes to fully understanding my faith.
Click to expand...
Even if the two sources didn’t contradict each other that doesn’t mean they have the same content. Anyway since you say there is no difference between the two then why do we need Oral Tradition? Based on your answer we have it all in Scripture already.
 
SolaScriptura said:
Even if the two sources didn’t contradict each other that doesn’t mean they have the same content. Anyway since you say there is no difference between the two then why do we need Oral Tradition? Based on your answer we have it all in Scripture already.
Click to expand...
What specifically about the information given in the links provided to you do you dispute?
 
exiled said:
This is not an official teaching of the church, only my opinion. The oral and infallible traditions of the Church, for instance the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother, are found in Scripture. It is not a doctrine that can been seen/understood with a cursory reading of the text. One has to read and understand the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. Scripture is literal, metaphorical, natural and supernatural, as well as many other things that cannot be contained in the ramblings of a creature such as myself. This is why Christ gave us the infallible Church, to teach us, orally, those teachings of Christ that could not be contained by the written word. (that is somewhere in Scripture, but darned if I know the verse.)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure, but it seems like you are either saying, the Oral Traditional serves as an interpretational guide or it contains content different then Scripture. Which one?
 
estesbob said:
What specifically about the information given in the links provided to you do you dispute?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying I dispute anything, however I want to know what **you **think the Catholic position is not what I think it is based on my reading of a link. Protestants hear all the time we need Oral Tradition. OK, first tell me what it is.
 
SolaScriptura said:
Even if the two sources didn’t contradict each other that doesn’t mean they have the same content. Anyway since you say there is no difference between the two then why do we need Oral Tradition? Based on your answer we have it all in Scripture already.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify. Not everything Jesus said or did was written down(John 20:30.) There’s really no argument there is there?
 
Lampo said:
Let me clarify. Not everything Jesus said or did was written down(John 20:30.) There’s really no argument there is there?
Click to expand...
No there is no argument there. However, do you still affirm your initial assertion that the two(i.e. Oral Tradition and Scripture) are the same in content? If yes, then why do we need Oral Tradition?
 
SolaScriptura said:
I’m not saying I dispute anything, however I want to know what **you **think the Catholic position is not what I think it is based on my reading of a link. Protestants hear all the time we need Oral Tradition. OK, first tell me what it is.
Click to expand...
We have given you the links . Why should you care what my opinion of what oral Tradition is when you can go straight to the Church’s explanation?

What sepcifically about the Church’s teaching on oral Tradition do you dspute?
 
SolaScriptura said:
No there is no argument there. However, do you still affirm your initial assertion that the two(i.e. Oral Tradition and Scripture) are the same in content? If yes, then why do we need Oral Tradition?
Click to expand...
if you would read the links provided you you would know the answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top