That was not my point.
Moses was not present at the time of creation. SO something was passed down. Compare what you wrote to the time of the beginning of man and the time of writing. There is a long time span.
Oral Tradition is not a theory. For example the Gospels were written long after Jesus. The information was known and passed down long before it was written down which is know as Oral Tradition not the tradition of man. There is a huge difference.
The Problem with Oral Traditions
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Dr. Walter, Nov 10, 2011.
Page 5 of 15
-
It could have been "passed down" by the pen of God so to speak. What is not to say that God spoke directly to Moses and Moses penned what God wanted him to write. That is how the rest of the prophets did it. What is so different about Moses that "the word of the Lord came to me and I wrote..." That doesn't apply to Moses?? Why?
Lapse in time does not matter.
Matthew was one of the first books in the NT to be written--around 50-55 A.D. or about 20 years after Christ was crucified. He was one of the Apostles, and an eye-witness. He wrote what he saw and heard. There is no oral tradition involved here. If you chalk that up to oral tradition, you might as well call it hearsay. It wouldn't stand in a court of law. But it wasn't. It was the witness of Matthew himself.
John wrote later, but he was still a witness. He was younger and lived longer. By the time that he wrote he had all the other gospels at his disposal. One of the purposes of the Gospel of John is to give supplemental information that the first three (the synoptics) do not give. Again, he was an eye-witness, and did not rely on the info of others, or oral tradition.
Mark worked closely with Peter. He got his information from Peter.
It is still not oral tradition. What information he needed he got from Peter.
Consider the introduction to Luke:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)
--He is writing to Theophilus, "declaring those things which are most surely believed among us."
Luke, the physician, was a companion of Paul. He is mentioned in the book of Acts, not only as the author but as one who traveled with Paul. Paul frequently was with the other apostles, and thus Luke would have been also. He must have gathered his information from the apostles themselves.
There is no oral tradition here. The authors of the gospels were either eye-witnesses or went straight to the eye-witnesses for their information. That is not oral tradition. -
Work from the the time of the Apostles forward. What did they teach the early believers? That there is no Bible? I don't thinks so! Jude told them to contend for the faith! And that was a book written just before John's writings, perhaps around 70 A.D. Most of the canon had been written by then. "The faith" was that body of doctrine that we now have and believe as orthodox Christianity. That is what Jude was "contending for, or urging others to contend for.
The apostles taught the early Christians which books were inspired and which were not. That is where the canon came from, not from Catholic councils. I don't agree with the Sanhedrin's assessment that these were "unlearned and ignorant men," but I do agree with them when they said "they had been with Jesus." It was Jesus that sent them the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit told them what to write, and the Holy Spirit inspired the written word. They knew that and passed that knowledge along. There is no possible way that they had to wait a few centuries for a Catholic council to tell them if they were reading the right books or not. They knew that already. That theory does not make sense. They learned from the apostles.
This is where sola scriptura comes in. They knew error when they saw it. The apostles, all of them including Jesus, had warned them of error, of grievous wolves that would come in sheep's clothing. How to discern error? By measuring what they say to a yardstick, the Word of God, just like Isa.8:20 had instructed them to do. Acts 17:11 demonstrates that they did just that. Thus when spurious writings did come out they rejected them. The apocrypha never made it into the canon because the early believers rejected those books. The Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire only two out of four of Paul's epistles to the Corinth. But Paul knew that. He would have taught that to Timothy, Apollos, and others. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The very fact that Tertullian could chage Marcion with subtracting things from the "whole volume" of apostolic scriptures or that other added to the "whole volume" of apostolic scriptures proves there was a recognizable "volume" that could be subtracted or added from as early as 140 A.D. I could care less how you interpret his words as we all know how you will but the fact remains that every book in the New testament was written prior to 100 A.D. and you cannot prove that this "whole volume" did not include those books, regardless that some few argured over certain books in that "whole volume."
Furthermore, the very nature of the Revelation takes the reader from the first century to eternity and explicitly terminates everything that began in the book of Genesis just as you would intentionally determine the conclusion of the Biblical canon should end - from the beginning of the heavens and earth to the beginning of the new heavens and earth. -
Are you saying that Matthew did nothing until 20 years later. How was that message given and passed down to others.
If I use your date, it was still 20 years later.
Oral Tradition is memorization and memorization is found to be more accurate than writing.
There is no oral tradition here. The authors of the gospels were either eye-witnesses or went straight to the eye-witnesses for their information. That is not oral tradition.[/QUOTE]There is a time difference between the written message and the time of the events. Explain how people knew and heard the message before it was written down. The fact is that very few in society could read and write. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
On the other hand if you theory were correct, there would NEVER be any need for any written account because according to your rationale the oral method was superior as you go on to say:
2 Pet. 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance......19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,
So Peter explicitly contradicts your theory that memory is "more sure" than written scripture and it is written scripture he is speaking about in verses 19-21.
Obviously the memory of those who wrote the collection of writings called the "Church Father's" was sure lacking! They couldn't even remember sufficient to accurately write down what they remembered or without contadicting each other so that counsels had to be called to sort all that record of a BETTER MEMORY out!
There was no need to write it down in the early years because most of the apostles were still living as well as hundreds of others who were eyewitnesses of his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6-9). They didn't write it for those who were eyewitnesses or heard eyewitness but for those future generations who neither were eyewitnesses or heard eyewitnesses. -
Even recently I saw a TV program about a black man in the civil war and in that program was the discussion about a document he wrote. They went back to what he wrote and what some of the words meant then. They interpreted not on the basis of the modern use of the word but on seeing how those words were used in other documents at the time.
I was in a school years ago where we had to memorize almost 100% of the book we used. It came in handy later. Even today although I am not in that profession and have not been in 21 years I can still remember a lot of what I memorized.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I hope it does not hurt your feelings if I choose Peter over you?
2 Pet. 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance......19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,
Do you think Peter was mistaken? Remember, he is speaking as a Jew! He told them to keep it in "rememberance" and told them it was his eye witness account (v. 16) that he had formerly told them ORALLY but then told them that the prophetic written word was "MORE SURE" than his oral account! How could that be IF memorization of the oral account is "MORE SURE" according to YOU??? -
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:1 (ESV) -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
To answer your question, it was retained by EYE WITNESSES but when the Holy Spirit chose the time, He directed them to put it into writing and brought directly to their minds what they should write.
Jn. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. -
The answer is found in your next statement.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Again, Peter repudiates your whole theory when it comes to those who were not used by the Spirit to produce the scriptures. Again, you simply brush his words aside when they completely and fully repudiate your whole theory that memory is "more sure" than scripture. -
Biblicist, you mostly write where you contradict yourself, as in writing the following;
"To answer your question, it was retained by EYE WITNESSES but when the Holy Spirit chose the time, He directed them to put it into writing and brought directly to their minds what they should write.
Jn. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. "
Tell us Oh Great Biblicist why the application above, couldn't be applied to Oral continuation with out error,[ I'm positive that it was ] being that the Holy Spirit would also guide those Oral Teaching Teachers into all truth??? Please, no need of an answer if it amounts to only your eisegesis. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Your second mistake was failing to recognize that Peter explicitly and clearly repudiates the idea that oral tradition is "more sure" than scripture but rather the reverse is true (2 Pet. 1:15,19-21).
Your third mistake was failing to recognize that apostolic oral teaching was in the hearing of their immediate audiance as your favorite repeated text says "hear YOU" not as you interpret it to mean "hear those who heard you."
Your fourth mistake was failing to recognize that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 contains NO REFERENCE to oral apostolic traditions but claims that the man of God can be not only "perfect" (complete) by "scriptures" alone for doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof for "ALL" good words but is in addition "THROUGHLY FURNISHED" without your oral traditions!
Your fifth mistake is to fail to see the direct application of Isaiah 8:16-18 in the New Testament to Christ and the apostles that predicts the completion of the Biblical canon under the direction of the Apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit which this "whole volume" was finished so that it could not be subtracted from or added to with the final book of Revelation (Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19) and confirmed so by one of your own authorities (Tertullian) prior to 140 AD. -
Take a look at Hebrews 1:1. -
Certainly God is able to do all things. But He always goes according to His Word, never against it; always in accordance with his nature, never against it.
For example, he could have created a "purgatory," but that would be both against his word and his nature or character. It would take away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. It would be God denying himself, telling himself that his own work was not satisfactory. If that were true, then God would not be God. Thus the dilemma of the RCC.
As to John 14:26, when Jesus said, "he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you," He was speaking to his disciples. The verse is applicable only to his disciples, not to us. It speaks of revelation. The only ones who would remember all things, all the things that He would bring into their remembrance would be the NT writers. No one else would have that ability. It is speaking of the inspired Scriptures. That is one way that we can be assured that the Word that we have today is inspired. The Holy Spirit Himself brought into exact remembrance those things that he wanted penned in His Book. That is what the verse is speaking about.
It has nothing to do with Oral Tradition, just as it has nothing to do with Shakespeare. -
He wrote:
1. when God wanted him to write.
2. when there was a need for him to write.
But I also know that I have a Bible (just as they had scrolls) where the words were preserved and never changed. I can go and look in the Book of Romans whenever I am unsure of a verse, and it will always will be there just the same as it was 30 plus years ago. I may have forgotten it, but the Bible still has it. So it was back then also. We have over 5,000 MSS of the NT.
The common languages were: Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.
Hebrew was the sacred language of the Jews and still used in the temple and in the synagogues. Their OT was written in Hebrew, and the traditional Jews used it.
Aramaic was used commonly among the Jews, but not always.
Latin was the official language of Rome, but was mostly used in official transactions, not in everyday speech.
The gift that Alexander the Conqueror left to the world before Rome took over was the Greek language. By the time Christ came Greek was a universal language--so universal that even the common servant/slave could not only speak it but also write it. They lived in a very literate society. Peter and John were called ignorant and unlearned but they probably were fluent in at least five different languages!
When it came down to write Matthew probably had much of it already written. He most likely had to edit what he had been writing all the time he was with Jesus. That is just my opinion.
Most others believe that God simply inspired him to write when it was time for him to write, and at that time the Holy Spirit brought all things to his remembrance, as he promised he would according to John 14:26. That is what the Bible says. It is not too hard to believe is it? -
lakeside said: ↑Eric and The Biblicist, you Baptist as all Protestants must admit [ from Gen. to Rev.] that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). I will get back later on explaing your last posts.... i will give evidence where Jesus and the apostles had to depend on oral tradition.Click to expand...lakeside said: ↑The Biblicist & Eric, please explain then these examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.
Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-16 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.Click to expand...
It's the assumption that some separate whole body of "Catholic" doctrine, practice and polity/organization are apart of these "traditions". In the examples you gave, there is no evidence of them. It's just as I had said; the traditions are principles that can be found elsewhere in scripture, or at least, Holy spirit-approved sources, such as those references you cite.
You can't take just any practice and claim it was an "oral tradition". The Jews do the same thing (with the same methods of proof-texting), and that is what they use to claim that Jesus is not the Messiah. The "oral traditions" interpret the Messianic scriptures in a way differently than Christ and the Church did. And that "tradition" came first.
Page 5 of 15