John Cardinal Newman. He wrote an essay on the development of doctrine.
[quote:3jhzke1m]But what traditions? We use Scriptures to know that it isn’t all or any traditions that are to be acceptable, just those that are found in the Bible[/quote:3jhzke1m]
That is a circular argument. You can only use Scripture to discern tradition by presuming, a priori, that Scripture is the rule.
[quote:3jhzke1m]That is not true, but your interpretation[/quote:3jhzke1m]
It is both his interpretation and the truth. A simple look at the context of the statement (“you have known since your infancy”) indicates that Paul was speaking of the Old Testament. For you to say that he necessarily referred also to the New Testament, which was not yet written nor yet compiled, is to make St. Paul’s instruction to Timothy incorrect, incomplete, or both.
[quote:3jhzke1m]But the Oral teaching must match the written, these are not to be “either or” but the same regardless of which came first[/quote:3jhzke1m]
It does and they are. When one looks at Scripture without the aid of tradition, interpretation suffers.
[quote:3jhzke1m]Simply not true.[/quote:3jhzke1m]
On the contrary, Cardinal Newman proved it in St. Paul’s exhortation to follow both the written and the spoken. The Bible itself says to follow the oral tradition, therefore the Bible itself says it is not formally sufficient.
[quote:3jhzke1m]Since Scriptures are truth, the traditions match or they aren’t acceptable.[/quote:3jhzke1m]
True. And the traditions do match with Scripture, just not your interpretation thereof.
[quote:3jhzke1m]How else would we KNOW what or who is telling the truth?[/quote:3jhzke1m]
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Christ established a church, a church which preserved both the Scriptures and the oral traditions passed down through the Apostles. Simple as that.
[quote:3jhzke1m]Again I repeat, the only acceptaable means to KNOW what was orally truth is by knowing what is written for they MUST match.[/quote:3jhzke1m]
And we return to the fact that they do match.
Interestingly, did you know that the canon of the Bible was determined based on whether the book matched the oral teaching? You somehow think that by going the other way there is a contradiction.
[quote:3jhzke1m]But it does[/quote:3jhzke1m]
As shown earlier, it does the exact opposite.
[quote:3jhzke1m]Again the two are the same, not different[/quote:3jhzke1m]
Therein you are incorrect. Note, for example, that St. Paul, in Scripture, exhorts Christians to follow the written word and the oral word. He demarks them as separate. If the two were the same, as you assert, there would be no need.
Further, St. John specifically states in his epistles that there is much he would talk about but he does not write it. Instead, he waits to speak in person. Such lessons were carried in the oral tradition but are specifically called out as absent from the Biblical text.
The Bible and Tradition are never in contradiction but they are not identical.
From there you just repeat your errors concerning Biblical interpretation (mistaking your interpretation for the sole interpretation) and the circular argument of Scripture as the final authority. Scripture was discerned by its matching with Tradition, not the other way around.