I think you need to address this to verga...He's the one trying to retranslate the scriptures...
Interesting comment from someone that can't verify the meaning of the word Scripture.
Not at all, Iscool. Verga is attempting to make a point. I can give you my take:
First of all, at the time Jesus and His apostles walked the earth, the Jews based their Faith both on Sacred Writings and Sacred Tradition:
According to Rabbinic Judaism, the Oral Torah or Oral Law (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh, lit "Torah that is spoken") represents those laws, statutes, and legal interpretations that were not recorded in the Five Books of Moses, the "Written Torah" (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav, lit. "Torah that is written"), but nonetheless are regarded by Orthodox Jews as prescriptive and co-given. This holistic Jewish code of conduct encompass a wide swath of ritual, worship, God-man and interpersonal relationships, from dietary laws to Sabbath and festival observance to marital relations, agricultural practices, and civil claims and damages.
According to Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah was passed down orally in an unbroken chain from generation to generation until its contents were finally committed to writing following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat.[1]
The major repositories of the Oral Torah are the Mishnah, compiled between 200–220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, and the Gemara, a series of running commentaries and debates concerning the Mishnah, which together are the Talmud, the preeminent text of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, two "versions" of the Talmud exist: one produced in Jerusalem c. 300-350 CE (the Jerusalem Talmud), and second, more extensive Talmud compiled in Babylonia and published c. 450-500 CE (the Babylonian Talmud).
When Our Lord stated that what had been written of Him had been true, He was referring to His Life, approaching Death, and Resurrection being the fulfillment of what had been taught, read, passed down throughout the generations of the history of Israel, and through them of the time before Abraham.
Please also note that Our Lord Himself, as man, along with the Apostles, disciples and even St. Paul, were not instructed in the Jewish Faith sola scriptura, but by Talmudic Tradition as well.
At any rate, the Gospels as we have them were not agreed upon by early Christians as canonical until much later. There was not a Bible then, as we know it today. It's like an old conundrum where a fellow is thrilled to have found an ancient coin that had a mintmark of "100 BC" until he realized that would have been impossible. References Jesus made to scriptures would have been to what we now refer to as the Old Testament and the Talmudic teachings, from which all who studied had learned, as His listeners as yet had no New Testament to hear or read... I believe this is the point verga was attempting to make. If I've misread you, verga, I'm sorry, please feel free to correct me.
A note as to Matthew: in forming his canon, Luther did not give the same doctrinal weight to the three Synoptic Gospels as he did to that of John.
" In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: "St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity. "
That's terribly sad. In other words, his followers needed no other books, including the other three Gospels, in which to find his doctrine. When you next read Matthew, think of this. What in the other Gospels is not worth teaching as doctrine? Ask yourself that question. Is there nothing to learn in St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews? By what authority did he make this statement? How could he just disregard the Old Testament as unnecessary as doctrine? Is It not all the Word of God, and thus important to Christian learning, if for that reason alone? Doesn't Jesus' references to the Old Covenant give It doctrinal value? How otherwise would we see what He has fulfilled?
This is rhetorical, friend, I'm not asking for a reply. But it really is worth thinking about. May God continue to bless you on your journey!