Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer
I can understand the author using assumption and assertion to make his argument, not uncommon a tactic, but when he engages in a verbal footwork to make the verses quoted to do so is quite another matter.
As an example he claims,

“Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture.”

And then quotes,

“And we also thank God . . . that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13)”

But “oral Tradition” is large body of traditions from many sources including the false gospels.
What Paul spoke was not the word of men as so many traditions are but truly the inspired “word of God” and as such would not conflict with that inspired, written “word of God”.

The author goes on to say,
“According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:”

It was the traditions (small ‘t’) taught to the disciples by the apostles both orally and written that was the “word of God” so that any oral tradition must by definition agree with that written word .

“So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
But Paul did not urge anyone to accept some body of “oral Tradition” existing at the time but the traditions received from him, Paul, and the apostles, which unless Paul was self contradictory, would agree with what he wrote to the Thessalonians.

What do Paul's letters to the Thessalonians lack that can be found in some group of “oral Traditions”? What do his letters need added to them by this body of “oral Tradition”?

44 posted on 06/22/2013 4:28:04 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: count-your-change
But “oral Tradition” is large body of traditions from many sources including the false gospels.

Oral Tradition is how the gospels and letters were communicated before they were ever compiled into a book. See post #29.

47 posted on 06/22/2013 5:05:45 PM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: count-your-change

Nice catches


48 posted on 06/22/2013 5:09:23 PM PDT by 1malumprohibitum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: count-your-change

I have repeatedly asked what oral traditions it was that Paul taught that are not recorded in Scripture, how we know what they are how we can be sure they have been faithfully handed down, and I have yet to receive an answer.

There is obviously no source that tells us those things as no one has yet provided a link to the documentation of them.


49 posted on 06/22/2013 5:26:14 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson