The order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.

[dzheremi]

What puzzles me is that I get demands for citations of oral traditions and complaints when I cite a written tradition because it is written.

Well yeah. That's how the game is played. It's like they don't see that the order of revelation can't be other than this because, again, things have to happen before you can write about them having happened. That's just how time works, whether we're talking about sacred things or ordinary things.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I'm sorry...is that example not good enough somehow? I mean, it is the most important theologically-distinctive thing that we do as Christians.

It's just that it's the only example that ever gets brought up. Are there no others?

OK, then. Praying the Agios/Qadishat. In the Coptic tradition in particular (not 100% about others; the Syriacs have something similar, though I can't remember the details at the moment), this prayer is said by Joseph and Nicodemus as they removed the body of our Lord from the cross, so obviously this is something that would be dated back to the apostolic period, but it is nowhere found in the Holy Bible itself. We know this is the authentic tradition of our Church, however, as it is preserved in the text of the ancient burial hymn for Good Friday, "Golgotha", the relevant portion of which reads in English: The righteous Joseph and Nicodemus came took away the body of Christ, wrapped it in linen cloths with spices, and put it in a sepulcher and praised Him saying, "Holy God, holy Mighty, holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us."

Joseph, Nicodemus, Golgotha etc are all found in NT scripture. I understand what you're talking about because I've read the bible.

 

[dzheremi]

It's just that it's the only example that ever gets brought up. Are there no others?

Joseph, Nicodemus, Golgotha etc are all found in NT scripture. I understand what you're talking about because I've read the bible.

Are you being purposely obtuse here? You asked for an example, I gave you one. You asked for another, I gave you another. Now you're acting like the fact that Joseph, Nicodemus, and Golgotha are all mentioned in the NT means that the story of how and why we pray the Agios is therefore found in the Bible, so it can't be an example of what you asked for.

I don't like this game. I'm serious about discussions concerning my religion, and I appreciate when people who ask for things recognize when their requests have been honored (whether or not they agree with what is brought before them, which is immaterial), so that our discussions do not become never-ending loops of "Here's why this answer isn't an answer, even though it clearly is" (which is not debatable, is it? Or do you know of any verse in the scriptures that discuss how and why we pray the Agios? Because I don't, or else I would have picked something else).

If this is not something you are willing to do, then we have nothing further to discuss. The examples are there for anyone who is curious about this topic. Goodbye.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Absolutely not. Worship of the Holy Trinity (which is what I wrote; "knowledge" is not worship...you can know a lot of things without engaging in worship of those things) is based in the revelation of God Himself, not on the words of any book. We worship God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) according to how He has revealed Himself to us, not out of fidelity to the written text of a book, even a book that we very highly and very rightly venerate greatly for the truth and guidance contained therein.

In every morning hour of the Agpeya (Coptic daily prayer book akin to the Byzantine Horologion or the Latin Hours), we pray the following, which appears in modern printed copies of the book in English under the heading "The Faith of the Church":

One is God the Father of everyone.

One is His Son, Jesus Christ the Word, Who took flesh and died; and rose from the dead on the third day, and raised us with Him.

One is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, one in His Hypostasis, proceeding from the Father, purifying the whole creation, and teaching us to worship the Holy Trinity, one in divinity and one in essence. We praise Him and bless Him forever. Amen.

+++

By the bolded portion, we recognize that it is GOD Who teaches us to worship the Holy Trinity. Our God is not a book. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, not the Word made text.



I meant by that to maintain a distinction between what you asked for (a practice that is apostolic in vintage but not mentioned in the scriptures) and what can be argued for by the common reading of passages that are said to point to that thing. In other words: Yes, we can agree that Christians can and do find support for the worship of the Holy Trinity in the scriptures, but we should still recognize that we don't find explicit report of it in them (i.e., there's no verse where we read "And St. Peter worshipped the Holy Trinity" in a manner analogous to what many people demand to substantiate things that they don't agree with that other Christians do).

I see that as irrelevant. The Trinity is God. Worshiping the Trinity is worshiping God. There's nothing unscriptural about worshiping God. Just scripture saying in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is worship.

 

[Ceallaigh]

What puzzles me is that I get demands for citations of oral traditions and complaints when I cite a written tradition because it is written. And, how exactly would one write down a demonstrated action that is a part of tradition? There are plenty of demonstrated actions in holy tradition but these protestant interlocutors act as if it is all too strange for words! It's odd behaviour I reckon.

You've been asked to cite apostolic tradition that's not found in scripture. Still waiting....

 

[Ceallaigh]

Are you being purposely obtuse here? You asked for an example, I gave you one. You asked for another, I gave you another. Now you're acting like the fact that Joseph, Nicodemus, and Golgotha are all mentioned in the NT means that the story of how and why we pray the Agios is therefore found in the Bible, so it can't be an example of what you asked for.

No I said apostolic tradition that's not based on or rooted in the gospels and epistles.

I don't like this game.

Me either.

I'm serious about discussions concerning my religion, and I appreciate when people who ask for things recognize when their requests have been honored (whether or not they agree with what is brought before them, which is immaterial), so that our discussions do not become never-ending loops of "Here's why this answer isn't an answer, even though it clearly is" (which is not debatable, is it? Or do you know of any verse in the scriptures that discuss how and why we pray the Agios? Because I don't, or else I would have picked something else).

If this is not something you are willing to do, then we have nothing further to discuss. The examples are there for anyone who is curious about this topic. Goodbye.

If you can't answer the question then either just say so or don't try.

 

[Ceallaigh]

At this point in the conversation I shall withdraw, there is nothing to be gained by going in circles. You will not accept sacred tradition and I shall not reject it. Let us go our separate ways, maybe later, in a few months or years, we can return to the topic and see if the circles can be broken.

Okay.

 

[Clare73]

I understand it to be the order of revelation; Tradition comes first, later comes inspiration and the making of scripture.
In this instance there's no argument being made for greater accuracy in one or the other.
For the sake of discussion, I would hope the oral stories were just as accurate as the written Gospel - since that's the order in which it came.

That's what the written record does, it measures the oral stories, which are not revelation, they're just stories, if they are in disagreement with the written record.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the oral stories, which are not revelation, they're just stories, if they are in disagreement with the written record.

Are you reasoning that when Jesus said something to the apostles, and they didn't write it down then the saying from Jesus is just a story and not a revelation from God?

 

[Clare73]

Are you reasoning that when Jesus said something to the apostles, and they didn't write it down then the saying from Jesus is just a story and not a revelation from God?

No, I am stating that whatever the stories were, from whomever they were--the disciples, the High Priests, the Pharisees, the Roman soldiers, the NT Christians, etc.--were not revelation if they did not agree with the written record of the NT writers.

 

[dzheremi]

No, I am stating that whatever the stories were, from whomever they were--the disciples, the High Priests, the Pharisees, the Roman soldiers, the NT Christians, etc.--were not revelation if they did not agree with the written record of the NT writers.

The written record of the NT writers is the codification of oral tradition, though. That's how the way that time works demands that it be, unless you want to posit that the NT writers were essentially making things up based on nothing, which would be a strange thing for a Christian to believe.

 

[Clare73]

The written record of the NT writers is the codification of oral tradition, though. That's how the way that time works demands that it be, unless you want to posit that the NT writers were essentially making things up based on nothing, which would be a strange thing for a Christian to believe.

I am positing that Matthew, John and Peter were not codifying oral tradition , but were recording what they personally saw and heard.
Any oral tradition not in agreement with the NT writings is not NT revelation.

 

[ARBITER01]

I am positing that Matthew, John and Peter were not codifying oral tradition , but were recording what they personally saw and heard.
Any oral tradition not in agreement with the NT writings is not NT revelation.

Exactly.

Like one person already said,...

The events of the gospels predate the formation of the church. The events written in Acts happened at the beginning of the church. The events taking place in the epistles were in the early days of the church. The only way to know that celebrating the Eucharist, baptizing etc was taking place, is because that's what scripture says.

If there are any traditions, they need to align with the words of Jesus as well as our first century Apostles. They are the authority on this, not denominational buildings.

 

[Fervent]

Only to an interlocutor who does not understand that in a set of many elements some may be described one way and others in different ways. Some Apostolic Traditions were eventually written, and some were not or have not yet been written.

You responded to the same snippet of a comment by saying that there is and isn't evidence. That's not different elements being described in different ways, it's a contradiction. The question at hand is not about whether or not there simply were preserved apostolic traditions, but whether or not there exists an infallible tradition that takes precedence to Scripture alone. It ultimately comes down to what the final authority is, with you and the roman church putting the authority in the magisterium of Rome and those opposed placing what was written by the apostles as the final authority.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's not different elements being described in different ways, it's a contradiction.

Thanks for your comment.

 

[Dan Perez]

No written evidence is needed.

2 Tim 3:16 has this to say about TRADITIONS ,

God breathed all scripture and it is profitable for teaching , , for conviction , for correction , for complete training , which is in righteousness .

And Cor 11:2 says , Now I praise you brethren, because you have remembered me in all things , . and hold fast the INSTRUCTIONS // PARADOSIS , not TRADITIONS , just as I delivered them to you >

I then believe that Paul was telling them NOT to KEEP TRADITIONS AT ALL .

Col 2:8 Take heed lest anyone shall ROBBING YOU THROUGH the Love of HUMAN WISDOM and empty deceit according to the INSTRUCTION of men , according to the basic principles of the world and not according to Christ .
dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I then believe that

Okay, you believe that ...

I do not believe what you proposed.

 

[RileyG]

Everything was passed down orally. This has long ago been accepted and proved.

 

[Clare73]

Everything was passed down orally. This has long ago been accepted and proved.

No problem as long as it agrees with the writren record.

 

[The Liturgist]

Saint Luke Gospel is an excellent example of the process. He writes:

Dear Theophilus: Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, Your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.​

Luke 1:1-4 GNB

This is essentially correct from a chronological perspective. However, before Protestant members are needlessly alarmed, it must be stressed that once the Gospels and the canonical Pauline epistles existed, the early Church used them as the center of Holy Tradition, and admitted no doctrine contrary to them, and this remains the approach of the Eastern churches.