The first point was the word tradition is an insert in that and some other verses -- this was a study on a particular word in the greek not a word study on tradition becasue then we would have had to have looked up some other things.
The second part that I added was to point out that Chirst had a lot of negative things to say about traditions of men and the arguement that has been posed by others not particularly you that the church can at will make up its own traditions is somewhat suspect and needs to be more closely examined.
Point to ponder the pharisees these men of numerous traditions were asked if the Baptism of John was of God or men -- from the context one might say they were blinded by their traditions.
Calling the old testament a collection of traditions -- would seem to make it a lot less than the word of God
It would imply that it was made by the will of men, it was a series of stories or legends from men
In a recent article form Evagelicals posted on FR their own theologians admit such a view of the Old Testament THey used the words myth and mythical and implied that the bible particularly Genesis was made up and may have had some long lost basis in historical fact.
This point of view goes well with with the word traditions. When I was a Lutheran we were told early christians were pagans that they were savages that were involved in strange rituals and practices we were told that thrrough mans rationalization and the traditions of that church that improved upon the old testament and new testament until christianity had become one of the great religions of the world.
Some of these same people privately say God is an invention of God -- he is the last relic of mans supersticious past.
See the problem is that these things are somewhat intertwined.
My understanding is fairly simple Adam and Eve go and eat of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Eve this is original sin. It is a corrupting knowledge. So science is the use of the knowedge of God and evil -- it is a corrupting force
We have what God has spoken and men develope theology and all sorts of other ologies using simple observation and their knowledge of Good and Evil -- Jesus flags them on it and calls it all corruption -- he says becasue they have corrupted all that they had in God he will take it away and give it to another.
The Church begins and for a few hundred years things are good but then men are born that no longer personally knew christ or the apostles and they feel that by virtue of their having sat in a pulpit for a few decades that they can tweek the work of God -- and so by the same process of outward observation and using their knowledge of Good and evil they set forth their own new traditions and edicts. How are they different than waht the pharisees did? Jesus said the pharisees sat in the seat of Moses -- tracing that back in scripture that meant they werejudges of Israel and more importatnly the law giver
How is it that if they gave out laws that made up themselves would cChrist have blasted them for it?
It is because they redefined lawgiver from one who reads and proclaims the law of God into the lawmaker.
So when we speak of traditions is that really the term that God said in the bible or is it like the word in the word study that our trusty translators inserted.
It is not about what feels right to me -- corruption and sin ussual feel real God. If we are beleivers we are required to search these things out for ourselves we must ask critical questions as to what we bleive and why we believe it. If I believe in Christ because Bob beleives in Christ I am not promised salvation. If I believe in christ because Bob beleives and he offers to pray for me and offers me some sacraments I am not promised salvation in the bible. If I chose to beleive Bob over the Bible Bob had beeter be pretty powerful if I expect him to persuade God not to toss me into hell and gain me admittance to a place were are told that the Apostles and Prophets have gained admitance. Most people put their faith in Bob or the Denomination that Bob gets paid all the big bucks from.
I lost Faith in Bob when I was a Lutheran, I've met Bob in many Churches and have seen many a Christian Beleive in Bob, Get Baptised into bob and sit under the teaching of Bob Pay their tithes and offerings to Bob But you see Bob is a hireling and Bob has no powers in this life of the next.
See I read that Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life not Bob. Jesus said I am the Door and no one goes to the father but by me. Now Bob is going to have to do some serious demonstration here if I am to accept that he is the door. I want to see in Bob the verse that says these signs shall follow them that belive (Signs wonders healing deleiverance maybe even God speaking saying this is my Bob in whom I am well pleased hear ye him.) But if Bob tells me he is the brother of a father of a sister of a man who knew a polish shoemaker that does little for me especially when Bob wants me to follow some tradtions he made his friends (even really old friends) made up in place of the word of God.
Good read but use the spell checker. It is quick and easy and on a long post like that it is worth the effort. I can't type two sentences without an error.
It would imply that it was made by the will of men, it was a series of stories or legends from men
This is the nub of the argument. Because of my upbringing ,since I was about 12 when I heard the word "tradition" I have thought "giving over". (I was brought up Protestant, but in my secular school we studied Latin at an early age.) Then I got a little Greek in college so now I think "paradosis" as well. There's nothing about the word "tradition" as such which makes me think good or bad. Some traditions are good, some are stupid, some are downright dangerous. That's how I react to the word.
To me, if something originates with God, and if the act of "handing it over" is guided by the Spirit, then it is a clearly a good tradition, but not less a tradition. I believe Saint Paul uses the word paradosis, often with such a meaning. And my Analytical Concordance of the KJV says where the word tradition shows up in the NT, it's paradosis in the Greek.
And that origin and process of handing down pretty much describes the Bible, as far as I can see. God guided some of His elect in writing the words, and others in copying and preserving them and recognizing that they were special and especially precious. God guided the Church in its recognition of which writings belonged in the collection we call the Bible, and guided the church, again, in copying, preserving, and handing down. So the Bible seems to me to be a tradition of the Church. Heck, my first Bible was "handed over" to me by a clergyman. In every way the Bible came to me as a tradition.
I think there are people who will interpret the Bible as they want, whether or not it is understood as a tradition. They will fail to see the uniqueness of this particular tradition.
By the way, you write: The Church begins and for a few hundred years things are good,... but it seems to me that right from the beginning the Church includes people who do good and bad. Look at what Paul writes about Cephas in Galations! About PETER! But still, the same group gathers in Council and says at the end of the conference,"It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit....".
I am familiar with the idea that the church started out well and has gone downhill for some time. But it seems to me that the Biblical witness is that it didn't start out so well. That, to me, calls the rest of the account, and the theology and ecclesiology built on it, into question.
It's largely because of what I read in Scripture that I finally became a Catholic. Go figger.