Ripley's Believe It Or Not and Oral Tradition

Dark_Lite · #31 1st February 2011, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Stryder06

Kind of like saying "We're right because we say we are"?

Ultimately, acceptance of any form of Christianity, as with any religion, relies on acceptance of a faith proposition. However, the Catholic Church's authority can be supported with plenty of historical evidence once that initial faith proposition is accepted. The same cannot be said for Protestant denominations.

Optimax · #32 1st February 2011, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_Lite

Ultimately, acceptance of any form of Christianity, as with any religion, relies on acceptance of a faith proposition. However, the Catholic Church's authority can be supported with plenty of historical evidence once that initial faith proposition is accepted. The same cannot be said for Protestant denominations.

That so called authority starting with Peter which is totally a misunderstanding of Scripture.

What You guys are blind to is the fact that Jesus did not say Peter was the rock the church was built on.

Because that mis understanding is there it cannot be back down from because that would prove the foundation wrong. When the foundation is wrong everything else crumbles as well.

But then that is off topic.

LittleLambofJesus · #33 1st February 2011, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by MrPolo

Please ignore the eye-less dog, the gold bar, and the stupid heart postmark for a moment and read about the oral tradition of the Lemba people, passed down accurately for 2500 years. How can this be? I've been told over and over that oral tradition is unreliable.
And the Lemba don't even claim that the Holy Spirit protects the transmission of their traditions!!

Ya might as well include the Jewish Talmud also

Revadim: Study of Jewish Oral Torah Tradition in Mishnah and Talmud

Revadim: Study of Jewish Oral Torah Tradition in Mishnah and Talmud

http://lloydthomas.org/1-IsraelTimeL...lem/talmud.htm

A Sad Sample of Talmudic Teachings
VIOLATING BOTH THE LETTER AND THE INTENT OF THE HOLY WORD OF GOD

LamorakDesGalis · #34 1st February 2011, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by MrPolo

I've been told over and over that oral tradition is unreliable.

Its pretty clear that oral tradition preceded written Scripture. So, as you probably know, questioning oral tradition is often just an attempt to undermine the reliability of Scripture. However there are other factors involved in reliability - just as there is in written documents. The National Inquirer is written but not as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica...

I think we live in an era obsessed with written documentation as "proof." However in the past, cultures and traditions functioned just fine with limited written documents or even a complete lack of them. African-American slaves in the 1800s were forbidden to read and write. So the pastors and ministers memorized large portions of the Bible instead.

LDG

OpenDoor · #35 1st February 2011, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by NoBama2012

That is illogical.

Do you believe that the average person recalls information more accurately if they heard it or had it written down?

NoBama2012 · #36 1st February 2011, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by OpenDoor

Do you believe that the average person recalls information more accurately if they heard it or had it written down?

I believe that all things are possible with God. How do you suppose that scruffy fishermen were able to write parts of the Bible? Because God guided them.

All you guys who keep saying that Sacred Tradition can get messed up seem to have left the Holy Spirit out of that equation.

Did you read this? :

II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

40 DV 9.
41 ⇒ Mt 28:20
42 DV 9.
43 DV 9.
44 DV 9.

Link >> Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

__________________

OpenDoor · #37 1st February 2011, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by NoBama2012

You are relying on oral tradition even to tell you that the Bible itself is inspired.

I think you misunderstood my post.

Originally Posted by NoBama2012

Have you met the authors? No.

Why would I need to? I haven't met most of the authors of the information I read (have you met the author or this post?- OpenDoor)

Originally Posted by NoBama2012

Have you got physical proof of the author's existance? No.

I don't believe it feel out of the sky.

Originally Posted by NoBama2012

Do you have an eyewitness to the authors? Not one that's alive.

No, but why would I need a living eyewitness?

Originally Posted by NoBama2012

Have you got anything other than faith to tell you the Bible is Sacred Scipture? No.

Just my faith.

OpenDoor · #38 1st February 2011, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by NoBama2012

I believe that all things are possible with God. How do you suppose that scruffy fishermen were able to write parts of the Bible? Because God guided them.

All you guys who keep saying that Sacred Tradition can get messed up seem to have left the Holy Spirit out of that equation.

I think we are having two different conversation.

The first is which is more reliable (as far as containing original information) oral or written information?

The second is oral tradition protected by God?

narnia59 · #39 1st February 2011, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by OpenDoor

Do you believe that the average person recalls information more accurately if they heard it or had it written down?

Since the "average" person of the last 2000 years couldn't read or write, what do you think?

Rick Otto · #40 1st February 2011, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by MrPolo

Please ignore the eye-less dog, the gold bar, and the stupid heart postmark for a moment and read about the oral tradition of the Lemba people, passed down accurately for 2500 years. How can this be? I've been told over and over that oral tradition is unreliable. And the Lemba don't even claim that the Holy Spirit protects the transmission of their traditions!!

How does adding an unbelieveable claim improve reliability?