Oral Tradition

Good question Psalm. I don't think so in specific terms of a specific oral tradition attibuted specifically to Paul.

That brings up another question along the same line however in my mind...just a question not a trap.

When Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, how much oral tradition did he put into those five books? And of course, could we attribute some of that information to specific people from an earlier period? Do you believe there was an oral tradition of Adam and Eve, and Abraham, Joseph, the Ark and whatnot, before Moses wrote the first five books?

 

Well...I may have missed some of your point. The scripture you quote is talking about *prophesy*. And no prophesy has nothing to do with oral tradition. What is your point on prophesy?

As regards Old Testament first five books: I know Moses was guided by God and that he wrote the first five books of the Bible. My question to you is, do you think when Moses penned these scriptures, that this was the first time the children of Isreal know about Adam and Eve, and Noah, the ark, the geneologies, Lot, Abraham, Joseph, etc???

How did the people of Isreal know this was inspired from God? Do you think Moses knew anything of these matters before God personally told him everything in great detail? Or do you think that Moses also took from Israel, a record of revealved truth that had already been given, an existing covenant created by God and transmitted to the nation of Israel?

How many years did God's promises and covenant exist in the real world before there was an Old Testament to tell us about it? Was it valid then, before the Bible started?

As far as your question on oral tradition attributed to specific Apostles. I do not beleive that there is anything as specific as you are looking for, and this is quite a question, as if all the Apostles had a different oral tradition. Your question would have more meaning if the apostolic churches had different traditions. If they had the same oral tradition, which they did, then you would find that oral tradition stands on the untity of teaching among those churches that were founded by Apostles, which is exactly how the term Apostolic succession came to be regarded in such high regard. Those churces founded by Apostles with direct lineage stood in unity in thier teachings, when there were new versions by Nicholas, and the Gnostics, the Arians (very powerful too), and many others.

Anyway...what do you think about the questions on Moses. I am not waiting for a wrong answer to jump on my soap box. I am just curious how you thought about Moses and the first few books of the bible in relation to Israel's oral tradition of Abraham and Gods work in their lives up to that point.

Peace,

-Chuck

 

Maybe the oral tradition refered to worship and not to doctrine.

 

Godmetal,

Maybe, but which oral tradition are you referring to here?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:
Contrary to persistent charges by Roman apologists, Protestant Evangelicals do affirm the
binding authority of apostolic tradition as delivered by the apostles. What they preached
and taught in the first century Church was authoritatively binding on the consciences of all
Christians. What we do not believe is the Roman Catholic claims that extrabiblical,
apostolic tradition have been preserved orally apart from the scriptures. The sources and
contents of these claims are ambiguous. In all the cases where the claims for oral tradition
are made, none of the councils, theologians or apologists can support their claim with
specific doctrine.
In John 20:30 “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book.”
If we stopped there one might see support for oral tradition. I said might! But lets
look at the next verse. 20:31 “ but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ the son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name.” This verse
indicates that what is written is sufficient.
If the Church at Thessanolica was commanded by Paul to preserve and pass on a
body of unwritten tradition (2Thess.2:14-15) committed to their care, then they failed. For
there are no extant unwritten apostolic traditions that have been left by the church of
Thessalonica, nor have Roman apologists ever produced any specific instances.
The “traditions” of 2 Thess. 2:15 are a reference to the same message delivered in
two different modes. There is a Greek coordinating conjunction (whether/or) in verse 15
signifying the two- fold apostolic method of delivering the same doctrine orally or in
writing, but I am not qualified or able to go into that.
As for the first five books of Moses and the stories of the creation and the flood
etc. I’m sure there was much tradition passed down and much apochropha and confusion
created before God had it all inscripturated. Thank God for His Word.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Psalm, thou shalt not covent they neighbors intellectual property.

How about a little attribution when you "borrow" from someone else?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Contrary to persistent charges by Roman apologists, Protestant Evangelicals do affirm the
binding authority of apostolic tradition as delivered by the apostles. What they preached
and taught in the first century Church was authoritatively binding on the consciences of all
Christians. What we do not believe is the Roman Catholic claims that extrabiblical,
apostolic tradition have been preserved orally apart from the scriptures. The sources and
contents of these claims are ambiguous. In all the cases where the claims for oral tradition
are made, none of the councils, theologians or apologists can support their claim with
specific doctrine.
In John 20:30 “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book.”
If we stopped there one might see support for oral tradition. I said might! But lets
look at the next verse. 20:31 “ but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ the son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name.” This verse
indicates that what is written is sufficient.
If the Church at Thessanolica was commanded by Paul to preserve and pass on a
body of unwritten tradition (2Thess.2:14-15) committed to their care, then they failed. For
there are no extant unwritten apostolic traditions that have been left by the church of
Thessalonica, nor have Roman apologists ever produced any specific instances.
The “traditions” of 2 Thess. 2:15 are a reference to the same message delivered in
two different modes. There is a Greek coordinating conjunction (whether/or) in verse 15
signifying the two- fold apostolic method of delivering the same doctrine orally or in
writing, but I am not qualified or able to go into that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...why do I get the feeling you finally made your real point?

Uhhh, we can talk about this more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
As for the first five books of Moses and the stories of the creation and the flood
etc. I’m sure there was much tradition passed down and much apochropha and confusion
created before God had it all inscripturated. Thank God for His Word.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that all I get on that topic?

Ok fair enough. You bet there was oral tradition before Moses. Tradition that Israel trusted their souls with. They knew what they taught was Gods truth. Do you think if Moses had penned something other than what the children of Israel had been taught by God through Abraham and others, that they would have accepted that as God's Word. Absolutely not. I am surprised you did not know this. (gotcha back...)

Seriously though, you give me the impression that Moses received every single character from God alone, and did not check with the Israelites at all on anything of the details of the first five books, such as the geneologies. After all, this truth existed before Moses, and it was no surprise once it was penned.

Have you ever noticed that the New Testament was not written in the form of a manual to the Church? Did you know the Apostles did not cannonize a New Testament, but rather wrote parts of it, and wrote it to certain peoples for various reasons, and other parts to adress whole populaces? And some who were not Apostles wrote part of the New Testament, and we don't know what the Apostles said about their writtings because they did not cannonize a NT for the Church?

Then if the Apostles did not cannonize the NT officially, but the Church somehow know about the 27 books as DHK asserts, then there logically must have been an oral tradition that at least could tell us what the NT is right? If not, then the Church did in fact, decide what was in the NT. Eighther way, you have either Oral Tradition or Church Authority.

I do not frankly see how you can see it any other way really...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:
20:31 “ but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ the son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name.” This verse
indicates that what is written is sufficient.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Psalm, to begin, no offense taken, no apology needed. I just like to tease you. And yes, what I write are my own thoughts.

Is the author really saying that "what is written is sufficient"? He uses the word "might" twice in that sentence.

Also, let us not forget, Satan also believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:
Sometimes I think the main problem between Protestants and Catholics is a semantic issue. It seems that we define our words differently and keep talking past each other. Maybe some day we should define our terms and see if we are on the same page. Words like Inspiration, tradition, justification and sanctification, etc. Do you agree?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good idea. Why don't we start with "tradition"?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

Ps,
What do you think of the Apostles Creed? Are you familiar with it?

Also, what do you think of the word Trinity and the formulation of the doctrine concerning it?

What do you think of the books in your NT?
Do you think they are the books that belong there, that are inspired of God?

All of the above, and much more, comes to you from the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Yes, we do need to define our terms. One common problem in discussions between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians is not understanding the language of the other.

Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Charles,

Sometimes I think the main problem between Protestants and Catholics is a semantic issue.
It seems that we define our words differently and keep talking past each other. Maybe
some day we should define our terms and see if we are on the same page. Words like
Inspiration, tradition, justification and sanctification, etc. Do you agree?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree that is the main problem when trying to communicate what we believe to each other. However, the more you read on this board, the more you should start to understand some of those differences. I take if for granted sometimes that those regular non-catholics that post everyday on this section of the board have a better understanding of the terms used by both sides.

I guess I will start a new thread on the Moses topic, as I am interested in other peoples thoughts on this matter. Anyway, if you have any thoughts on the last quesitons I posed about the topic I would live to hear from you. Thanks and have a nice day!

 

Ps,
"Sacred Traditon is revealed in the creeds, liturgy and prayers of the church and in the authentic teachings of the Popes and Bishops"
quoted from Outlines of the Catholic Faith, revised edition to conform to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Published by Leaflet Missal Company, 976 W. Minnehaha Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104. This booklet costs very little is a great overview of the Catholic Faith.

Hope this helps you understand a little what we mean when we speak of Oral Tradition.

Pauline