Discourse on Tradition (Jesus Christ, priest, testimony, reject, Creator)

[iris89]

Discourse on Tradition

With regard tradition, you should read Mark 7:8-13, "For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. 9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said: Honour thy father and thy mother. And He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die. 11 But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban (which is a gift) whatsoever is from me shall profit thee. 12 And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother, 13 Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do. "(DRCB), and 1 Corinthians 4:6, "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not [to go] beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other."(American Standard Version; ASV).

In fact, adhering to tradition that conflicts with the bible makes one's worship in vain as testified to at Matthew 15:3-9, "And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given [to God]; 6 he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men. "(ASV).

In fact, the Bible clearly shows that tradition may lead one away from true worship and cause one to oppose God's servants per Colossiams 2:6-8, 'As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk in him, 7 rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:"(ASV); and Titus 1:13-16, "This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."(ASV); and Isaiah 29:13, "And the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw nigh [unto me], and with their mouth and with their lips to honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which hath been taught [them]; "(ASV); and Galatians 1:10-13 " For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. 11 For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. 12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it: 14 and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers."(ASV).

However, the Bible is the Standard whereby you can check the correctness of all traditions as previously shown and reaffirmed at 2 Timothy 3:13-17, "But evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. 15 And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. 17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."(ASV).

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[No*s]

Here's several questions:

1). Why separate the Bible from Tradition? It certainly is a tradition, after all.

2). It's not simply whether something conflicts with the Bible or not that we must test. Books, after all, do not interpret themselves. So, whose interpretation is it that the Bible must not conflict with?

3). Why aren't you Catholic or Orthodox? The Christian Bible's very existence is dependent on the authority of one (or both) of these two.

4). I almost forgot...the Bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura.

Those are just some things to chew on.

[iris89]

FIRST, My article clearly showed tradition wrong when it conflicts with the word of God (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) said at Matthew 15:1-5, " Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given [to God];" (American Standard Version; ASV).
Original question

1). Why separate the Bible from Tradition? It certainly is a tradition, after all.

For more information go to my articles at:
Civilization and the Bible

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5075

and,

STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5076

SECOND, You overlook what the scriptures say at 2 Peter 1:20, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." (ASV). Poster's original question.

2). It's not simply whether something conflicts with the Bible or not that we must test. Books, after all, do not interpret themselves. So, whose interpretation is it that the Bible must not conflict with?

THIRD, Your statement is just plain wrong. God (YHWH) insured the Bible's continued existance and there have now been found over 17,000 ancient manuscripts, codexes, scrolls, fragments of same, etc. and these were NOT the product of either group you names. Original question/statement.

3). Why aren't you Catholic or Orthodox? The Christian Bible's very existence is dependent on the authority of one (or both) of these two.

FOURTH, Sola Scriptura is a writing style as is Heremeneutics and is not a teaching to begin with, but this style was practiced by Jesus as shown at Matthew 4:4. It is a writing style that uses over 50% scripture and is the most intellectually honest writing style. Poster's original question/statement.

4). I almost forgot...the Bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura.

Now why are you drifting off topic and not dealing with my article?

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Those are just some things to chew on.[/quote]

[No*s]

Originally Posted by iris89

FIRST, My article clearly showed tradition wrong when it conflicts with the word of God (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) said at Matthew 15:1-5, " Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given [to God];" (American Standard Version; ASV).

No problem. However, it's spun in a Sola Scriptura manner. There are more ways of looking at this. The Bible is a tradition by definition. A tradition is something that's handed down, and the Bible is most certainly handed down.

Secondly, Christ isn't opposed to all traditions. He even admonishes that the Jews obey the Pharisees "because they sit in Moses' seat" in Matthew 23.2. That is an example of an oral tradition.

For a third challenge to your spin, I assure you that Judaism at that time, and still does, assert that Christian teaching nullifies the Scripture. Christ's teachings were initially not written down, so would they fall under His own ban?

I would say that these three things show that your understanding of Scripture and tradition places them far too much at odds with one another.

Originally Posted by iris89

Original question
For more information go to my articles at:

No, I won't. Very rarely do I want to link people to other articles, unless they are someone else's work, and so I can't post them on the board in their entirity. I like to discuss on the board, but I don't want to have to read multiple external articles to do so.

Originally Posted by iris89

SECOND, You overlook what the scriptures say at 2 Peter 1:20, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." (ASV).

That plays right into the point I'm making. The Scripture doesn't interpret itself. Books are letters on a piece of paper. They don't speak. We read them, and then, understand them as best we can. Lots of people string together extensive lists of Scriptures to prove something. I've done it on this board. You've done it here. Lots of people do it. In fact, you can prove just about anything from Scripture.

Now where are you getting your interpretation of Scripture? If you're telling me that you aren't interpreting Scripture in this post, then I'm going to cry foul. You most certainly are interpreting.

Originally Posted by iris89

THIRD, Your statement is just plain wrong. God (YHWH) insured the Bible's continued existance and there have now been found over 17,000 ancient manuscripts, codexes, scrolls, fragments of same, etc. and these were NOT the product of either group you names. Original question/statement.

And who do you suppose did that copying for those manuscripts? God didn't magically copy it. It was done by Orthodox/Catholic laymen. That's simply a historical fact.

Now, how were the books of the Bible chosen? Men of that same church (the Orthodox/Catholic Church, as it hadn't split yet) did that. It wasn't until the year 367 that somebody said "These books are canon" in reference to the modern New Testament and listed the modern set of books. That man, by the way, is the famous trinitarian Athanasius of Alexandria.

I never said that God wasn't involved, but He sure seemed to use a particular group of people to preserve His Scripture. He used the Orthodox Catholic Church to pick the Scriptures. He used them to preserve them. Now, why pray-tell, aren't you Orthodox or Catholic? Clearly God has trusted the Church sufficiently to trust it with the preservation of His New Testament.

Originally Posted by iris89

FOURTH, Sola Scriptura is a writing style as is Heremeneutics and is not a teaching to begin with, but this style was practiced by Jesus as shown at Matthew 4:4. It is a writing style that uses over 50% scripture and is the most intellectually honest writing style. Poster's original question/statement.

It's not a teaching? It means "only by the Scripture" in Latin. It was the rallying cry of the Reformation. It is very much a teaching, and it is one of the biggest things separating Orthodox and Catholic Churches from the Protestant churches and their descendants.

Naturally, the practice flows from the teaching. Without it, we wouldn't even have this discussion on whether it is a practice.

Now, as for Jesus, no He did not practice or teach Sola Scriptura. I quoted above a spot where He cites an oral tradition. He, further, wrote not a single book. He taught His disciples, some of whom would later write things down. How could he "practice" it, if He didn't write it down? That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Originally Posted by iris89

Now why are you drifting off topic and not dealing with my article?

I'm not. Every point I made was quite germaine to what you were saying. It is very much on topic.

[iris89]

Hi No*s and everyone else:

FIRST, Every point you made was wrong. You said,

No problem. However, it's spun in a Sola Scriptura manner. There are more ways of looking at this. The Bible is a tradition by definition. A tradition is something that's handed down, and the Bible is most certainly handed down

First, the Bible is not a tradition but the word of God (YHWH). Either you do NOT know what a tradition is or you do not understand and appreciate what the Bible is.



Second, the Bible is the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Quran, and the Book of Wiccim.

Third, With respect the subject of tradition, my original article covered that, and Matthew 15:1-5 clearly says, " Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: 4 Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee." (DRCB); and Matthew 7:1-9, " And there assembled together unto him the Pharisees and some of the scribes, coming from Jerusalem. 2 And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients. 4 And when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots and of brazen vessels and of beds. 5 And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands? 6 But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. 8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. 9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition." (DRCB)

Fourth, You mention Matthew 23:2, but you need to look at that scripture in context Matthew 23:1-6, "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them. 5 And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes. 6 And they love the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues," (DRCB) and get some understanding.



Fifth, With respect writing style, one writing on Biblical matters should use the most intellectually honest writing style possible for two reasons, (1) to show that he is not trying to obscure anything, i.e., be deceptive, (2) so all can check per Acts 17:11, " Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so." (DRCB) - this clearly shows that the Apostles in no way regarded the Bible as a tradition, but as the ultimate standard and/or guide for all of mankind.TWO, With respect Orthodoxy, that is exactly what Jesus (Yeshua) was showing was just PLAIN WRONG in Matthew 23:1-6 previously quoted. They as their counterparts today put tradition ahead of the word of God (YHWH) the point Jesus (Yeshua) was making as recorded at Matthew 23:1-6, Matthew 15:1-5, Matthew 7:1-9, and many other places in the Bible. Clearly Orthodoxy is just plain ERROR, no more need be said. If you want to learn the truth about deviation by Orthodoxy and acceptance of pagan doctrines and their masquerading them as Christian, go to:

DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

http://p213.ezboard.com/fthewayofyhvhfrm1.showMessage?topicID=142.topic

and,

The Greatest Twisting - Westminster Confession:

http://p213.ezboard.com/fthewayofyhvhfrm1.showMessage?topicID=143.topic

THREE, With respect to Bible preservation, go to:

www.learnthebible.org/preservation_early.htm

and,

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/moorman-preservation.html

FOURTH, You clearly appear to be an individual of the mindset, my mind is made up, please do not confuse me with facts as shown by your comment,

No, I won't. Very rarely do I want to link people to other articles, unless they are someone else's work, and so I can't post them on the board in their entirity. I like to discuss on the board, but I don't want to have to read multiple external articles to do so.

Clearly shows that you are NOT really interested in learning the facts.

FIFTH, 2 Peter 1:20, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." (American Standard Version; ASV) and yet you do not like a writing style that involves over 50% scripture that is in harmony with 2 Peter 1:20. You have a problem with accepting reality in my opinion since this style of writing permits one to do as Acts 17:11, previously quoted says. Think about that.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[No*s]

Originally Posted by iris89

FIRST, Every point you made was wrong. You said,

And you failed to so much as cast doubt on the things I said. I defined tradition, and you'll find a very similar definition in the dictionary.

From dictionary.com:

1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.

4. A time-honored practice or set of such practices.

I posit that anything handed down fits this definition. The transmission of the Bible, and the standard as to its contents, is certainly a "passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation." The phrase "especially by oral communication" is not the same as "exclusively by oral communication."

You'll find that the Greek and Latin words for tradition, "para/dosis" and "traditio" both indicate that which is handed down, or a "giving up." Paul refers to written documents, including his letters as "traditions" in 2 Thess. 2.15.

So, you see, the Word of God is something handed down. Its contents aren't self-determined either. That bears all the ear-marks of tradition.

Originally Posted by iris89

Second, the Bible is the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

I didn't say anything about the Bible not being inspired. I said that God used the Church to determine the contents of the Christian Bible. He used the Church to perserve that same Bible. This is also a historical fact. The Orthodox/Catholic Church determined the contents of the Bible and preserved it.
That fact doesn't say anything about the inspiration of the Bible. God can just as easily use the Church as He does men. In fact, that is official teaching in both of the Churches. It only becomes a problem if you believe the Church is apostate.

Originally Posted by iris89

To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men.

The writers of the Old Testament might disagree with you. They regularly refer their readers to books that are no longer extant. In 2 Timothy, Paul refers to the Assumption of Moses in such a manner that it fits all his criteria for Scripture set forth in 2 Tim. 3.16. Lastly, the book of Jude quotes the book "I Enoch" as a "prophesy of God." Now, if it's a prophesy of God, then I'd that's something God inspired. Thus, it seems, some inspired documents were left out of the Bible, at least according to the teachings of the authors of the Bible.

Originally Posted by iris89

Third, With respect the subject of tradition, my original article covered that

Actually, your interpretation of this passage is what is in dispute. You are using the Scripture to assert a hard division between Scripture and tradition. That is why I'm refered to Mt. 23.2. Jesus commanded people to obey a group of people he called hypocrites simply on the authority of an oral tradition.

Originally Posted by iris89

(1) to show that he is not trying to obscure anything, i.e., be deceptive, (2) so all can check per Acts 17:11, " Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so." (DRCB) - this clearly shows that the Apostles in no way regarded the Bible as a tradition, but as the ultimate standard and/or guide for all of mankind.

And what things were they? They searched whether what the Apostles said about the Christ was true. There is not a single statement listed here on tradition.

Originally Posted by iris89

TWO, With respect Orthodoxy, that is exactly what Jesus (Yeshua) was showing was just PLAIN WRONG in Matthew 23:1-6 previously quoted. They as their counterparts today put tradition ahead of the word of God (YHWH) the point Jesus (Yeshua) was making as recorded at Matthew 23:1-6, Matthew 15:1-5, Matthew 7:1-9, and many other places in the Bible. Clearly Orthodoxy is just plain ERROR, no more need be said. If you want to learn the truth about deviation by Orthodoxy and acceptance of pagan doctrines and their masquerading them as Christian, go to:

I may start a thread about this very subject on the debate boards. You may find you know less about my faith than you think, and that you understand even less...

Originally Posted by iris89

FOURTH, You clearly appear to be an individual of the mindset, my mind is made up, please do not confuse me with facts as shown by your comment

<snip>

Clearly shows that you are NOT really interested in learning the facts.

You do realize you come off in exactly the same way? I do admit that I believe what I believe. However, facts are things I am always concerned about, and I have radically changed my views of Christianity several times as a result.

What the second quote shows is that I am unwilling to do extensive research into articles you have written. When you bring a subject to these boards for discussion, then you should be prepared to discuss it on the boards, and not refer people to stuff you have already written. It would be different if you weren't knowledgable in a subject and wanted to refer people to another document, but you are wanting to tell people what you believe to be the truth, but not discuss it. That is what I'm objecting to. I'm not going to read loads of articles when I'm discussing on a discussion forum.

Originally Posted by iris89

FIFTH, 2 Peter 1:20, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." (American Standard Version; ASV) and yet you do not like a writing style that involves over 50% scripture that is in harmony with 2 Peter 1:20. You have a problem with accepting reality in my opinion since this style of writing permits one to do as Acts 17:11, previously quoted says. Think about that.

And I can quote lots of Scripture to show differing opinions. Quoting a bunch of stuff doesn't mean that you're not interpreting. It just means you're quoting more material to interrept.

[iris89]

Hi No*s

FIRST, It is quite clear that you do NOT know that when divinely inspired men are used by God (YHWH) to put his thoughts into the words of men that that is quite different from men handing down the sayings of men or as it is commonly called tradition. This is clearly shown by the dictionaries' definition of tradition:

Noun:

1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication. 2a. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage. b. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See synonyms at heritage. 3. A body of unwritten religious precepts. 4. A time-honored practice or set of such practices. 5. Law Transfer of property to another. [source - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.]

You forget that God (YHWH) is the Creator and has always existed so there was no passing down from generation to generation; hence, what he inspired men to write was in no way tradition, but the thoughts of God (YHWH) put into the words of men.

SECOND, the word translated church in English actually means congregation in Koine Greek. And he did not use the congregation to write the Bible, but divinely inspired individuals. Your statement,

This is also a historical fact. The Orthodox/Catholic Church determined the contents of the Bible and preserved it.

Is completely wrong as God (YHWH) not any church/congregation inspired faithful men to put his thoughts into the words of men, get real.

THIRD, I have already shown what Jesus (Yeshua) had to say on tradition.

Third, With respect the subject of tradition, my original article covered that, and Matthew 15:1-5 clearly says, " Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: 4 Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee." (DRCB); and Matthew 7:1-9, " And there assembled together unto him the Pharisees and some of the scribes, coming from Jerusalem. 2 And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients. 4 And when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots and of brazen vessels and of beds. 5 And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands? 6 But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. 8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. 9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition." (DRCB)

Fourth, You mention Matthew 23:2, but you need to look at that scripture in context Matthew 23:1-6, "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them. 5 And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes. 6 And they love the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues," (DRCB) and get some understanding.

You clearly overlook that he said, ": but according to their works do ye not."

FOURTH, When there is an article that I have already written that covers the subject there is absolutely no reason not to refer all to it. One can learn just as well from what has been written before and need not have it aimlessly repeated, get real. You need to learn as does everyone.

1) Our entire civilization as we know it is actually built on the ability to store information in one form or another and to pass it on to others for their use. This storage can take many different forms such as books, memory cores and disks, scrolls, clay tablets, writings on stones and artifacts, etc. Storage of the repository of human knowledge and better reasoning ability are the things that set humankind apart from all other species that inhabits this planet. We know what happened in the past and can learn from the past because of our store of knowledge. Without this ability to store knowledge we would not know anything about the Roman Empire, the various ancient dynasties of the Chinese or the scientific findings of the past that we have built on and developed on in a synergistic way to continually advance. This sets us apart from all the other concurrent inhabiting species of this planet; take the common cat, this animal has coexisted with mankind during are entire existence, but it lacks the ability to pass on anything more than the most rudimentary information to the next generation and it has NOT advanced; we see no great cat cities or developments by this species and we never will.

2) Our advancement was made possible by this ability to build on our collective knowledge in a continuing progressive upward path. We name things and this name is accepted as valid my others and our knowledge is added to. Take for example the color we call red, why is it red? It is red only because we collectively decide to use this term for it and to reference it to artifacts such as color chips, vases, etc. that are that color. Could we prove anything is red apart from our collective knowledge of what is red and our artifacts? Definitely not since it is only red due to our collective knowledge and our artifacts. Without our collective knowledge and our artifacts we would be just like the lesser animals having only a here and now existence. Of course there are those among us that differ with our collective knowledge and question the obvious of what we know or have learned as a society. The Flat Earth Society (London and California) maintain that the earth is flat and not round and there are still some primitive people that believe the earth is not only flat but carried by a great turtle through the cosmos and also those who maintain man has never gone to the moon. However, are their beliefs reasonable in the light of knowledge accumulated by society and the artifacts now possessed by society, the answer is a resounding NO.

3) Also, are advancement is built on our ability to classify our knowledge. Many things are as we classify them. These classifications are not intrinsically right or wrong, but a method of ordering our collective knowledge into a coherent form for better understanding. In other words it is humanities attempt to take a group of disconnected information and put it into some order so we can better understand it. Of course one can disagree with classifications used and maintain that standard classifications are inadequate in one way or another, but he/she does thins strictly on the basis of the collective body of human knowledge. For example, take the classifications of several forms of deviant sex, pedophile, homosexual, and heterosexual deviant sex practitioner. Our collective knowledge is that a heterosexual relates to one who has sexual desires toward a member of the opposite gender; a homosexual relates to one who has sexual desires toward a member of his own gender; Pedophilia relates to a sexual perversion in which children, either sex, are the preferred sexual object. Now one could maintain that pedophilias are neither homosexual or heterosexual deviant sex practitioners as they are driven by different behavior motivations, i.e., power and control in addition to sex, than deviant sex practitioners who prefer adults. While their behavior motivations are different, they, depending on the gender of the victim and the perpetrator would be either heterosexual pedophiles or homosexual pedophiles; note, as previously mentioned this classification is apart from the differences in underlying motivation due to how we have collectively set up the classification in our collective body of knowledge.

[source - Civilization by Iris the Preacher]

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[No*s]

I do not see at all how the dictionary definition excludes the Bible. Calling it a "tradition" doesn't mean that it is a man-made. It being part of a heritage, doesn't mean that it's not from God.

Originally Posted by iris89

SECOND, the word translated church in English actually means congregation in Koine Greek. And he did not use the congregation to write the Bible, but divinely inspired individuals. Your statement,

Quote:

Is completely wrong as God (YHWH) not any church/congregation inspired
faithful men to put his thoughts into the words of men, get real.

I'm fully aware of the definition. It more properly means "assembly," not "congregation," because that covers all its meanings better (and still not perfectly). "Congregation" wouldn't work well in the Athenian Constitution, for instance.

Originally Posted by iris89

THIRD, I have already shown what Jesus (Yeshua) had to say on tradition.

No you haven't. You've shown what you think He said. There is a huge difference.

In respect to my quote from Mt., you assert "You clearly overlook that he said, `but according to their works do ye
not.'" No I didn't. That's almost a red herring. He still appealed to an oral tradition for authority. If anything, it strengthens my argument, because Christ considered it authoritative enough to commend them to obey men who they could not emulate, and all on the basis of an oral tradition. I didn't overlook a that but was well aware of it.

Originally Posted by iris89

FOURTH, When there is an article that I have already written that covers the subject there is absolutely no reason not to refer all to it. One can learn just as well from what has been written before and need not have it aimlessly repeated, get real. You need to learn as does everyone.

Then by all means post the relevant portions as you did here. I'm not going to go read four or five articles just to try and get a handle on your argument.

I read your quote on civilization, but all it does is analyze our means of transmission. It does not establish that a written record isn't a tradition, nor does it show that tradition and Christianity are opposed.

[iris89]

Hi No*s

You claim to be able to read Greek, but you have not even shown your ability to comprehend English; to wit, my previous sola scriptura writing as follows:

Third, With respect the subject of tradition, my original article covered that, and Matthew 15:1-5 clearly says, " Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: 4 Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee." (DRCB); and Matthew 7:1-9, " And there assembled together unto him the Pharisees and some of the scribes, coming from Jerusalem. 2 And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients. 4 And when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots and of brazen vessels and of beds. 5 And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands? 6 But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. 8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. 9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition." (DRCB)

Fourth, You mention Matthew 23:2, but you need to look at that scripture in context Matthew 23:1-6, "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them. 5 And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes. 6 And they love the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues," (DRCB) and get some understanding.

Sounds to me that you are like Don quote in Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra epic novel, i.e., seeing what does not exist everywhere.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[Scott1]

On Tradition......
Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "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).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Handing on the faith

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "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" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

"Commandments of men"

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the 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" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.


www.catholic.com