Oral Tradition?

The present day oral tradition may or may not be what was practiced in the early church. I am quite confident that the majority of churches practice what started in the fourth century.

In preparing a sermon it must connect with the modern day and tied back to scripture.

Eccl. 12:9-11, "In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly. The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd."

 

The discussions and interactions between people in the New Testament were primarily based on oral tradition. The letters of Paul, Timothy, etc. were shared between Churches but the other books were written in the mid to late 1st century or early 2nd century A.D. Without the printing press these were spread slowly and besides the cannon wasn't even decided upon until 170 AD (first one). There were disputes as to which books were divinely inspired and which were not.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

 

I definitely think that oral traditions are very important. I floss my teeth at least once a day.

 

No, not really. The source isn't inspired because the Holy Spirit wasn't carrying those authors along as they wrote. Even the words quoted weren't inspired until the writer of scripture (the ones who were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1)) recognized the particular quoted material as true and, under the governing oversight of the Holy Spirit, gave it to us as part of our written prophetic word.

Just because something contains true things doesn't mean it's authoritative. If a body of work were to be authoritative, then, at the very least, it can have no admixture of error, and that's simply not the case with the Jewish traditions that were passed down. There was a lot wrong in them. That's why Jesus had to do so much correcting of them.

And, BTW, it is possible for something to be entirely true and still not be authoritative. Something is only authoritative if it is truly prophetic word—if it's source is the Holy Spirit.

I really don't understand the point you are making here. The early church fathers wrote all sorts of things, many of them conflicting. There was no consensus among them on anything. Obviously, some things they wrote are true, and some things are not. They're writings have never been considered authoritative by any branch of the church.

BTW, when you see quotes from Church fathers, it's wise to put them back in their context. People do a lot of quote picking from the fathers to support their own view of things, but they are often reading them out of context (and anachronistically, too) Those cherry-picked quotes often support something entirely different when read in context. I believe that is the case with the quote you have from Ignatious, but I really don't have time to do the research now.

Sure. I'll come back later and give the reasons why I think it should be read as sarcasm or irony, and why I don't think Jesus is telling people to do what the Pharisees tell them to do, but rather, mocking the Pharisees.

 

Is "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" true?

 

Okay, I'm back to explain why I interpret Matthew 23:1-3 as irony or sarcasm.

First of all, let me explain what Moses' seat was. It was a place in the synagogue where the teachers sat while they read the scriptures. It was called Moses' seat simply because they read the words of Moses there, not because it went back to Moses' time. Synagogue worship did not exist until much, much later than Moses.

So, even if I were to take this statement as a command from Jesus (The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you), I'd say he was commanding them to do what the Pharisees tell them when they sit on Moses seat, which would be when they read the scripture. Ultimately, then, it would be making the scripture authoritative, and the Pharisees authoritative specifically when they read the scripture, but not generally authoritative.

But as I've said, I see this as satire. Here are my reasons:

• I see the whole passage as a satirical diatribe. I come to this conclusion about the genre because of the "woes", the name-calling (blind guides, serpents, whitewashed tombs, etc.), the hyperbole (you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, etc.) and more. So taking this as bitter irony makes if fit, genre-wise, with the rest of the passage. If I were to read this whole chapter out loud, I'd read much of it in a sarcastic, sing-song sort of voice, because I think that is probably the way it was delivered by Jesus.
• If you take the "do as they tell you" as a command, how can you reconcile it with Jesus other statements, where he says that those who do what the Pharisees tell them are being "tied up with heavy burdens, hard to bear," and are twice as much children of hell as the Pharisees are. How do you reconcile "do as they tell you" with his statement that the Pharisees, by what they are teaching, are shutting "the kingdom of heaven in people's faces."

 

Paul, in God-breathed scripture, says it is, doesn't he?

But it's true in the way all proverbs are true—generally. It's important to read scripture with an awareness of the literary conventions of the statements, because any statement communicates truth in the way that it's genre communicates truth. We have to treat poetry as poetry, hyperbole as hyperbole, and proverbs as proverbs.