Ubenedictus:
so there is no passage that imply dat d bible is d sole authority abi?

You argue like those who say:
"Show me one scripture where Jesus says I am God, worship me!"

Use something else!

Syncan:


Really

Are you saying that you understood, what Paul wrote in 1cor 4:6 as a contradiction and nullification of, what he wrote in 2 Thess 2:15?

No, if only you understand that by tradition he is not limiting it to things not written. Those not written and was essential for any xten were later committed to writing. 2tim 3:16,17.

Nothing was taught then that was not implied in the written text nor were they ever against the written word.

JMAN05:


No, if only you understand that by tradition he is not limiting it to things not written. Those not written and was essential for any xten were later committed to writing. 2tim 3:16,17.

Nothing was taught then that was not implied in the written text nor were they ever against the written word.

2Tim3:16,17

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

In the text you quoted, I see "All scripture...", I did not see "Only Scripture...". No one is arguing against the profitability of scripture, don't deviate us, but scripture has no where made itself the sole authority. Rather, scripture did recognize that there are written and unwritten inspired teachings. That is what scripture contain in 2Thess.2:15.

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle".

I don't know why "word and epistle" is so ambiguous a grammar to understand. It seems each time you read "tradition" in that sentence, you switch off, tradition there means all Christian teachings, his epistles and oral teachings (he stated this clearly). I cannot still find where scripture said every thing has been put down in writing, at the time of the apostles, show me if you know.

shadeyinka:


I gave 53 scriptures for your perusal of the forms of the use of gynaika. Its enough to eraze any bias

i actually told u that it could have been 226 instance of gynaika, the conclusion will still be the same:
1. It can mean woman, wife, or lady.
2. The translator are responsible for chosing one of the posible meaning.
3. A decision is made based on the context of the text.
4. The context doesnt suggest wife.
5. All translators before protestanism translated that particular passage as woman.
6. The first translators to use wife in that passage were protestants.


I do not have bais, the facts are clear, there are two possible translation and some translators chose the one neither supported by context or antiquity.

That is why the moment u brought that passage i was quick to tell u to be careful with it since is was pretty weak.

shadeyinka:


You argue like those who say:
"Show me one scripture where Jesus says I am God, worship me!"

Use something else!

I didnt ask u to show me word for word, at least show me where it is implied.
if a muslim as me to show him where jesu is God i can show him where it is implied, i can also show places where he was worshipped.

U believe that scripture is d sole authority, the least u can do is show where that is taught in scripture.

If it isnt taught anywhere kindly say so.

Syncan:


2Tim3:16,17

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

In the text you quoted, I see "All scripture...", I did not see "Only Scripture...". No one is arguing against the profitability of scripture, don't deviate us, but scripture has no where made itself the sole authority. Rather, scripture did recognize that there are written and unwritten inspired teachings. That is what scripture contain in 2Thess.2:15.

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle".

I don't know why "word and epistle" is so ambiguous a grammar to understand. It seems each time you read "tradition" in that sentence, you switch off, tradition there means all Christian teachings, his epistles and oral teachings (he stated this clearly). I cannot still find where scripture said every thing has been put down in writing, at the time of the apostles, show me if you know.

I still wonder why my statement is so ambiguous for you to understand. I repeat:

Those not written and was essential for any xten were later committed to writing. 2tim 3:16,17.

Nothing was taught then that was not implied in the written text nor were they ever against the written word.

This must be borne in mind as you consider whatever is claimed to be a true xten tradition.

JMAN05:


I still wonder why my statement is so ambiguous for you to understand. I repeat:
This must be borne in mind as you consider whatever is claimed to be a true xten tradition.

Your statement has no basis from the passage you quoted. They have no relationship. All Scripture is good for teaching never means everything" essential for the Christian" was later written down, as you claim.

Syncan:


Your statement has no basis from the passage you quoted. They have no relationship. All Scripture is good for teaching never means everything" essential for the Christian" was later written down, as you claim.

16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work

FULLY COMPETENT, COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.

If you think you need more than what is written to be completely equipped, OYO for you!

JMAN05:


16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work

FULLY COMPETENT, COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.

If you think you need more than what is written to be completely equipped, OYO for you!

Lol.

2Thess.2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle".

If you think only epistles hold all traditions, then you're on your own and against the epistles.

JMAN05:


16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work

FULLY COMPETENT, COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.

If you think you need more than what is written to be completely equipped, OYO for you!

Yes Scriptures is required for a man of God to be completely equipped but it didn't say it's the only requirement. You won't find any passage that says so. Unless of course you bend the word to suit your twisted doctrine. Bye bye

JMAN05:


16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work

FULLY COMPETENT, COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.

If you think you need more than what is written to be completely equipped, OYO for you!

the passage you quoted says "beneficial" also meaning profitable. but you are saying that the scripture is "sufficient" thats the problem.

lacum:

the passage you quoted says "beneficial" also meaning profitable. but you are saying that the scripture is "sufficient" thats the problem.

All that any true xten needs to be COMPLETELY EQUIPPED (not partially equipped) for every good work is in the scriptures. So are you implying that the scripture is insufficient for doctrine? Note that never did Paul state that tradition was beneficial for doctrine.

No tradition, even if it is to be accepted should share equal authority with the scripture. Never!

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"

The Pharisees believed that there were some things spoken by Moses that were not stated in the scripture, and that these were handed down thru time. This formed a strong part of there doctrine. This same belief has raised its urgly head in our time.

So, if any of such tradition affect the written word, it should be discarded as refuse. The scripture does not share equal authority with these traditions.

All the unwritten tradition that were essential for a xten were penned down in the scriptures.

Although the Pharisees had things they believed came down from Moses, Jesus never used such tradition as an authority when on earth. He rather stuck to the scriptures.

We therefore use the written word to weigh these traditions so as not to be misled. Col 2:8. Not that there are no beneficial traditions, but that none of them share equal authority with the scriptures.

It's quite unfortunate that many of our separated brethren who are commenting here have failed to see nor read the actual article which is about the Protestant reformers who upheld the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

They only end up with the same old arguments that have long been refuted.

Some talk about Sola Scriptura. THE Bible Alone.

What is the Bible?

A collection of books.

Who collected these books?

The Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is the Custodian of the Bible.

For 1500 years it was the Catholic Church alone and we kept the Bible intact until some people came and removed some books that did not suit their teaching.

Before Jesus and the Apostles, all we had was the Old Testament.

Come to think of it, all the books of the New Testament were not written at the same time. So if a verse in the Scriptures says its the Bible Alone which it NEVER did say, it actually means that many books of the Bible should not even be there at all.

The books of the New Testament were different letters written by different people at different times and eventually collated and put together as One Book "The Bible".

Some also are talking about the "Brothers of Jesus"

YES Read this article titled

The “Brothers” Of Jesus

http://www.francismary.org/the-brothers-of-jesus/

JMAN05:


All that any true xten needs to be COMPLETELY EQUIPPED (not partially equipped) for every good work is in the scriptures...........

Continue to dey twist words up and down. The Bible never said it's all or only thing any true Christian needs.

Geist:
Continue to dey twist words up and down. The Bible never said it's all or only thing any true Christian needs.

Just let him continue. It's like saying "All vitamins (about 13 of them) are good for the complete development and sound health of mind and body". Then someone starts arguing that "Only vitamin is good for the complete development and sound health of mind and body". Isn't that deceit, or ignorance? How can you Ignore carbohydrates, protein and co and still expect complete development, I tire. Bible say "Oral and written" 1Thess.2:15, somebody say na only written, Ok na.

JMAN05:


All that any true xten needs to be COMPLETELY EQUIPPED (not partially equipped) for every good work is in the scriptures

scriptures do not mean the bible...there are hundreds of scritures na..

When paul even wrote that letter...most of the new testament books had not been written then..so?

. So are you implying that the scripture is insufficient for doctrine? Note that never did Paul state that tradition was beneficial for doctrine.

he said so in 2 Thes 2:15

No tradition, even if it is to be accepted should share equal authority with the scripture. Never!

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"

The Pharisees believed that there were some things spoken by Moses that were not stated in the scripture, and that these were handed down thru time. This formed a strong part of there doctrine. This same belief has raised its urgly head in our time.

So, if any of such tradition affect the written word, it should be discarded as refuse. The scripture does not share equal authority with these traditions.

All the unwritten tradition that were essential for a xten were penned down in the scriptures.

Although the Pharisees had things they believed came down from Moses, Jesus never used such tradition as an authority when on earth. He rather stuck to the scriptures

@the bolded...you lie.

Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 23:3 All therefore
whatsoever they bid you observe, that to bserve and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not

Jesus is saying that the pharisees have a legitimate authority based on Moses seat ..this cannot be found in the old testament...but can be found in a jewish traditional book called the MISHNAH which teaches some sort of ''teaching succession'' from moses

We therefore use the written word to weigh these traditions so as not to be misled. Col 2:8. Not that there are no beneficial traditions, but that none of them share equal authority with the scriptures.

Matthew 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.

this prophecy cannot be found in the old testament..
But can be found in extra biblical tradition...[b]and this prophecy is an authority in christian theology...

John 7:38 jesus says,Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."

this statement made by jesus is not found in the old testament..but may be found in rabbinical tradition

---

there are a lot of other cases where biblical authors considered non-canonical scriptures and tradition to be authorities in christian beliefs.

Syncan:


Just let him continue. It's like someone saying "All vitamins (about 13 of them) are good for the complete development and sound health of mind and body". Then someone starts arguing that "Only vitamin is good for the complete development and sound health of mind and body". Isn't that deceit, or ignorance? How can you Ignore carbohydrates, protein and co and still expect complete development, I tire. Bible say "Oral and written" 1Thess.2:15, somebody say na only written, Ok na.

very true Sir

Geist:
Continue to dey twist words up and down. The Bible never said it's all or only thing any true Christian needs.

Am yet to see the basis for this post. Do you not comprehend my comment?

Syncan:


Just let him continue. It's like saying "All vitamins (about 13 of them) are good for the complete development and sound health of mind and body". Then someone starts arguing that "Only vitamin is good for the complete development and sound health of mind and body". Isn't that deceit, or ignorance? How can you Ignore carbohydrates, protein and co and still expect complete development, I tire. Bible say "Oral and written" 1Thess.2:15, somebody say na only written, Ok na.

Non-analogous! It didn't say "all psalms", but all scripture.

JMAN05:


Am yet to see the basis for this post. Do you not comprehend my comment?

Lol, the only thing surprising here is your questioning of my comprehension skills when clearly you've littered the whole thread with a lack of it. Your comment has no basis at all has it in no way explains how you came about the false doctrine (sola scriptures) you are preaching here.

JMAN05:


Non-analogous! It didn't say "all psalms", but all scripture.

Same thing, it didn't say "all oranges", it says "all vitamins".

MrMontella:

scriptures do not mean the bible...there are hundreds of scritures na..

When paul even wrote that letter...most of the new testament books had not been written then..so?

You miss the point. All scripture. Any inspired writing called scripture is beneficial...

he said so in 2 Thes 2:15

That tradition is beneficial for doctrine. Which translation is that?

I have stated that those traditions that were for the benefit of true xtens were committed to writing. I don't know why you guys keep quoting that 2Thess.

@the bolded...you lie.
Jesus is saying that the pharisees have a legitimate authority based on Moses seat ..this cannot be found in the old testament...but can be found in a jewish traditional book called the MISHNAH which teaches some sort of ''teaching succession'' from moses

Jesus was not quoting any authority, he just made a statement that the pharisees has seated themselves on moses seat.

Moses already has an authority as a leader approved by God.

this prophecy cannot be found in the old testament..
But can be found in extra biblical tradition...[b]and this prophecy is an authority in christian theology...

Not all quotations from the OT were verbatim. See Isaiah 11:1

this statement made by jesus is not found in the old testament..but may be found in rabbinical tradition

---

there are a lot of other cases where biblical authors considered non-canonical scriptures and tradition to be authorities in christian beliefs.

Jesus was never quoting any such rabbinical tradition to which he vehemently opposed. Are you new to the bible?

Why will he say "it is written" when non of such rabbinical traditions were written then? Don't bring in valueless points to extend this thread needlessly. Jesus never quoted this traditions as an authority to support his teachings.

Geist:
Lol, the only thing surprising here is your questioning of my comprehension skills when clearly you've littered the whole thread with a lack of it. Your comment has no basis at all has it in no way explains how you came about the false doctrine (sola scriptures) you are preaching here.

Off point!

Syncan:


Same thing, it didn't say "all oranges", it says "all vitamins".

Nope. The six classes of food should be a better analogy. You keep missing the point. God cannot give you half or quarter and say it will make for a complete development of mind and body. In as much as God has added the latter phrase, what is stated should be all encompassing.

JMAN05:


Nope. The six classes of food should be a better analogy. You keep missing the point. God cannot give you half or quarter and say it will make for a complete development of mind and body. In as much as God has added the latter phrase, what is stated should be all encompassing.

Don't lie against God o, He said "Oral and written", it is you that chose only written. I have used the case of vitamin effectively. There is nothing wrong in saying All vitamin is necessary for complete development, same with what God said about all Scripture (written tradition). However it is wrong to say only vitamin is necessary...,, same way it is unscriptural to say only scripture is necessary....

Syncan:


Don't lie against God o, He said "Oral and written", it is you that chose only written. I have used the case of vitamin effectively. There is nothing wrong in saying All vitamin is necessary for complete development, same with what God said about all Scripture (written tradition). However it is wrong to say only vitamin is necessary...,, same way it is unscriptural to say only scripture is necessary....

All oral that was beneficial for true xtens were later committed to writing. When I say all scripture, this includes what Paul had earlier stated to be oral. That has been the problem of ur comment.

At 2Thes 3:1-11 we see that the issue of working and industriousness was the tradition Paul transmitted by word.

JMAN05:


All oral that was beneficial for true xtens were later committed to writing. When I say all scripture, this includes what Paul had earlier stated to be oral. That has been the problem of ur comment.

At 2Thes 3:1-11 we see that the issue of working and industriousness was the tradition Paul transmitted by word.

It is not a virtue to insist on making false claims against scripture such as in bold above. Scripture NEVER stated that. Rather scripture acknowledged the existence of both "oral and written" teachings as i have earlier shown you. I am glad you have given an example of what St. Paul transmitted Orally, however It's much more than just that, for paul himself had told Timothy in 2Tim2:2 "And the things that you have heard me say among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be qualified to teach others as well." Did you read that? The things Timothy had heard Paul say! It didn't say "the things I have written", it said "the things you have heard me say". Consider that this is second Timothy, even as the letter was ending, he was still admonishing him to teach what had been transferred to him orally, so when exactly was these oral teachings now written down for Timothy and co. My comment has no problem, it is deeply rooted in scripture. It's your opinion, which you try to portray in contrast to scripture, that is the problem.

Syncan:


It is not a virtue to insist on making false claims against scripture such as in bold above. Scripture NEVER stated that. Rather scripture acknowledged the existence of both "oral and written" teachings as i have earlier shown you. I am glad you have given an example of what St. Paul transmitted Orally, however It's much more than just that, for paul himself had told Timothy in 2Tim2:2 "And the things that you have heard me say among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be qualified to teach others as well." Did you read that? The things Timothy had heard Paul say! It didn't say "the things I have written", it said "the things you have heard me say". Consider that this is second Timothy, even as the letter was ending, he was still admonishing him to teach what had been transferred to him orally, so when exactly was these oral teachings now written down for Timothy and co. My comment has no problem, it is deeply rooted in scripture. It's your opinion, which you try to portray in contrast to scripture, that is the problem.

What taught, that Timothy heard was never contrary to what is written. In fact, Paul quoted extensively from from the written word, not from oral tradition, although there were oral tradition available in his day. This is what Timothy heard.

Down to 2rim3:16-17 he was made to appreciate that to be a complete man of God, to be completely equipped for every good work, the scripture is meant for that. Not just that, Paul stated that such holy writings would make him wise for salvation.

2Tim 3:14: "and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
I wonder what else the young man yearns for!

But since the coming of Christ, there were some changes that warranted penning more guidelines and directions for the faithful. Any such addition that were necessary for being equipped according to Gods will would be penned as being part of the scriptures by men whom God chose. So the writings in the scriptures were guided by God so that we would have all we need.

My brother tradition is not meant to carry the same weight as the scripture. If it were so, Christ knew all the oral instructions and actions of Moses more than the pharisees. He would have used it as an authority and even tell us most of them that the Pharisees didn't know. But rather we see him rely on the written word for authority. The same is true for the "NT".

All the oral words that were necessary, got penned down. Not that some of them might not be good, but they shouldn't have the same authority as the scriptures. You even scrutinize them with the scriptures.

JMAN05:


What taught, that Timothy heard was never contrary to what is written. In fact, Paul quoted extensively from from the written word, not from oral tradition, although there were oral tradition available in his day. This is what Timothy heard.

Down to 2rim3:16-17 he was made to appreciate that to be a complete man of God, to be completely equipped for every good work, the scripture is meant for that. Not just that, Paul stated that such holy writings would make him wise for salvation.

2Tim 3:14: "and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
I wonder what else the young man yearns for!

But since the coming of Christ, there were some changes that warranted penning more guidelines and directions for the faithful. Any such addition that were necessary for being equipped according to Gods will would be penned as being part of the scriptures by men whom God chose. So the writings in the scriptures were guided by God so that we would have all we need.

My brother tradition is not meant to carry the same weight as the scripture. If it were so, Christ knew all the oral instructions and actions of Moses more than the pharisees. He would have used it as an authority and even tell us most of them that the Pharisees didn't know. But rather we see him rely on the written word for authority. The same is true for the "NT".

All the oral words that were necessary, got penned down. Not that some of them might not be good, but they shouldn't have the same authority as the scriptures. You even scrutinize them with the scriptures.

The more you try to defend this opinion of yours, the more you go wrong. You are making an attempt to restrict all that Paul taught Timothy to the old testament writings, isn't that reaching too far? This is Paul that said himself that what he taught was given to him through Inspiration and not learning,“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1:11–12.) He cannot be talking of the old testament, for he was learned in that under Gamaliel.

You claim that Paul quoted from the written word and not from oral tradition, could you kindly tell me in which of the written traditions Paul got the names "Jannes and Jambres" he quoted in 2Tim3:8. Did you ever read in the old testament that a rock followed the Israelites in their journey as quoted by Paul in 1Cor.10:4, yet this was a common knowledge in Judaism. You try to say that Jesus didn't use the Oral traditions, yet MrMontella showed you an example in Matt.23:2 and you simply said he wasn't making any reference, who told you that? Oral and written traditions are what the scripture says we should hold on to 2Thess.2:15, they both are needed for the complete development of the Christian. If you decide that one is ok for you, you're OYO.

Syncan:



The more you try to defend this opinion of yours, the more you go wrong. You are making an attempt to restrict all that Paul taught Timothy to the old testament writings, isn't that reaching too far? This is Paul that said himself that what he taught was given to him through Inspiration and not learning,“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1:11–12.) He cannot be talking of the old testament, for he was learned in that under Gamaliel.

We are not discussing inspiration here. My point has always been that tradition does not have equal authority with the scriptures. Scripture is a product of inspiration. I don't see how this relates to my comment above.

2tim 3:15-17 is stating that the scripture is what a man of God need to be wise for salvation, equipt for every good work etc. This is never said of tradition. Or was it?

You claim that Paul quoted from the written word and not from oral tradition, could you kindly tell me in which of the written traditions Paul got the names "Jannes and Jambres" he quoted in 2Tim3:8. Did you ever read in the old testament that a rock followed the Israelites in their journey as quoted by Paul in 1Cor.10:4, yet this was a common knowledge in Judaism. You try to say that Jesus didn't use the Oral traditions, yet MrMontella showed you an example in Matt.23:2 and you simply said he wasn't making any reference, who told you that? Oral and written traditions are what the scripture says we should hold on to 2Thess.2:15, they both are needed for the complete development of the Christian. If you decide that one is ok for you, you're OYO.

My statement means that Paul quoted extensively from the written word. But not extensively from the written word. I think you misunderstood that.

However, I see reason to believe that he may have alluded to tradition in few cases eg Jannes and Jambres case. I have not said that there were no good tradition. There are, but these do not have equal authority with the scriptures. The written word is rather the guage you use to weigh those traditions.

As for 1cor 10:4, although we found similarity in Jewish tradition, it can't be said that a literal huge rock followed them during the wilderness trek. Nope! Paul was apparently referring to there having obtained water from a rock shortly after leaving egypt and obtaining another towards the close of there trek .

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:


We are not discussing inspiration here. My point has always been that tradition does not have equal authority with the scriptures. Scripture is a product of inspiration. I don't see how this relates to my comment above.

2tim 3:15-17 is stating that the scripture is what a man of God need to be wise for salvation, equipt for every good work etc. This is never said of tradition. Or was it?



My statement means that Paul quoted extensively from the written word. But not extensively from the written word. I think you misunderstood that.

However, I see reason to believe that he may have alluded to tradition in few cases eg Jannes and Jambres case. I have not said that there were no good tradition. There are, but these do not have equal authority with the scriptures. The written word is rather the guage you use to weigh those traditions.

As for 1cor 10:4, although we found similarity in Jewish tradition, it can't be said that a literal huge rock followed them during the wilderness trek. Nope! Paul was apparently referring to there having obtained water from a rock shortly after leaving egypt and obtaining another towards the close of there trek .

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?

It does not help anyone when you simply use so much words while you keep circumventing the point. You have just gone ahead to debate with yourself on difference between scripture and traditions.I don't know if you wrote the above out of mischief or ignorance, So I want to ask you just a simple question thus:

The law of Moses on divorce as seen in Deuteronomy 24:1, which the Jews reminded Jesus about in Matthew 19:7, is it tradition or scripture?

Syncan:


It does not help anyone when you simply use so much words while you keep circumventing the point. You have just gone ahead to debate with yourself on difference between scripture and traditions.I don't know if you wrote the above out of mischief or ignorance, So I want to ask you just a simple question thus:

The law of Moses on divorce as seen in Deuteronomy 24:1, which the Jews reminded Jesus about in Matthew 19:7, is it tradition or scripture?

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.