Would you stay? 3

Part 2 was in the process of being closed.


My point was that Mt 23:1-3 was oral and extrabiblical tradition in the NT.

Matthew 2:23: “and he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘ He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

Mt 23:1-3 “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice,’’

The reference in Matt 2:23 that he shall be called a Nazarene cannot be found in the OT yet it was passed down by the prophets. Thus, a prophecy which is considered to be God’s Word was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture. This is true for Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the OT. It is found in the originally oral Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught.

Other extrabiblical and oral traditions acknowledges by the NT writers include

1 Cor 10:4.-a rock which “followed” the Jews. The OT says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related verses about Moses strinking the rock to produce water(Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13) Rabbinic tradition however does.

1 Peter 3:19 Christ’s journey to Sheol/Hades (he went and preached to the spirits in prison) draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch. Jude 14-15 directly quotes form 1 Enoch 1:9 and even states that Enoch prophesied.

Jude 9 the dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses’ body, It cannot be paralleled in the OT and appears to be recounting of an oral Jewish tradition

2 Timothy 3:8 the reference to Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related OT passages

James 5:17 mentions a lack of rain for three years which is likewise absent from the relevant OT passage in 1 Kings 17.

Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (in so doing, raising some of it literally to the level of written revelation). Jesus attacked corrupt traditions only, not traditions per se, and not all oral traditions. According to a strict sola scriptura viewpoint, this would be inadmissible it seems to me.

 

They should have” but they WERE NOT using only written word. Simply ignoring the facts.

I guess no one knew what to do or how to make a rebuttal against the oral and extrabiblical traditions of the New Testament (verse that don’t have any OT scriptural evidence to them.) Ignoring the Facts.

Wow the Protestant view of the using the “Bible Alone” stance is devolving. It went from a strict view of you must use the written words only, now steaver and Yeshua1 are basically saying with that with the death of the last Apostle the authority’s active role within the Church (Apostles) also died. You know by insisting on the authority of the Apostles (early Church) gives credence to the Catholic teaching.

By the verses I provided back in part 2 of this thread, the Oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. By preaching by oral instruction (Rom 10:17), the Church would always be the living teacher. Nowhere in the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only or that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

So Jesus invested the Apostles (Early Church) with His authority but the Bible says nowhere that this authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle. It’s actually the opposite, the Bible is quite clear that in 1) it nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word will become the final authority; and 2) the Apostles clearly chose successors who in turn possessed the same authority to “bind and loose.” This is shown in Act 1:14-26 election of Matthias as a replacement for Judas and in 2 Tim 1:6 and Titus 1:5 where St Paul is passing on his Apostolic Authority to Timothy and Titus.

It was clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time (1 Pet 1:25) Take note the word has been “preached” (ORALLY). This would endure. It would not be ousted, replaced or succeeded by a written record and it still would continue to have its own authority.

2 Tim 2:2 Paul says “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (Remember no canon of the Bible until about 400 AD and the printing press till about 1400AD) This was the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down unbroken from the apostles to our own day. So Paul told Timothy to pass on the oral teaching (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give those traditions to men who would be able to teach others, so continuing the chain. Also Paul gave this not long before his death (2 Tim 4:6-8) as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

So Paul shows us what tradition is in 1 Cor 15:3, 11. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Then the Apostle praises those who follow that Tradition in 1 Cor 11:2: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you”. Since the very beginning of the Church, Christians have “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was an actual NT.

There is a lot of information here so making a 1 or 2 long statement is not considered a rebuttal.

So far we have nowhere in the Bible that says:

Nowhere says: the Bible supports the idea of limiting “Christ’s words” to the written word only.

Nowhere says: The idea that all teaching were reduced to writing only.

Nowhere says: that the authority’s active role within the Church would cease with the death of the last Apostle.

Nowhere says: The “Bible Alone” as the “Ultimate and only Authority ”

Nowhere says: the Bible commands that any or every doctrine be proved from the Bible Alone.

 

Absolutely no attempt on a rebuttal from the Bible, simply ignoring the facts from the scripture.

FYI: So John was the last apostle that died. Using the Bible Alone, there is no details regarding when or how he died. This information regarding his last days and estimated date of dead comes to us primarily from tradition.

Yeshua1 said in the last thread that He knew that the Early Church is Baptist. And I think that Jon and steaver believe that the Early Church is a non-Catholic, Bible Alone believing Church. Well here is proof that the Early Church opinions followed the Bible Alone and was definitely Baptist.

“Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit” (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]). Papias

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]). Irenaeus

For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription Against Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]). Tertullian

Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]). Origen

"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]). John Chrysostom

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten (Exposition of the Faith3:12 [A.D. 712]) John Damascene

Doesn’t everyone agree that the Early Church was a Bible Alone and a Baptist Church?

All that was a very small selection from Early Church. It was said by John Henry Cardinal Newman: "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.