Posted on 02/22/2010 10:17:55 AM PST by Between the Lines
You wrote:
“Your are here discussing those that interpret scripture and tell you what it means right?”
Nope. I am here stating the fact that the Pharisees used tradition to interpret the law. I do not assume that that tradition was written, nor do I assume that all that was considered the law or its proper understanding was enscripturated.
“In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Right. “of men”. And that isn’t what I am talking about and neither was Jesus when He told the disciples to obey those who taught from Moses’ seat.
The traditions of the Jews were traditions of men...
You wrote:
“The traditions of the Jews were traditions of men...”
No. The traditions peculiar to the Pharisees were. That doesn’t mean all traditions among the Jews were traditions of men.
Ping to #103
But by that effort, one more FReeper will know that you deny the Trinity and condemn Sunday worship and the two most glorious feasts on the Christian calender: Christmas and Easter.
It provides me the opportunity as a Berean, Nowhere do I find Easter, Christmas, I find all of them as the teaching of another gospel to be rebuked. I praise YHvH for putting you on my path.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
to search the scriptures daily to see if what
is preached is in the Holy Word of G-d.
Sunday worship, nor the trinity in the Holy Word of G-d.
I'm so sorry to hear that you cannot find them.
Perhaps if you had a real Bible rather than a redacted 66-book Bible with 14th century substitute Gospel of Matthew you would find Christ.
The idea that you cannot find the Birth or Resurrection of Christ in the Bible is quite frightening...and bizarre.
I find all of them as the teaching of another gospel to be rebuked.
The Shem Tov Matthew is another gospel to be rebuked.
The idea that you cannot find the Birth or Resurrection of Christ in the Bible is quite frightening...and bizarre.
Praise YHvH for Baalim's donkey. The conflating and Jesuitical parsing is astonishing.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Your next step would be to knock it off.
The traditions of the Pharisees is continued today in the Roman "church"
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church (nor do you purport to be).
You are wholly correct. There is nothing in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed of 381 (which includes the “filioque”) contrary to the Holy Scriptures either of the Old or New Testament. What is more, there is nothing in the Athanasian Creed of the 6th century that is contrary to the Holy Scriptures either.
That is why they, together with the Apostles Creed, are still recognized as the Ecumenical Creeds. Do they represent a certain teaching authority? Yes, indeed they do. But their authority is neither over the Holy Scriptures nor beside the Holy Scriptures, but in light of the Holy Scriptures. In other words, theirs is a derived authority. They are simply the response of united believing hearts to the revelatory, divine truth of the Holy Scriptures, nothing more and certainly nothing less.
The question that continues to generate far more heat than light in the various threads on FR is what happened to Christendom after the time of these Ecumenical Creeds. What was it that caused the visible church’s confession of the faith once revealed to the saints to be muted, clouded, and divided? So many on both sides, “Catholic” (here used not in the sense of the creeds’ “catholic”, which means nothing more than universal, but in the sense of Roman Catholic) and Protestant, will have a pat, ready answer. But it is not so simple, as the debates leading up to and including the Reformation Era demonstrate to any honest examination.
But let us just say this, as has been alluded to already in this thread, the problem in no part lies with either God or His word, the Holy Scriptures. The problem lies entirely in the heart of man and his confidence in his own wisdom, whether of the past or present.
True but we were discussing the Pharisees ... which were traditions of men added to the book of the law .
You wrote:
“True but we were discussing the Pharisees ...”
No, we were not. We were discussing Moses’ seat - and when teaching from Moses’ seat the teachings of the Pharisees were to be listened to and obeyed acording to Christ.
“...which were traditions of men added to the book of the law .”
Apparently not according to Christ.
There was no literal thing called "Moses seat, it was an expression referring to ANY Pharisee that taught the law (OT) in the temple . It was called "Moses seat "because they sat down when they were teaching and the law which was written by Moses.
Moses seat referred to teaching THE SCRIPTURES
Which is it?
This: “True but we were discussing the Pharisees ... which were traditions of men added to the book of the law .”
Or this: “. It was called “Moses seat “because they sat down when they were teaching and the law which was written by Moses. (Paragraph) Moses seat referred to teaching THE SCRIPTURES
Tradition, or scriptures? You’ve said both.
An expression is not a tradition.
You wrote:
“There was no literal thing called “Moses seat,”
That’s your opinion. It’s irrelevant in any case. You keep repeating this point as if it means something.
“...it was an expression referring to ANY Pharisee that taught the law (OT) in the temple .”
I see no indication of that whatsoever in anything you have thus far posted. Why is that?
“It was called “Moses seat “because they sat down when they were teaching and the law which was written by Moses.”
Again, your opinion. And you are still not proving it even remotely.
“Moses seat referred to teaching THE SCRIPTURES”
Again, your opinion and not even remotely proven by you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.