JMAN05:


That is scripture.

The tradition I mentioned there is referring to those tradition not written in Gods word that some claim came from righteous servants of God who lived prior to them. This is what Jesus refuted in the account I quoted.

However, there are written traditions in Gods inspired word. These are not what I mean by "tradition" in the previous post.

See now the dilemma you face. Something you call scripture is what Jesus himself said that Moses wrote of his own accord " because of your hardheartedness". Yet something that was nowhere found in the old testament such as "He shall be called a Nazarene" was shown to us in Matt.2:23 as spoken by the prophet. Now do you see that you err when you who say with regards to God's word; that what is written holds more authority than what is oral?

The Inspired words of God is the tradition of Christians. Not every word of God is written, Jesus never wrote anything himself for us, the early Church started with spoken words and used letters to remind or reach out, the apostles taught that you have to hold on to the two...Oral word of God and written word of God(Oral and written traditions)2Thess.2:15, 2Tim.2:2. The bias you have against the word "tradition" is entirely your own idea, scripture doesn't understand it so, scripture exchanges "word of God" with "tradition" as we have seen. So Hold on to both Oral and written traditions as scripture has said, for your complete development as a Christian.

Syncan:



See now the dilemma you face. Something you call scripture is what Jesus himself said that Moses wrote of his own accord " because of your hardheartedness". Yet something that was nowhere found in the old testament such as "He shall be called a Nazarene" was shown to us in Matt.2:23 as spoken by the prophet. Now do you see that you err when you who say with regards to God's word; that what is written holds more authority than what is oral?

The Inspired words of God is the tradition of Christians. Not every word of God is written, Jesus never wrote anything himself for us, the early Church started with spoken words and used letters to remind or reach out, the apostles taught that you have to hold on to the two...Oral word of God and written word of God(Oral and written traditions)2Thess.2:15, 2Tim.2:2. The bias you have against the word "tradition" is entirely your own idea, scripture doesn't understand it so, scripture exchanges "word of God" with "tradition" as we have seen. So Hold on to both Oral and written traditions as scripture has said, for your complete development as a Christian.

My dear, if you have nothing more, let me know. First, you left the comment i made and asked a question. I gave you an answer to the question, you still dont get it.

God approved the issuance of certificate of divorce through Moses. That Jesus said Moses gave it does not mean that it was Moses' personal law to the Israelites.

Jehovah himself employed such certificate with regards to the Israelites. Read Jer 3:8. Secondly, what is recorded in the bible can be referred to as scripture.

You might do well to research Isaiah 11:1. (I wonder if you saw matt 2:23 in oral tradition too)

In case you forgot, let me repost:

B. Look at this word of Jesus:

Mark 7:13

13 Thus you make the word of God invalid by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.

Don't you think that Jesus would not have stated that the Pharisees were invalidating Gods word by there tradition if tradition had equal strength with the scriptures?

2. By his words, don't you think that Jesus was assigning more authority to the scriptures than to tradition? For eg, do u think Jesus would ever say "you make tradition invalid by the scriptures?"

Does this make any sense to you?

JMAN05:


My dear, if you have nothing more, let me know. First, you left the comment i made and asked a question. I gave you an answer to the question, you still dont get it.

God approved the issuance of certificate of divorce through Moses. That Jesus said Moses gave it does not mean that it was Moses' personal law to the Israelites.

Jehovah himself employed such certificate with regards to the Israelites. Read Jer 3:8. Secondly, what is recorded in the bible can be referred to as scripture.

You might do well to research Isaiah 11:1. (I wonder if you saw matt 2:23 in oral tradition too)

In case you forgot, let me repost:

Jesus was very clear. God never gave that command, for in the beginning "It was not so" was Jesus response to them. God drawing inference from their practice in order to teach them does not mean he originated it, Christ is the true image of God and he refused to take ownership of that law. It is written in the scriptures, yet it is not to be followed by Christians.


Is.11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Matt. 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

I will just leave you to your hide and seek, let the readers judge for themselves. 2Thess.2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word (oral), or our epistle (written)".

..

Syncan:


Jesus was very clear. God never gave that command, for in the beginning "It was not so" was Jesus response to them. God drawing inference from their practice in order to teach them does not mean he originated it, Christ is the true image of God and he refused to take ownership of that law. It is written in the scriptures, yet it is not to be followed by Christians.

Where did Jesus say that God never gave that command? The laws issued by Moses were under Gods direction or approval. Thus it was God who made the concession thru Moses. The whole Law issued by God thru Moses is often spoken of by the jews as being Mosaic Law. This does not mean he gave it on his own authority. Syncan don't you think you misunderstood Jesus statement? you also know that moses gave other laws after that of divorce. So is Moses unilaterally issuing laws for Gods people? Pls think abt it some more.

Secondly, whatever is written in the scripture, you are authorised to call it scripture. Seriously, do u still argue that too? I don't see why I can't call that verse you gave scripture. Is it not from scripture? Was it from enuma ellish?

Jesus quoted Moses statement as scripture in Matt 4:4. Was the verse Jesus alluded to Gods utterance?

Is.11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Matt. 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Oga do research on that verse. As a bible student I shouldn't tell u everything. Do research and see the correlation.

I will just leave you to your hide and seek, let the readers judge for themselves. 2Thess.2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word (oral), or our epistle (written)".

My dear I agree intoto with that scripture, my worry is if you do understand my position: all the oral inspired tradition that were essential for you to be fully equipped were later penned down. Any other do not have equal authority with the scriptures.

For example: the after Paul spoke of tradition in that 2thess 2:15, in 2thess 3:6-9 he explained what some of these unwritten tradition involved.

Secondly, after stating a tradition he handed down in 1cor 11:2, he went further to state what such tradition involved. Read 1cor 11:23. Any other tradition said to have issued from the apostles should be weighed with the scriptures. And it doesn't have any authority equal to the scriptures as we could make out of Jesus statement I quoted above.

JMAN05:


Where did Jesus say that God never gave that command? The laws issued by Moses were under Gods direction or approval. Thus it was God who made the concession thru Moses. The whole Law issued by God thru Moses is often spoken of by the jews as being Mosaic Law. This does not mean he gave it on his own authority. Syncan don't you think you misunderstood Jesus statement? you also know that moses gave other laws after that of divorce. So is Moses unilaterally issuing laws for Gods people? Pls think abt it some more.

Secondly, whatever is written in the scripture, you are authorised to call it scripture. Seriously, do u still argue that too? I don't see why I can't call that verse you gave scripture. Is it not from scripture? Was it from enuma ellish?

Jesus quoted Moses statement as scripture in Matt 4:4. Was the verse Jesus alluded to Gods utterance?



Oga do research on that verse. As a bible student I shouldn't tell u everything. Do research and see the correlation.



My dear I agree intoto with that scripture, my worry is if you do understand my position: all the oral inspired tradition that were essential for you to be fully equipped were later penned down. Any other do not have equal authority with the scriptures.

For example: the after Paul spoke of tradition in that 2thess 2:15, in 2thess 3:6-9 he explained what some of these unwritten tradition involved.

Secondly, after stating a tradition he handed down in 1cor 11:2, he went further to state what such tradition involved. Read 1cor 11:23. Any other tradition said to have issued from the apostles should be weighed with the scriptures. And it doesn't have any authority equal to the scriptures as we could make out of Jesus statement I quoted above.

No no no, scripture has always differentiated it. One was God's law, the other was Moses's law. 2Ki 21:8: Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.
Here you can see what "I have commanded" and what " my servant Moses has commanded". God's laws are perfect, Moses laws aren't. Moses was a leader appointed by God, he lead according to inspiration and his human thoughts in good conscience.

However, that was just a little digression meant to show you written tradition that became obsolete, while some that weren't there in the old testament was acknowledged in the new.

Now why do I oppose your line of thought, which you summarized above.
There is no where in Scripture that supports your hypothesis that all other needed oral tradition were later written down. It is clear in Scripture that both the words and the letters are to guide the believer. 2Thess.2:15, 2Tim.2:2.

Scripture itself says all that Jesus did cannot be recorded. How can all the appostles did be recorded there, yet what the appostles and Jesus preached and did are all traditions. Even in 1Cor. we see a reference to an earlier letter, what were the contents? Is that lost letter a part of the written or not?


On your trying to find a relationship between Is.11:1 and Matt.2:23. You know why you didn't go into it, it's easy for me to accept a link between the two, because it matters not to me if it was written, lost, or Oral. It is you who believes only what you see that should have a problem with that. I will like to see you try linking the passage, let's see how strongly you believe in it and other linkages you'll accept.

Am sure that down the line of our discussion, I have already passed my message, seems to me we're going through the whole process again.

Syncan:

No no no, scripture has always differentiated it. One was God's law, the other was Moses's law. 2Ki 21:8: Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.
Here you can see what "I have commanded" and what " my servant Moses has commanded". God's laws are perfect, Moses laws aren't. Moses was a leader appointed by God, he lead according to inspiration and his human thoughts in good conscience.

However, that was just a little digression meant to show you written tradition that became obsolete, while some that weren't there in the old testament was acknowledged in the new.

Maybe that is where you misunderstood the whole thing. There is no difference. The Commandment God spoke of in 2kings 21:8 is still the law Moses commanded the people. They are not different. This will deserve a different thread if you want us to explore it.

however, in as much as the words are written in scriptures, are you still against the fact that it should be called scripture? This atleast should be clear.

I asked: "Jesus quoted Moses statement as scripture in Matt 4:4. Was the verse Jesus alluded to Gods utterance?"

Now why do I oppose your line of thought, which you summarized above.
There is no where in Scripture that supports your hypothesis that all other needed oral tradition were later written down. It is clear in Scripture that both the words and the letters are to guide the believer. 2Thess.2:15, 2Tim.2:2.

Scripture itself says all that Jesus did cannot be recorded. How can all the appostles did be recorded there, yet what the appostles and Jesus preached and did are all traditions. Even in 1Cor. we see a reference to an earlier letter, what were the contents? Is that lost letter a part of the written or not?

I have given a good reply to this. it is not mandatory you accept though.

My words:

My dear I agree intoto with that scripture, my worry is if you do understand my position: all the oral inspired tradition that were essential for you to be fully equipped were later penned down. Any other do not have equal authority with the scriptures.

For example: the after Paul spoke of tradition in that 2thess 2:15, in 2thess 3:6-9 he explained what some of these unwritten tradition involved.

Secondly, after stating a tradition he handed down in 1cor 11:2, he went further to state what such tradition involved. Read 1cor 11:23. Any other tradition said to have issued from the apostles should be weighed with the scriptures. And it doesn't have any authority equal to the scriptures as we could make out of Jesus statement I quoted above.

The new point i observed there is your stating that all that Jesus did was not penned down. I agree, but never had all about any person in the scriptures ever been FULLY detailed in the scriptures. But what had been written is so that we receive needed instructions to be fully equipped. Rom 15:4 shows that scripture is for our instruction, 2Tim 3:15 shows that what is in the scriptures will make us wise for salvation, while verses 16-17 shows that to reprove, teach, be fully equipped for every good work etc, the scripture is there for such. Those are the purpose we have the written record. such was not said of tradition. Timothy did not need tradition of the pharisees to be wise for salvation.

During Jesus time, the pharisees still claimed that there were many instructions given by Moses which were not penned down. These they teach and took as essential for salvation. But isnt it true that the scriptures do not contain ALL that Moses did? but does it now make those pharisaic traditions have authority as the written word? in fact, who would have championed that tradition stuff better, Jesus or the Pharisees? Yet we do not see Jesus endorsing those traditions. Rather, he vehemently condemned them as making Gods word invalid. Like I asked "do you imagine Jesus saying "you make the traditions invalid by the scriptures?" Isnt that statement alone an indication of which has the greater authority?

On your trying to find a relationship between Is.11:1 and Matt.2:23. You know why you didn't go into it, it's easy for me to accept a link between the two, because it matters not to me if it was written, lost, or Oral. It is you who believes only what you see that should have a problem with that. I will like to see you try linking the passage, let's see how strongly you believe in it and other linkages you'll accept.

Am sure that down the line of our discussion, I have already passed my message, seems to me we're going through the whole process again.

There is a link between the two, go and dig it up. Do research, dnt be slothful. And no where was it found in Jewish tradition. There is something you need to learn from this eg. Thank God you brought it up.

i still cant find the passage that says all the oral tradition were later written down.

has anyone here found it?

Ubenedictus:
i still cant find the passage that says all the oral tradition were later written down.

has anyone here found it?

I got tired of searching...maybe it is oral tradition of men by JMAN05

And forget not that God gave them 10 commandments and they expanded it a whole lot till they got 700+. Hence the quote from 2 kings.