[PetroniusMaximus]

***Jesus was not referring to the Gospels (there were none at the time); ***


Yes, I fully agree with that. Jesus wasn't refering to the Gospels as they were not yet written. (Or MAY not have yet been written - Matthew was a tax collector and able to write down what Jesus said. I believe Papias reported something like "Matthew wrote down all Jesus said and the others translated..."

What I am trying to show is that both Jesus and Paul looked to the body of scripture of their day as the final authority in any matter and looked with scepticism and sometimes hostility upon the sacred oral tradition (Talmud).

The point I draw from that is that we, in our day, should opperate by the same guiding principle that Paul and Jesus used: scripture, not tradition is the final authority.

***Judging from what you are saying, it is suggested that perhaps Jesus thought the Talmud to be corrupt. I was not aware that Jesus rejected the Talmud because it was a "tradition of men."***

Jesus did, in fact, consider the Talmud to be corrupted. When he is speaking of "tradition" he is referencing the Talmud and nothing else for the Talmud was the sacred oral tradition of the Jews.

This sacred oral tradition had become corrupt in the judgement of Jesus and he used the written Torah to judge it's level of corruption.

[findingtruth]

The point I draw from that is that we, in our day, should opperate by the same guiding principle that Paul and Jesus used: scripture, not tradition is the final authority.

Except, as I have pointed out and as you have not refuted, without tradition you would not know which books belong in scripture and which books didn't. Furthermore, you are incorrect about Jesus, Paul, and the other Apostles. They were preaching (in part) new tradition. Books were written later, based on the tradition they preached.