Skip to comments.Does Jewish Oral Tradition Equal Roman Catholic Oral Tradition? (Also, Are They Similar In Nature?
Posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:01 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A.) Is there an existential difference between that Jewish Oral Tradition handed down over the centuries (or even millenia from the time of Moses until that Oral Tradition was codified) and Roman Catholic Oral Tradition passed on from Bishop to Bishop until it was later codified?
B.) If an Oral Tradition is carried from person to person over a period of time (from say 33 A.D. until 90's A.D. - around the time of John's death) and that New Testament Oral Tradition was being codified during that time period, is that codification different or greater in authority (given that it could have been subject to the Apostle John's acceptance or rejection) than Oral Tradition that is/was codified over a much larger expanse of time - say from after John's death up until the Counter Reformation?
How do we know that that Oral Tradition which emerged after John's death has any veracity or authority at all? If we say "We know that it is truthful and authoritative because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop and because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop we know that it is true," isn't that circualr reasoning?
If so, doesn't that hold true for Jewish Oral Tradition that is outside of the canon (Torah) or the canon (Genesis to Malachi) - whichever one of the two one accepts as being authoritative?
How do we know that the Oral Interpretation of the codified letter (the book of Jeremiah or Genesis for example) that may have been given much later - say hundreds of years later - carries any veracity or authority at all? Did those Jewsish authorities who interpreted those written scriptures and later codified their interpretation(s) (or had their interpretation(s) codified by others "down the road a bit") have some authority that was almost Ex Cathedra in scope or nature?
As a digression, when one speaks Ex Cathedra, do they lose Free Will? Does God take over so that that Pope cannot commit error? If so, is that equal to what the Apostle Paul said in the New Testament: "All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine..."
In the end, if any Oarl Tradition is equal in veracity and authority (be it Jewish or Roman Catholic) why not - for example - place that codification in a canon and include it right alongside say Genesis to Tobit and Baruch to Revelation?
The same for Jewish Oral Tradition?
“A.) Is there an existential difference between that Jewish Oral Tradition handed down over the centuries (or even millenia from the time of Moses until that Oral Tradition was codified) and Roman Catholic Oral Tradition passed on from Bishop to Bishop until it was later codified?”
I did not know there was a Roman Catholic oral tradition. Which Bishop did it start with and when?
The Torah has two parts: The “Torah Shebichtav” (Written Law), which is composed of the twenty-four books of the Tanach, and the “Torah Sheba’al Peh” (Oral Law).
God told Moses1 that he will give him “the Torah and the commandments.” Why did God add the word “commandments?” Are there any commandments which are not included in the Torah? This verse (amongst others) is a clear inference to the existence of the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah was transmitted from father to son and from teacher to disciple
Originally the Oral Law was not transcribed. Instead it was transmitted from father to son and from teacher to disciple (thus the name “Oral” Law). Approximately 1800 years ago, Rabbi Judah the Prince concluded that because of all the travails of Exile, the Oral Law would be forgotten if it would not be recorded on paper. He, therefore, assembled the scholars of his generation and compiled the Mishnah, a (shorthanded) collection of all the oral teachings that preceded him. Since then, the Oral Law has ceased to be “oral” and as time passed more and more of the previously oral tradition was recorded.
The Oral Law consists of three components:
1. Laws Given to Moses at Sinai (Halachah L’Moshe M’Sinai):
When Moses went up to heaven to receive the Torah, God gave him the Written Torah together with many instructions. These instructions are called “Halachah L’Moshe M’Sinai” (the Law that was given to Moses on Sinai). Maimonides writes that it is impossible for there to be an argument or disagreement concerning a Halachah L’Moshe M’Sinai, for the Jews who heard the instructions from Moses implemented them into their daily lives and passed it on to their children, who passed it on to their children, etc.
“How do we know that that Oral Tradition which emerged after John’s death has any veracity or authority at all? If we say “We know that it is truthful and authoritative because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop and because it was passed from Bishop to Bishop we know that it is true,” isn’t that circualr reasoning?”
Indeed, that would seem to be the case to me. Of course, Catholics may say that the Holy Spirit guides their magisterium, much like the Holy Spirit guided the apostles. However, I don’t think that is such an easy matter to establish.
“If so, doesn’t that hold true for Jewish Oral Tradition that is outside of the canon (Torah) or the canon (Genesis to Malachi) - whichever one of the two one accepts as being authoritative?”
Similar to the apostles being around to vouchsafe the New Testament, the Jews had prophets who could attest to the verity of their scriptures. At some point, the prophets departed from Israel, so I think at that point, any of their additional traditions become unreliable.
They’re similar in nature, definitely. In terms of codifying Jewish scripture, for one thing, it was already codified in Jewish law and doesn’t need a new revision.
However, the rabbinical tradition did allow for adaptation as long as it did not violate the foundations. Christianity comes out of a mixture of the rabbinical and hieratical traditions. That is, Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but Catholics do, so no matter how great are the similarities between Jews and Catholics, the starting point is important.
Because Catholics believe that all doctrine is based on the foundational doctrine under their feet and expressed through layers of interpretation and reinterpretation, I’d say they’re quite similar but simply starting from a different point.
Perhaps the “commandments” were something else? Could one be engaging in mere or rampant extrapolation to say that “Tis verse is a clear inference to the existence of the oral Torah.” And you yourself say that it is inferred. It could mean something else.
Was the Oral Torah passed from father to son and teacher to disciple without any possibility of human error? Was this transmission absolutely perfect in every way, form and fashion, so that no possibility of error exists today?
Why not write it down then and there (at least part of it in Moses’ time) so as to eliminate this possibility of error?
Yah'shua rebuked the Pharisees when they impugned His Written Word with their Oral Tradition.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The Jews had prophets who could vouchsafe...
But what after the time of the Jewish Prophets had passed - from a Jewish POV?
Did any interpretation of the scriptures from anyone other than one of the Jewish Prophets carry equal veracity to that of the Jewish Prophets?
How could any Jew today (or even from Malachi until now) have any authority that could match a Jewish Prophet?
This thread sounds like an invitation to a Jewish vs. Catholic vs. Protestant food fight. I’m going to stay out of it.
“B.) If an Oral Tradition is carried from person to person over a period of time (from say 33 A.D. until 90’s A.D. - around the time of John’s death) and that New Testament Oral Tradition was being codified during that time period, is that codification different or greater in authority (given that it could have been subject to the Apostle John’s acceptance or rejection) than Oral Tradition that is/was codified over a much larger expanse of time - say from after John’s death up until the Counter Reformation?”
The Oral Torah was given to Moshe Rabbienu (Moses) at Mount Sinai 3,000 years ago along with the Written Torah. It was written down about 200 years after the Christian’s rabbi did his thing. Keep in mind that the Christian’s rabbi followed both the written and oral as well as the spirit of those words. And he encouraged his fellow Jews to do the same. He never said a negative thing about either the written or the oral, but he did have some choice words for the religious and political leadership who weren’t very consistent in their walk because of the influence of Hellenism at that time and also the fact that the Hasmoneans (from which the whole Maccabean revolt started against the Selucids some 167 years previous) were from the tribe of Levi and claimed the throne of Judah. Why they did this no one knows for sure.
About 100 years before the Christian’s rabbi came on the scene, Romans and other non-Jews started becoming very interested in the Torah. This suddenly increased after the death of JC to the point that questions were being raised by the rabbi’s students about whether non-Jews should follow Torah, should Jews eat non-kosher food, etc.
This was the start of the B’nai Noach (Children of Noah) movement.
The number of non-Jewish followers of the Torah exploded to the point where they started forming their own B’nai Noach congregations locally as well as in other parts of the Middle East. There were questions by these congregations about how they should follow the Torah. I don’t think JC’s students were ready for this but they did their best to answer their questions in replies by letter back (aka The Epistles).
I’m sure JC’s students used what they knew of the written as well as the Oral Torah to help these non-Jewish, God-fearing congregations in their walk. How much of it was transmitted to the Bishops, after Rome did a corporate takeover of the B’nai Noach congregations (under Constantin in 312) and converted them to churches of the Catholic Church, I don’t know.
No, no!! Don't do that. Praise the Lord and and pass the mudpies.
It should be pretty easy. The Apostles were directly led by the Holy Spirit and it not only showed in their lives but also it manifested itself in their acts of healing (lame could walk and blind could see). So any claims they have of direct succession would be readily apparent.
I’m Noachide, but the old Episcopal cannon had a concept called REST; Reason, Experience, Scripture, Tradition. It never drew any complaints from me.
Keep in mind there are various classes of mitzvot (aka commandments) of the 613 listed here.
All 613 are listed here.
One of these are the “Chukkim” (aka statutes) which are given and have no reason as far as we can tell.
Let’s look at Deuteronomy 12:21
“If the place that the LORD your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your towns whenever you desire.”
There is no information given in the Written Torah as to the proper procedure for slaughtering kosher animals or even why it is supposed to be done.
If you study Oral Torah you’ll find out how to do the the slaughtering properly and correctly. It’s very detailed and requires quite a bit of training to be able to do it right.
Oral Torah also tells us how the words were spaced in the Written Torah as well as the cantillation and the vowelization of the words.
After our prophets, the (yes, the infamous, G-d forbid) Rabbis of each generation used a Torah-derived formula of exegesis. This is the Jewish point of view on “authorized” interpretation. The authentic tradition (that embodied by the Pharisees) was supported by the (again, Torah-mandated) majority opinion of the scholars. So “...That’s just from the Rabbis!!!” is actual 100% authentic Judaism.
No one today has the authority of a prophet of old, until Moshiach.
Uriel-— this is the crux of the J for J paradox, isn’t it? A Jew is for the Pharisees, not for Jesus.... They, according to the Judaism ‘messianics’ shun, were right, and so is the prevailing Orthodox rabbinical opinion today. A Jew couldn’t light a fire in his dwelling on the Sabbath then, and one can’t flick a light switch on Shabbos today. So a religion (or a single man) claiming that they are wrong has no basis in Judaism.
Laissez-— you may find it interesting (and perplexing, even maddening to gentile and many, many Jew) that we have arguments in the Oral Law. Rabbi X says so and so, Rabbi Y disagrees....and we follow the majority. There are certain Mishnas where there is no disagreement. These are considered to be word for word, exactly as Moses taught us. We read a portion of this Mishna every day before morning prayer— as the prayer of our lips stands in the place of the sacrifices that took place in the Temple.
It’s not that the Oral Torah was inferred from the Written but that the evidence of the Oral Torah can inferred by what is and isn’t written in the Written Torah. Moshe had questions that right when he questions, the 70 Elders who followed him had questions, and the rest of B’nai Yisael had their questions, too.
Moshe would go to God and He would explain it. Then he tell the 70, then the 70 would tell all of the men from the various tribes, then those men would tell it to their sons, so on and so forth.
“How could any Jew today (or even from Malachi until now) have any authority that could match a Jewish Prophet?”
Speaking for myself, I don’t think they can. I’m not sure what the Jewish opinion on the matter is. It seems to me they resolve disputes now by kind of theological debate between the rabbinical authorities until they come to a consensus. So, that may be their replacement system, not having an absolute authority to appeal to anymore.
One doesn’t replace the other:
Your post’s logic would deny the Church as the pillar and foundation of all truth against which the gates of hell will not prevail.
Misunderstandings about the Canon must be answered before these questions can be. At the time of Christ, there was no single canon. There was the Law, held by all Jews, including Sadducees and (laxly) Samaritans as divinely inspired. There were the Prophets, held by Pharisees as the Word of God, but not by Sadducees. There were the Writings, held as inspirational, but not in the same standard as the Prophets. (By this tripartate division, David and Solomon were considered Prophets, so Samuel and Psalms were considered among the books of the Prophets.)
Certain of the Writings were published along with the Prophets and the Law in the Septuagint. Unlike the Palestinian Jews, the Dispersed Jews became Christians in large numbers. Thus, the Septuagint became a canon unto itself, simply because it was published as a book.
It’s not that Catholics “added” books to the Canon; it’s that Catholics never infallibly defined a canon until the Council of Trent. The modern debate about the canon revolves around what may be used to establish doctrine. Absent the doctrine of Sola Scriptura among Catholics, there was no need to define such a canon.
“The Bible” simply consisted of those books used during mass, which in turn. Several Church Fathers routinely referred to what Protestants call “apocrypha” as scripture, including to settle doctrinal disagreements among Christians. Others warned that the Jews did not regard the “apocrypha” as scripture, so it made little sense to cite the “apocrypha” as defense of Christian doctrine to Jews. Still others used “apocrypha” to describe certain books which Catholics reject as non-biblical.
Thus, there was no distinction between “oral tradition” and “scripture.” What was “scripture” was what was accepted by tradition as doctrinally correct. Thus, many books were rejected as doctrinally unsound (The “Gnostic” Gospel of Thomas, etc.), outside of the apostolic tradition (the Shepherd of Hermes), spiritually beneficial but doctrinally unnecessary (The Didache), or containing far too many local variants (most Acts of the individual Apostles).
This notion can still discerned within the ambiguities of the Council of Trent: The canon is defined as those which contain unique doctrine which must be defended. “Greek Esdras” is left in a limbo: unnecessary, since it contains virtually nothing unique, but not condemned. Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees, commonly read at mass by the Orthodox, but lacking among Western masses, go unmentioned.
As local Traditions diverged, Scripture emerged as a test of what comprised authentic Tradition: nothing contrary to Scripture could be regarded as authentic. But this is a practice for discerning Tradition, not for subjugating Tradition as an invalid authority. Thus, we come to the authority of the Pope: where a doctrine has gone without contradiction from among the authoritative orthodox (small “o”) who have properly considered the notion, the Pope can discern that a doctrine has been Tradition, and can thus declare that the doctrine is infallible; he cannot decide that his own opinions are infallible. Nor can a Catholic in good faith contradict a doctrine of the Church simply because no pope or council has ever ruled on it.
Thus, it’s not a matter of a Pope lacking the free will to affirm a false doctrine; it’s a matter of him lacking the authority to do so. As a matter of being author of History, not as a matter of denying free will, God has affirmed that the Pope cannot with proper authority infallibly declare what is false (”Whatever you declare bound on Earth is bound in Heaven.”).
In a sense, then, the issue of whether a tradition carries authority, the answer is that it is a matter for the Church to decide as a whole (as in an ecumenical council that is approved by the Pope), or for the Pope to discern has been decided.
“Your posts logic would deny the Church as the pillar and foundation of all truth against which the gates of hell will not prevail.”
Yes, it would. God is the foundation and pillar of all truth, not the church.
Yes, I’ve often thought the same thing, that the gifts that come along with prophecy should be manifest, if someone is receiving revelation from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, anyone can claim they “felt” the Holy Spirit guiding them to a conclusion, and it would be impossible to distinguish from a subjective and fallible human thought or feeling.
It’s true the NT says different believers will receive different gifts, but the apostles possessed all the gifts, so those trying to claim the mantle of the apostles have a high bar to pass.
a joy given to us by HaShem ? or A burden placed on us by men ?
Is Shabbat shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
a joy given to us by HaShem ?
A burden placed on us by men ?
Well, if you can get that from this:
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
then Holy Scripture is pretty useless in debate with you.
Jewish and Christian oral traditions are totally invalid and unreliable.
The oral traditions of any other religious group is questionable.
However the oral traditions of secular humanist and/or anti-Christian/Jewish are 200% valid and reliable and irrefutable.
(my sarcastic comment for this thread
When Moses went up to heaven to receive the Torah, God gave him the Written Torah together with many instructions. These instructions are called Halachah LMoshe MSinai (the Law that was given to Moses on Sinai). Maimonides writes that it is impossible for there to be an argument or disagreement concerning a Halachah LMoshe MSinai, for the Jews who heard the instructions from Moses implemented them into their daily lives and passed it on to their children, who passed it on to their children, etc.
Deuteronomy 4 tells us that Moses told the people of Israel to hear the statutes and decrees that he was teaching them to observe, and he concluded:
“However, take care and be earnestly on your guard
not to forget the things which your own eyes have seen,
nor let them slip from your memory as long as you live,
but teach them to your children and to your childrens children.
I can imagine that when the people took possession of the land that the Lord gave them, they were very careful to observe the statutes and decrees that God commanded to Moses, that they committed them to memory, that they had their children and their children’s children commit them to memory, and that their children and their children’s children did the same until they were codified into the Torah.
Acts 2 tells us that the first Christians devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, and every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes.
I can equally imagine that these Jewish Christians likewise were very careful to observe the teachings that Jesus commanded to the apostles, that they committed them to memory, , that they had their children and their children’s children commit them to memory, and that their children and their children’s children did the same until they were codified into the New Testament and the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
And it wasn’t just a few who took the time to memorize and study it. It was pretty much everyone.
I have no argument with Scripture, only your interpretation, as it is not sensible. The church cannot be the foundation of all truth, or truth couldn’t have existed until Christ founded the church. Therefore, the only sensible object in the phrase that the description can be applied to is God, since He and He alone preexisted the concept of “truth”.
“I can imagine that when the people took possession of the land that the Lord gave them, they were very careful to observe the statutes and decrees that God commanded to Moses, that they committed them to memory, that they had their children and their childrens children commit them to memory, and that their children and their childrens children did the same until they were codified into the Torah.”
You might imagine that, but I read a different story in the Old Testament, where the Israelites were constantly backsliding, and at least once, seem to have wholly abandoned the law. At that point, when King Josiah rediscovered a copy of the Torah in the Ark of the Covenant (2 Kings 22-23) he read it and rent his clothes in grief over how the people had sinned against God. Then he assembled all the people in the Temple and made them reaffirm the covenant they had forsaken.
So, I doubt if the oral tradition was faithfully kept, when the Bible attests that even the written tradition was forgotten.
The answer is yes, as one is mimicry of the other.
So the authentic Christian tradition must be with the Church, complete with Trinity, Mariology, non-Biblical holidays, etc.
The alternative is that the Jewish tradition remains authentic.
OK, there’s another alternative: The Holy Spirit (AKA the voice in one’s head) vouchsafes private interpretation.
Christ/God IS Truth. There is a difference.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth - as Holy Scripture says. You can’t get a ‘whom’ from a ‘which’ in your interpretation. And, that’s just for starters.
To assume "the church" is the one which has it's headquarters singularly in Rome --- is to assume wa-aay too much which is not established in scripture, or WAS the identification just what "the church" was, and was composed of, in the very earliest understandings and tradition of "the church", either.
“Christ/God IS Truth. There is a difference.”
So, Christ is truth, and the church, according to you, is the foundation of truth, therefore the church is the foundation of Christ. Instead, the Bible says Christ is the chief cornerstone of the church. Your alternate blueprint would be quite unfeasible.
You err in what the Church is, to begin with. It is the body of Christ. Christ is the head.
Now review your theology with this in mind.
There is both an invisible Church and a visible Church. The visible Church is whom St. Paul addressed his epistles to.
If you think the visible Church is something else than the Catholic Church.. Well I’m not going to follow you there. It surely isn’t the Baptist Church of Dallas.
And you still have the problem of Holy Scripture not agreeing with your interpretation:
“thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
No one I know of ever tried making the claim that the "visible" church was singularly (and only?) a Baptist church in Dallas. If they did, I'd have a bone to pick with them over that.
So--- take the strawman arguments like that -- and shove them.
Your own church doesn't (from more official levels) cut off all others as much as Romanists often resort to doing [rhetorically] here on the pages of FreeRepublic.
Meanwhile...all the evidence is stacked up against the claim that the church of Rome (and any affiliate in it's thrall) is the "one true church". That is just so much Romanist fantasy which God would possibly laugh at, if the implications of that sort of thinking were not so grievous (AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN IT TO BE).
Without the Reformation --- the RCC would have been entirely lost. It is only to the extent which it has conformed itself to the intended return of the original charter of Christ's own Church that the ecclesiastical bodies which comprise the RCC today can even call itself a part of that church.
But "they" don't do that, now do they? They do not declare themselves to be "a part of" what the Lord intended as to how church should function -- but instead, at their very most generous moments towards all others, like to refer to themselves/itself as being the center of everything (Christian), the end all to beat all... go the various claims.
Given it's decidedly mixed...and upon occasion MOST FOUL self-history...if that was God's own best intents towards mankind, then God could be fairly enough seen as capricious & duplicitous.
I thank God He has drawn me towards Himself using channels other than those defined and claimed by the church of Rome, as singularly, exclusively their own, but instead or more as Himself making good upon what is promised in the scriptures, concerning how He may be known.
God is good in that way. Good enough for me.
If I had never learned a thing about Roman Catholicism, or had to contend with it's various adherents (who do not all agree with one another on all that is said must be agreed to, etc.,) my own relationship with Him would be much simpler. Easier, even. But for the sins of man...I must suffer also. It's the nature of the beast of this world we all live in...
It could be worse, I suppose. I could have been born at another time and place(?) or be made to suffer needlessly at the hands of those who claim authority for themselves in His name, rather than just be irritated with the ceaseless blathering on of Romanist fantasies (which can vary dependent upon which Romanist is doing the asserting --about what)
I appreciate the effort for verbiage.
But if the visible Church is not the Baptist Church of Dallas, who are you proposing?
What part of "part of" do you not understand in this context?
If those of the church of Rome would but read Paul's Epistle to the Romans and understand it -- then compare that to a few [ahem] doctrinal developments which have arisen since that writing --- they would be shocked into shutting their pie-holes (out of which flows all sorts of distortion and wickedness engaged in, in the name of God) and repent. After which they would need further challenge or reform their own church from within (ha! good luck with that) or need leave and join an Orthodox, a Lutheran, or possibly Orthodox Presbyterian, even some humble and lowly "Baptist" or Methodist, or Pentecostal congregation.
BUT --- Romanists obviously do not understand the Epistles to the Romans.
Try Chapter 7
No doubt a lot of memorization was going on in following generations. However, we do have affirmations of the following which shows us what God said was Written:
Exodus 31:18 KJV
And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.(KJV)
And once again under Joshua:
Joshua 24:25-26 KJV
So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.(KJV)
Joshua 8:31-32 KJV
As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord , and sacrificed peace offerings. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.(KJV)
Deuteronomy 31:9 KJV
And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord , and unto all the elders of Israel.(KJV)
And for Christians? Jesus Christ left no doubt. He did not say “it is said” or “tradition says” but “it is written.”
Matthew 4:4, 7, 10 KJV
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Jesus said unto him,
It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Are you referring to Exodus 24:12, where:
Yahweh said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain, and stay here, and I will give you the tables of stone with the law and the commands that I have written, that you may teach them."
Unless you are speaking of a different passage, I don't see where God was speaking of an Oral Torah/Law. Moses later explained to the people about what God gave to him:
"So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. "The LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4:13,14)
Again, I see no mention of an Oral Torah that Moses commanded be followed that was not also codified BY Moses.
a joy given to us by HaShem ?
A burden placed on us by men ?
The Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around (man made for the sabbath).
I don't think that for yourself (either of you whom I have addressed) I need cite where in the NT that was expressed, or who said it. ;^')
Very true! We see Jesus confronting the Jewish religious leaders of His day who nullified the word of God by their oral traditions. (Mark 7:13) The sacred Scriptures remain the only objective and reliable authority for the rule of faith we have because we can separate the traditions of men from what God revealed as the truth for the faith.
That would depend on what is meant by "foundation", wouldn't it? The church was to uphold, support and buttress the truth, it didn't invent what was the truth. The first Christians were given the truth from Jesus Christ that was passed down to His apostles and disciples and which they, in turn, codified in Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures. They were the same as the prophets of the Lord from the old covenant - they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and not from their own thoughts and interpretations.
Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day for nullifying the word of God through their traditions. Just because they were the religion's leaders, they had no authority to do so. They, as the church is for Christians today, are to buttress and support the truth given to them by God as HE ensured was preserved in His word. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of God will never pass away. That's pretty certain to me what is the authority for truth.
I have always thought through practices and observance and rituals that the Church of Rome....aside from the glaring difference....shares a lot with observant Judaism
Peter created first a church for fellow Jews to accept Jesus
Whereas Paul ...my guy...created church of Antioch afresh for the goyim
I know anecdotal prolly