Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time......22 But I say unto you, - Mt. 5:21,22 Oral traditions were passed down generation to generation along with the copying of the Old Testament Scriptures. However, the weakness of any and all oral traditions is that they depend upon fallible and uninspired human beings to correctly convey them from person to person and from generation to generation. The oral traditions of the elders that came down to the time of Christ and the Apostles were so corrupted that both Jesus and the apostles had to correct them and/or condemn them (Mt. 15). The Pharisees regarded their oral traditions EXACTLY like Rome regards its oral traditions. Both believed that oral traditions were indispensable for rightly interpreting the scriptures instead of vice versa. Christ believed in the final authority of scriptures over traditions. Neither did Christ esteem oral traditions on any kind of level with scriptures or inspired as scriptures. Neither Christ or the Apostles ever once referred to any oral tradition as their source of authority for doctrine or practice. Never once, do you read that Christ or the Apostles ever said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them...." as authorized words for any doctrine or pratice. Never once, do you read that Christ or the Apostles ever said, "The traditons of the elders says....." as authorized words for any doctrine or practice. However, Christ and the apostles spoke and wrote by INSPIRATION and thus were capable of providing the correction and rejection. This is not true with Post-Apostolic Christianity. There are no INSPIRED prophets to correct perverted Ante-Nicene oral traditions. For example, look at the conspicuous flat contradictions between Clement of Rome versus Clement of Corinth in regard to what the Roman Catholic Church regards as one of its most cherished orthodox interpretation of John 6 and the statement about eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ: Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. - Clement of Alexandria Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? "Who washes," it is said, "His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape." In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word. - Clement of Alexandria "The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.", - Clement of Rome Now, some will object that my versions above are not the proper one but it is this or that one. EXACTLY MY POINT - confusion! Post Apostolic Christianity has no INSPIRED prophets to determine opposing readings, correct or condemn its traditions. This is precisely why Peter, while yet alive, explicitly states that prophetic scriptures are "MORE SURE" than his own apostolic oral tradition (2 Pet. 1:17-19). This is precisely why Paul, said that "all scriptures were given by inspiration of God" so that the "man of God" would be throughly or thoroughly, meaning completely furnished for "doctrine" and "instruction" and "correction" and "reproof" unto "ALL GOOD WORKS" without including traditions. Common sense dictates that if you merely line 20 people up in single file and ask the first person in line to communicate in the ear of the next person in line merely a 20 word sentence that by the time it has reached the 20th person it is something quite different than what was first given. This analogy does not even compare to the mass of information recognized by Rome as apostolic oral traditions supposedly passed from person to person, congregation to congregations, generation to generation that Rome calls sacred tradtion. Yet, unlike Christ and the Apostles, Rome has no INSPIRED PROPHETS to correct, condemn and filter through its traditions but relies on the same type of UNINSPIRED fallible human beings that passed them down in the first place. The oral traditions of the Apostles were designed to be transitional until the apostolic scriptures REPLACED them (2 Pet. 2:19; 2 Tim. 3;16; Isa. 8:16 with Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19). Once oral tradition becomes written scripture then the rule of scripture has been and will always be: Isa. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.