Quote from signature line

[Matt Black]

I'd like to know that too...

 

[DHK]

Ok your explination (though I did take your statements personally) about my statement being conjecture I will accept and will say no more about it.

Tradition as I see it is closer to the Jewish Consept rather than the implied consept with RC which brings issues of devotion not supported in scripture (or necissarily denied, just silent). The Jewish Consept of Oral Tradition is this: How do you interpret scripture in a consistent method over a period of time so as not to corrupt its teaching?

For one to accomplish this, they had to stay with the Scriptures and avoid the corrupted teaching that Jesus condemned in Mat.23--the teaching of men, the traditions of the Pharisees. The talmud, the Rabinnical teachings, were corrupted teachings--teachings such as: "if one should cross the path of a Rabbi and sneeze while doing so, he should be cursed." Now how is that Biblical? Tradition, yes; Biblical, no!

Look at the example of Timothy:
2 Timothy 3:14-15 But continue 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 child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
--What things did Timothy learn and from who?
From a child he learned the holy Sciptures, and has known them. This is what has guided him, and has made him wise unto salvation. His mother and grandmother made sure that he was taught the Scriptures. The Scriptures always came first; all other "education" was secondary in his life.

2 Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
--Timothy's faith was a direct result of the teaching of his grandmother Lois, and his mother Eunice. They taught him the Scriptures--the Old Testament.

Take also the period of the Judges.
The theme of the Book of Judges is Here:
Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
--a book of lawlessness, disorder, a turning from Jehovah to idolatrous gods over and over again.

But in the midst of that period we find the story of Ruth. We find a woman, Naomi, who did not give up her faith to idols, but remained faithful to Jehovah inspite of her difficult circumstances. No matter where you look in Scripture, it is the faith of individuals who put their faith in the God of Scriptures, not in tradition or Tradition, that are victorious in their walk with God.

The Massorites were dealing with this issue with their updated copies of the Tanakh and wrote commentaries in the margins. You can see this with the Early Church. there is a way to view the OT and interpret it. When I'm speaking of Oral Tradition this is what I mean. Ie... When Philip spoke to the Ethiopian Eunich he interpreted Isaiah with Jesus as having fulfilled it. Keep in Mind Jesus is a Rabbi. An Itinnerant Rabbi which was needed in Judah at that time because the common people wanted and needed consistent authoritative teaching on the Torah or law.

You seem to be looking at Bible history through the eyes of a secular writer rather than through the eyes of God. What does Christ say:

Matthew 16:13-16 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Look at the differing opinions at who the people thought that Christ was: John the Baptist resurrected (Pilate said this), Elijah, Jeremiah, one of the other prophets. It was Nicodemus that addressed him as "Rabbi," he being one himself.
But look at the anwer of Simon Peter:
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
This is the way we also must view the history of the Bible. He wasn't just a rabbi. He was the Messiah, the Son of God, deity incarnate. It doesn't matter what the unbeleivers write about Christ. History is "His Story," rightly put. Many of the liberals of today are trying to deny that Christ even ever existed.
Christ spoke with authority; that is true. And that is what the people needed to hear. Those who heard him sincerely became his followers. Those who were envious of that authority eventually crucified him.

That made the itinerant Rabbi's valuable. You can see it in Jewish writing. Remember the Falacy of the Pharasees was their attempt to create a hedge around the Law and thereby using the "hedge" to actually not follow the Law. However, the early christians had a method and form for interpreting scripture and this is Oral tradition.

This is wrong. Scripture has always been interpreted by the light of other Scripture. Even Philip did that with the book of Isaiah. Using Isaiah he preached unto him Jesus. He didn't use Tradition. He used Scripture, and only Scripture. He explained through the Scriptures the Gospel message of Christ, which can be found in almost every book of the Bible.

Luke 24:26-27 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Did Jesus use Tradition?
--"Beginning at Moses and all the prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures..." See the example of Jesus. Here is the perfect example of sola scriptura. What about the sufferings of Christ; his death and resurrection. Jesus went through all the prophecies in the OT related to them on that long walk to Emmaus, 7 and a half miles away from Jerusalem from which they were traveling.

However, the NT was not entirely writen by 55 AD and so the oral teaching of the apostles were the primary source of gospel preaching. Jesus' life and mission were new and are related to in the OT so new information was given to fill out the OT in the present for them but new information non the less.

The only means that God gave the church for "new information" or revelation was the spiritual gifts mentioned in 1Cor.13:8. There are other spiritual gifts, but these ones, specifically had to do with revelation and were given to the church for the purpose you mentioned until the end of the first century, when the canon was finished with the completion of the Book of Revelation by John (98 A.D.)

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Prophecy, tongues, (revelatory) knowledge would all cease; come to an end. And they did at the end of the first century when the canon of Scripture was completed. These gifts had fulfilled their purpose by that time. They were no longer needed and thus ceased to be. Then the canon of Scripture was closed.
God has never ordained that Tradition be used as a method of revelation. He has never ordained that Tradition be used as a method of preserving His Word. We don't find that teaching in Scripture.

Concerning the dates of the Scripture themselves.
James and Matthew are two of the earlies books both written around 50 AD
Paul's epistles (13 in number) were written between 55 and 67 (the approximate time of his death.
Jude was written in 70 AD, as was one other book.
All of John's writings were written in the 90's
However, one can see that 80-90 percent of the Bible was completed before 70 A.D. My analogy still stands. It is still not enough time to develop "tradition" or what the RCC considers to be tradition.

Therefore all teaching was by necessity Oral though supplemented by the Torah and other books from the OT. Paul didn't quote Luke's or John's, Mark or Matthew's gospel when preaching. Certainly he used the OT but he also used the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and things he learned that was orally taught to him while in Damascus taught by Ananias for the few days before he started preaching. So Oral tradition both for Moses and the early christians played an essential role.

Peter refers to Paul's writing.
Paul refers to Peter (in Galatians)
The oral teaching was done from the Scriptures that they did have. Was it necessary for them to have the Book of Revelation in order for them to teach and preach from the rest of the NT? No.
Paul did refer to the virgin birth. Where did he get that teaching from?
He also quoted words directy from the Lord Jesus Christ in Scripture such as:

1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
--Exact words of Jesus, quoted from Paul. Where did he get them from?

The simple answer is found here:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--He was inspired of God.
The words came from God himself: Again you tend to look at things from a secular point of view rather than from God's point of view.
Here again is what God says about His own Book:

2 Peter 1:21 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.

By the way what is the Great controversy?

The book written by Ellen G. White, which the SDA's use an "another source of authority," in their religion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

, they had to stay with the Scriptures and avoid the corrupted teaching that Jesus condemned in Mat.23--the teaching of men, the traditions of the Pharisees. The talmud, the Rabinnical teachings, were corrupted teachings

Yet in the same chapter I find this quote:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them

So, not so much a condemnation of their teachings in as much as their action. They taught Oral tradition but didn't even follow the Law they were attempting to protect. Which brings this verse into focus:

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

They are hypocrites because they don't follow their own teaching. Jesus isn't saying something about oral tradition as much as he saying how its being taught and not followed. Thus the word hypocrite. That word can only be used against someone who is presenting themselves as one thing and doing another. Pretty straight forward I would say. Which makes this verse the key point of what Jesus is getting at with Oral Tradition

But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former

So follow the important part of the Law without negleting the other aspect.

Take also the period of the Judges.
The theme of the Book of Judges is Here:
Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
--a book of lawlessness, disorder, a turning from Jehovah to idolatrous gods over and over again.

The book of Judges does show lawlessness but the verse you quoted has nothing to do with Oral verses writen tradition. It is a statment that no matter how the law was presented these people did what they wanted to any way.

12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

is a fuller quote from 2 Tim 3. What you get is that Paul is pointing out to Timothy the cost of wanting to live rightly; persecution. However, Paul is saying that his having study grants him wisdom with regard to salvation. This verse is inadiquate to the debate because no one is saying Scripture is not inspired and truthful. It doesn't mention only scripture was taught to Timothy. But that Scriptures was taught.

You seem to be looking at Bible history through the eyes of a secular writer rather than through the eyes of God. What does Christ say:

I am not secular. I have faith. However, I try to look at scripture critically or scientifically. I believe the word of God has nothing to fear from men having a critical look at scripture. What does Christ say? Many things but he does a wonderful job Summing up scripture 1) Love God 2) love your Neighbor which all the law hangs on.

Matthew 16:13-16 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Look at the differing opinions at who the people thought that Christ was: John the Baptist resurrected (Pilate said this), Elijah, Jeremiah, one of the other prophets. It was Nicodemus that addressed him as "Rabbi," he being one himself.
But look at the anwer of Simon Peter:

Well, look at all the differing opinions of Just baptist. But the Key of the verse is that it was revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Son of the Living God. This again has nothing to do with Oral tradition.

This is the way we also must view the history of the Bible. He wasn't just a rabbi. He was the Messiah, the Son of God, deity incarnate. It doesn't matter what the unbeleivers write about Christ. History is "His Story," rightly put. Many of the liberals of today are trying to deny that Christ even ever existed

He is Messiah. He is also a Rabbi and followed the Jewish culture at that time of itenerant Rabbis. So? This again has nothing to do with oral tradition.

This is wrong. Scripture has always been interpreted by the light of other Scripture. Even Philip did that with the book of Isaiah. Using Isaiah he preached unto him Jesus. He didn't use Tradition. He used Scripture, and only Scripture. He explained through the Scriptures the Gospel message of Christ, which can be found in almost every book of the Bible.

Which actually proves my point. You're saying it backwards. The Eunich wanted to know how to interpret Isaiah. Phillip explained that it could be understood in light of Jesus. Not the otherway round. here

30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."[e]

34The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

He explained scripture in the light of Jesus not the otherway round. Scripture supported his claims about Jesus.

I have a question for you where is this prophesy (Matthew 2:23) found in the OT?

23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Can it be a prophesy passed on by Oral Tradition?

 

[DHK]

Yet in the same chapter I find this quote:

So, not so much a condemnation of their teachings in as much as their action. They taught Oral tradition but didn't even follow the Law they were attempting to protect. Which brings this verse into focus:

They are hypocrites because they don't follow their own teaching. Jesus isn't saying something about oral tradition as much as he saying how its being taught and not followed. Thus the word hypocrite. That word can only be used against someone who is presenting themselves as one thing and doing another. Pretty straight forward I would say. Which makes this verse the key point of what Jesus is getting at with Oral Tradition

They were hypocrites because they disregarded the law and taught as the law, the traditions of men, which Jesus condemned. Take a look at another passage which is far more clear on the subject:

Mark 7:6-9 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them,
9 Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
--Jesus outright condemns their traditions. They were replacing the commandment of God, the law of God with their own tradition. It was the height of hypocrisy.

So follow the important part of the Law without negleting the other aspect.

You have referred to Mat.23:23 and have taken it out of context.
People often use this verse in defense of tithing.
What was Jesus saying here? The Pharisees were keeping a part of the law: tithing--in fact they tithed in all that they had: anise, cummin, and other produce that they may have gained. But, Jesus said, you have left out the weightier things of the law: judgment, mercy. These also keep. He was referring to two different aspects of the law written in the OT. Not once was he referring to tradition of any kind.

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The book of Judges does show lawlessness but the verse you quoted has nothing to do with Oral verses writen tradition. It is a statment that no matter how the law was presented these people did what they wanted to any way.

--It wasn't intended to show tradition. It was intended to show that even in times of lawlessness Godly individuals (such as Naomi) still followed the Lord her God, and she followed Him as she was taught by the Scripture that she had available to her at that time. If she went according to tradition perhaps she too would have ended up in an ungodly lifestyle. It is the Scripture that give us the authority and the moral guidelines to keep us walking the way we need to walk, not tradition.

is a fuller quote from 2 Tim 3. What you get is that Paul is pointing out to Timothy the cost of wanting to live rightly; persecution. However, Paul is saying that his having study grants him wisdom with regard to salvation. This verse is inadiquate to the debate because no one is saying Scripture is not inspired and truthful. It doesn't mention only scripture was taught to Timothy. But that Scriptures was taught.

The quotes given from this chapter were given to demonstrate that Timothy was taught from the inspired Word of God, the Scriptures. We need not quote the rest of the chapter or book. The point was aptly made. The synagogues were inter-testamental institutions built in a time when there was no Temple for the purpose of teaching the Scriptures (primarily) to the Jewish people. Every community of Jews, therefore had a synagogue. They were primarily for instruction, teaching, not for worship. Their primary mode of teaching was the Scriptures, not tradition. The Scriptures quoted from Timothy give ample evidence of this.

I am not secular. I have faith. However, I try to look at scripture critically or scientifically. I believe the word of God has nothing to fear from men having a critical look at scripture. What does Christ say? Many things but he does a wonderful job Summing up scripture 1) Love God 2) love your Neighbor which all the law hangs on.

One can be a Christian and still look at things with a worldly or secular outlook. In fact many Christians fall into such a trap. The Bible was not meant to be looked at "scientifically" as such. We are to study in it in depth, it is true. But when we come to the Scripture we must come prayerfully looking at it with the illumination that only the Holy Spirit gives; not with the worldly wisdom of the critical mind of the world.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--God gives the beliver enlightenment because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--The natural mind (unsaved) can't even understand the things of God. They try to look at the Bible from an entirely different point of view.

Well, look at all the differing opinions of Just baptist. But the Key of the verse is that it was revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Son of the Living God. This again has nothing to do with Oral tradition.

The source of our authority is God, not tradition; is Scripture, not tradition; is the Written Word, not tradition; is from the Holy Spirit, not tradition.

He is Messiah. He is also a Rabbi and followed the Jewish culture at that time of itenerant Rabbis. So? This again has nothing to do with oral tradition.

1. Jesus was not itinerant.
2. Jesus did not follow the Jewish culture of the day.
3. He came to do "the will of his father. He always pleased his father.
He did not come to please men, to conform to this world, to conform to the culture in which he lived in; no. He came to proclaim a message, verify that message through signs and wonders, which also verified who he was (God incarnate), and then submit to the Father, and die for our sins. In no way is that remotely similar to an itinirant rabbi or similar to Jewish culture. In contrast to Jewish culture, Jesus was a rebel and a revolutionary. He went totally against the culture in many different ways. But most of all: He came to die.

Which actually proves my point. You're saying it backwards. The Eunich wanted to know how to interpret Isaiah. Phillip explained that it could be understood in light of Jesus. Not the otherway round. here
He explained scripture in the light of Jesus not the otherway round. Scripture supported his claims about Jesus.

I don't understand what your point is here. Basically I have quoted to you almost word for word what the Bible said, and you say: No that is not what it means. In other words you say the Bible means something other than what it says. I would rather believe what the Bible actually says, than your interpretation of what it says.
It plainly says:

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
He began at the same Scripture (Isaiah) and preached unto him Jesus. It was not the other way around. Scripture means what it says.

I have a question for you where is this prophesy (Matthew 2:23) found in the OT?
Can it be a prophesy passed on by Oral Tradition?

No I don't believe so. Here is what Barnes says on that passage:

It is a great deal more
probable that Matthew refers not to any particular place, but to the leading characteristics of the
prophecies respecting him. The following remarks may make this clear:

1st. He does not say, "by the prophet, as in Mt 1:22; 2:5,15; but "by the prophets," meaning no one
particularly, but the general character of the prophecies.

2nd. The leading and most prominent prophecies respecting him were, that he was to be of humble
life, to be despised, and rejected. See Isa 53:2-3,7-9,12; Ps 22:1.

3rd. The phrase "he shall be called," means the same as he shall be.

4th. The character of the people of Nazareth was such that they were proverbially despised and
contemned, Joh 1:46; 7:52. To come from Nazareth, therefore, or to be a Nazarene, was the same as
to be despised, and esteemed of low birth; to be a root out of dry ground, having no form or
comeliness. And this was the same as had been predicted by the prophets. When Matthew says,
therefore, that the prophecies were fulfilled, it means, that the predictions of the prophets that he
should be of humble life, and rejected, were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth,
and despised as such.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It seems that you and Barnes are doing the very thing you've accused me of. Primarily, conjecture:

No I don't believe so. Here is what Barnes says on that passage:It is a great deal more
probable that Matthew refers not to any particular place, but to the leading characteristics of the
prophecies respecting him. The following remarks may make this clear:
:

Might as well put maybe in there instead of probably.

1. Jesus was not itinerant.
2. Jesus did not follow the Jewish culture of the day.

Yeah, yet you claim that Jesus fulfilled the Law but wasn't following the Jewish Culture? Did he wear blue Jeans too? :laugh:

. In no way is that remotely similar to an itinirant rabbi or similar to Jewish culture. In contrast to Jewish culture, Jesus was a rebel and a revolutionary.

Again speculation on your part. And in what way was being a rebel not Jewish? You ever hear of Masada or Zelots or Bar Kokhba?

The source of our authority is God, not tradition; is Scripture, not tradition;

My point was that both were considered to be from God in the Jewish culture and the early christian culture. Not that they replaced God's word.

One can be a Christian and still look at things with a worldly or secular outlook. In fact many Christians fall into such a trap. The Bible was not meant to be looked at "scientifically" as such. We are to study in it in depth, it is true. But when we come to the Scripture we must come prayerfully looking at it with the illumination that only the Holy Spirit gives; not with the worldly wisdom of the critical mind of the world.

This reminds me of a Pentecostal preacher I once heard in Florida (Lakeland) who said the problem with people today is they are too educated. Somehow that sound to me like the Catholics locking up Galileo for saying that the earth was not the center of the Universe. Paul was very educated and used his education to promote christianity. No trap. You say we don't look at it scientifically but I bet you say the earth was made in 6 days and so you are looking at is scientifically. Boy "whats good for the goose is good for the gander." BTW Barnes really seems to be reaching for straws. Here is another one:1Corinthians 10:1-5

1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

Where did Paul get that the Rock from Meribah moved with them? The OT?