The Problem with Oral Traditions

[lakeside]

The Biblicist ,you Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts 2nd Tim 3: 14 disproves your claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before your Protestant often quoted verse of 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and you Biblicist, because you prefer to choose to be a Protestant ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching).

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.Why do you as a Protestant unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later, but that is a different subject for later, if you're interested in learning the truth.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist ,you Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts 2nd Tim 3: 14 disproves your claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before your Protestant often quoted verse of 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and you Biblicist, because you prefer to choose to be a Protestant ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching).

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.Why do you as a Protestant unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later, but that is a different subject for later, if you're interested in learning the truth.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

You have simply reposted the same post I have already answered in detail and for you which you NEVER responded to but simply JUMPED to something else.

Why should I waste my time demonstrating your false interpretations when you don't even have the courtesy to respond to the evidence that proves you are misinterpreting the texts?????????

Look at the previous misinterpretation of 2 Peter. 1:20 you gave? How many times have I demonstrated contextually you don't know what you are talking about and yet you never respond to the evidence that proves you have misinterpreted the text but you simply repost your error over and over again!

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist, i'm sorry but i can't agree with your Protestant interpretation of Holy Scripture, because which Protestant interpretation is the correct one? I would say done of them ,being that Jesus gave His Apostolic Interpretation to his Apostles and not to any of your Protestant founders . If your particular Protestant church doesn't adhere to both the Holy Bible and to the Teachings as Jesus instructed his Apostles then your particular Protestant church is just that - a Protestant church. Any church that protests against Christ's Church is called "Protestant". So,to The Biblicist, until you start interpreting the Holy Scriptures as the Holy Scriptures were intended to be interpreted I or any other member of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church will cotinuously refute your erroneous interpretation.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist, i'm sorry but i can't agree with your Protestant interpretation of Holy Scripture, because which Protestant interpretation is the correct one? I would say done of them ,being that Jesus gave His Apostolic Interpretation to his Apostles and not to any of your Protestant founders . If your particular Protestant church doesn't adhere to both the Holy Bible and to the Teachings as Jesus instructed his Apostles then your particular Protestant church is just that - a Protestant church. Any church that protests against Christ's Church is called "Protestant". So,to The Biblicist, until you start interpreting the Holy Scriptures as the Holy Scriptures were intended to be interpreted I or any other member of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church will cotinuously refute your erroneous interpretation.

It does not take a genius to figure out your intepretation of 1 Peter 1:20 is wrong! It just takes looking at verse 21 with verse 20.

Verse 20 makes the statement and verse 21 defends the statement

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


If YOUR interpretation were correct verse 21 would read something like this:

21 FOR the prophecy was given by the Holy Spirit not to individuals: but what men of God spoke was to be interpreted through the church;

However, that is not what he said or meant. What he said and meant is easy to see if you have eyes to see.

He is not talking about the "private interpretation" of those who RECIEVE the scriptures but those who GIVE the scriptures.

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


Verse 21 explains how the prophecy CAME and whose will it expresses! It is not the "private interpretation" of the men who spoke it because it did not originate "BY THE WILL OF MAN"! The source was not the personal opinions of those who spoke but they provided it "AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST."

Hence, Scriptures do not represent the PERSONAL OPINONS of the writers but rather the revealed will of God who used the writers.

It also shows what they ORALLY spoke under direct inspiration (v. 21) was designed to be superseded by what they penned as "scripture" (v. 20). Thus Peter provides an additional reason why scriptures are "MORE SURE" than oral teaching because the oral is designed only to be TEMPORARY while the scriptures are designed to supersede and be the permenant record of God's revealed will.

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist, i only believe in the way that the first early Christians interpreted the Scriptures . It doesn't make any sense to follow the Protestant interpretations because how is a person to know which "one' is the correct interpretation ? I believe in the way the Apostolic Church has always interpreted Holy Scripture . If their understanding of interpretation was good enough to be guided by the HS in selecting the correct Canonical Books that comprise our NT then that interpretation is good enough for me .

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist, i only believe in the way that the first early Christians interpreted the Scriptures . It doesn't make any sense to follow the Protestant interpretations because how is a person to know which "one' is the correct interpretation ? I believe in the way the Apostolic Church has always interpreted Holy Scripture . If their understanding of interpretation was good enough to be guided by the HS in selecting the correct Canonical Books that comprise our NT then that interpretation is good enough for me .

In other words, the blind follow the blind and both fall into the same ditch of perverting the Scriptures! It takes no genius to see what Peter is clearly saying, only takes recognition of the words he uses and places together in grammatical form. It takes only common sense. However, you and Rome in regard to this text are living proof of Matthew 13:10-11 and 1 Cor. 2:14.

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, i gave you the correct meaning , It is you who have the wrong understanding . The New Testament is paramount in telling you that it took the correct interpretation as used by the bishops of the Catholic Church in the correct selection of those Books that comprise the NT. Good Night and God Bless

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, i gave you the correct meaning , It is you who have the wrong understanding . The New Testament is paramount in telling you that it took the correct interpretation as used by the bishops of the Catholic Church in the correct selection of those Books that comprise the NT. Good Night and God Bless

You gave me a man made absolute lie that perverts the very meaning of that scritpure and it is obvious, because you cannot defend that lie and you cannot point out why the interpretation I gave is wrong!

 

[DHK]

The Biblicist, i'm sorry but i can't agree with your Protestant interpretation of Holy Scripture, because which Protestant interpretation is the correct one?

Stop being rude! And quit being in denial. If you don't know how to answer a post then politely say you don't have the answer. Why attack him, and why falsely accuse him.
First, Neither Biblicist nor I, as repeatedly told you, are Protestants.
So stop being rude and stop telling us that we are posting a view that we are not posting. We know what we believe; you don't.

You have the same attitude that some in Peter's epistle had:
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (2 Peter 3:5)
--Being willfully ignorant is sin.

He didn't present a Protestant view, he presented a Biblical view, and therefore you are reluctant to refute it, or cannot refute it. You thus give a lame excuse.
There is only one interpretation, and it is not the RCC one, with all of its varied heresies. I have pointed out many of them to you, but typically you deny them.
To believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation (for example) is to deny the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. This is your teaching. Heresy.

 

[lakeside]

Stop being rude! And quit being in denial. If you don't know how to answer a post then politely say you don't have the answer. Why attack him, and why falsely accuse him.
First, Neither Biblicist nor I, as repeatedly told you, are Protestants.
So stop being rude and stop telling us that we are posting a view that we are not posting. We know what we believe; you don't.

You have the same attitude that some in Peter's epistle had:
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (2 Peter 3:5)
--Being willfully ignorant is sin.

He didn't present a Protestant view, he presented a Biblical view, and therefore you are reluctant to refute it, or cannot refute it. You thus give a lame excuse.
There is only one interpretation, and it is not the RCC one, with all of its varied heresies. I have pointed out many of them to you, but typically you deny them.
To believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation (for example) is to deny the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. This is your teaching. Heresy.

DHK, please excuse me if I come across as rude, I have a difficult time with commuters, I am far from being commuter savvy .It also takes me longer to type than the average commuter user. It is an effort for me to try and express myself for various reasons. I do apologize for my rudeness . Sorry.

 

[Eric B]

Again, tradition is being pitted against scripture wrongfully. 2 Thess. 3:6 even gives us an example of of one of these "traditions" being referred, and it is an instruction that can be found elsewhere in scripture, and in scriptural principle. Not some other body of teachings and practices omitted from scripture, which the non-Catholics are opposing.
It seems non-Catholics are actually granting that Catholic doctrine was some oral teaching that existed side by side with the scripture, and that only scripture is authoritative; by pitting the two against each other like that. But all there were was two different mediums of the same teaching.

The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Both OT and NT communities [ Jewish & Christian converts ] held to two aspects of one revelation: Scripture and tradition. Neither had the truncated concept of your Protestant" sola Scriptura ".
Both Israel and the Church had a recognized teaching authority; both believed God's people were governed by a hierarchy.
Both had a hierarchy before they had a "book" , and both "books "[ Old and New Testaments ] were recognized and collacted into authoitative canons through the hands of the respective hierarchies.
Both viewed the authorative teaching office as being one of succession, in other words , the offices would always be filled, never left vacant.
"Moses' seat" continued with successors through two thousand years, acknomledged by the Lord Jesus himself, and now the "chair of Peter" is approaching its two thousandth year, and the office has been filled by 264 Popes.

Again, that OT "Israel" body of "oral traditions" is what lead to the rejection of Jesus as Messiah. When Jesus, the apostles, and then we read OT prophecies that we say point to Jesus, their traditions say something else, and they came first.

Their traditions also led them to add all sorts of extrabiblical restrictions to the Law, such as all the sabbath rules, that a command to "not boil a kid in his mother's milk" meant not eating milk and meat together, even with the same dishes and utensils, etc. The whole volumes of Mishnah/Midrash, etc. are supposed to be these "oral" teachings passed down from Moses, just like all the Catechism is supposed to be the oral teaching passed down from the apostles.

And then, that OT "living teaching authority" that promoted these traditions had itself gone corrupt, to the point of rejecting Jesus, persecuting His followers, and using its relationship with the state authority to do it.

Do you believe all of this was valid? "Mosaic oral traditions" that reject Jesus as Messiah, and a teaching authority that goes corrupt and persecutes His followers?
Jesus criticizes them and their "traditions"! He acknowledges them as the legitimately established authority (mainly as opposed to the competing Sadducees), but this does not mean they were faithful to what had been committed to them.
And the institutional church has followed right behind this earlier "teaching authority" lock, stock and barrel. You wonder why God would even basically repeat the same thing (OT institutional "authority") all over again.

(And while in the NT, 12 apostles were being maintained; int he postapostolic period, 12 were no longer maintained. If you insist the Pope is Peter's "Seat", then who are the other 11?)

 

[lakeside]

"All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17

First of all, let me clarify the label "Protestant' ,I refer to Protestant as any other Christian who protests against the Catholic Church.


2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants, usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where in the Bible can it be found to say that the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

 

[lakeside]

Eric , are you saying something like this ?
If Jesus didn't believe the Bible was the sole rule of faith, why did he quote it in his disputes with the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

The mere quoting of the Bible as authoritative doesn't imply the quoter thinks only the Bible is authoritative. Catholics, after all, cite Scripture in support of their views, yet this doesn't mean they believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith.

The Jews of Jesus' day quoted the Bible to defend their beliefs, but they also followed their traditions (Mt 15:2). Some were legitimate, some not. Look at Jesus' attack on one of the illegitimate traditions: the Pharisees' custom of the Corban (Mt 15:4-9).

His attack is taken by some as a rejection of all tradition and as an affirmation of sola scriptura, but it really shows only that he opposed human traditions which contradicted Scripture, not that he rejected all tradition. You can't conclude, then, from Jesus' mere citing of the Bible, that one needs to believe only in the Bible or that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and all tradition must be rejected.

Jesus quoted the Old Testament because it's the word of God and as such is authoritative for settling the theological questions it addresses. Furthermore, because Scripture was accepted by both Jesus and his opponents, he could appeal to it as common ground between them. Here he followed his usual practice of using what his enemies, in theory at least, would accept as binding.

Consider his dispute with the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 over the resurrection of the body. The Sadducees, who accepted as inspired only the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), didn't believe in the resurrection of the body.

In refuting them, Christ quoted only from the Pentateuch (Ex 3:6), not because he didn't acknowledge other Old Testament books which explicitly mention the resurrection of the body (such as Daniel 12:2, 13), but because the Sadducees didn't accept these other books. An appeal to an authority which they didn't accept would have been useless, so Jesus proved his point by referring to one the Sadducees would affirm.

 

[DHK]

DHK, please excuse me if I come across as rude, I have a difficult time with commuters, I am far from being commuter savvy .It also takes me longer to type than the average commuter user. It is an effort for me to try and express myself for various reasons. I do apologize for my rudeness . Sorry.

What you say, you say deliberately. The Baptist position that we hold, (especially Biblicist and myself), is that we are not Protestants. Yet you constantly are referring to our "Protestant view." It is not. My view (as is Biblicist's) is from the Bible and the Bible alone--thus our respect for sola scriptura--a Biblical doctrine, not a reformation doctrine. It was only reaffirmed at the reformation, but believed throughout the OT as well as the NT. We have both shown you that; you just ignore the evidence presented to you. It is a Biblical view, not necessarily a Protestant view. This is a Baptist board, not a Protestant board. There is a difference.

 

[lakeside]

What you say, you say deliberately. The Baptist position that we hold, (especially Biblicist and myself), is that we are not Protestants. Yet you constantly are referring to our "Protestant view." It is not. My view (as is Biblicist's) is from the Bible and the Bible alone--thus our respect for sola scriptura--a Biblical doctrine, not a reformation doctrine. It was only reaffirmed at the reformation, but believed throughout the OT as well as the NT. We have both shown you that; you just ignore the evidence presented to you. It is a Biblical view, not necessarily a Protestant view. This is a Baptist board, not a Protestant board. There is a difference.

Very good then DHK, I will refer to everyone not Catholic [ i believe there is only two ? other Catholics on this forum.] as Baptists ,being that I don't really know the denominational status of the other people here. But ,of course you do understand that the label of Protestant refers to every other Christian that protests against the Apostolic Catholic Church. Hence- Protestant. You do protest against the Church of the Apostles ,don't you DHK ?

DHK, you say that you are Baptist and that Baptist can trace their religious lineage directly back to St. John the Baptist, is that correct ?

 

[The Biblicist]

You do protest against the Church of the Apostles ,don't you DHK ?

The answer is no! We simply do not believe Roman Catholocism is apostolic in origin.

We beleive the congregations of the apostles are "Baptistic" in order and the have been present in every generation and will be until Jesus comes again.

DHK, you say that you are Baptist and that Baptist can trace their religious lineage directly back to St. John the Baptist, is that correct ?

Neither Baptists or Catholics can trace their origin church by church back to the the apostles. There is simply not sufficient history and what history we do have has been perverted by Rome.

I personally believe that Jesus formed the first congregation in Jerusalem out of Baptistic materials provided by John.

 

[lakeside]

The answer is no! We simply do not believe Roman Catholocism is apostolic in origin.

We beleive the congregations of the apostles are "Baptistic" in order and the have been present in every generation and will be until Jesus comes again.



Neither Baptists or Catholics can trace their origin church by church back to the the apostles. There is simply not sufficient history and what history we do have has been perverted by Rome.

I personally believe that Jesus formed the first congregation in Jerusalem out of Baptistic materials provided by John.

Tell me Biblicist, if the Catholic Church rewrote the history books of early Christian history[ as you say ] then why didn't they change the Bible so that it explicitly would read clearly so as to eliminate any doubt in the eyes of its critics?

 

[The Biblicist]

Tell me Biblicist, if the Catholic Church rewrote the history books of early Christian history[ as you say ] then why didn't they change the Bible so that it explicitly would read clearly so as to eliminate any doubt in the eyes of its critics?

I never said they "rewrote" the history books. They simply SELECTED the materials they would preserve versus what they would intentionally destroy or ignore.

When their own writers wrote about their enemies they wrote from their own biased perspective thus providing a revisionists view point designed to intentionally villify their enemies in order to justify their actions taken against them.

There are records that the Paulicianists, Waldenses, Anabaptists, Catharists and others complained of being misrepresented by Roman inquisitor's and charged with things they did not believe just for the purpose to bring legal litigations against them.

Roman writers would make charges against their enemies that reflected their own doctrinal views rather than the doctrinal views of their enemeis. For example, they would accuse their enemies of repudiating any ordained ministry because their enemies repudiated the ROMAN Catholic ministry. They would accuse their enemies of not believing in baptism or the Lord's Supper because their enemies repudiated the ROMAN Catholic sacraments. They would accuse their enemies of being Manicheans, even when their enemies denied and repudiated Mancheism, when in reality their enemies simply believed Christians had two natures (sin nature and regenerated nature). The list goes on and on.

 

[Eric B]

Eric , are you saying something like this ?
If Jesus didn't believe the Bible was the sole rule of faith, why did he quote it in his disputes with the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

The mere quoting of the Bible as authoritative doesn't imply the quoter thinks only the Bible is authoritative. Catholics, after all, cite Scripture in support of their views, yet this doesn't mean they believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith.

The Jews of Jesus' day quoted the Bible to defend their beliefs, but they also followed their traditions (Mt 15:2). Some were legitimate, some not. Look at Jesus' attack on one of the illegitimate traditions: the Pharisees' custom of the Corban (Mt 15:4-9).

His attack is taken by some as a rejection of all tradition and as an affirmation of sola scriptura, but it really shows only that he opposed human traditions which contradicted Scripture, not that he rejected all tradition. You can't conclude, then, from Jesus' mere citing of the Bible, that one needs to believe only in the Bible or that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and all tradition must be rejected.

Jesus quoted the Old Testament because it's the word of God and as such is authoritative for settling the theological questions it addresses. Furthermore, because Scripture was accepted by both Jesus and his opponents, he could appeal to it as common ground between them. Here he followed his usual practice of using what his enemies, in theory at least, would accept as binding.

Consider his dispute with the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 over the resurrection of the body. The Sadducees, who accepted as inspired only the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), didn't believe in the resurrection of the body.

In refuting them, Christ quoted only from the Pentateuch (Ex 3:6), not because he didn't acknowledge other Old Testament books which explicitly mention the resurrection of the body (such as Daniel 12:2, 13), but because the Sadducees didn't accept these other books. An appeal to an authority which they didn't accept would have been useless, so Jesus proved his point by referring to one the Sadducees would affirm.

I'm not denying tradition or pitting it against scripture. That was my very point. I'm just saying it was not a separate body of teachings, but were the same as what was written down. (As the example in 2 Thess. 3:6)

 

[DHK]

Tell me Biblicist, if the Catholic Church rewrote the history books of early Christian history[ as you say ] then why didn't they change the Bible so that it explicitly would read clearly so as to eliminate any doubt in the eyes of its critics?

lakeside,
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of "Louis Riel"?
He is a part of history.