Holy tradition Batman! You know that Catholics make the exact same arguments. And the MESSIAH said:
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
There is an authentic Tradition from G-d's Mouth on just how exactly to perform each of the rituals (including the "waving" of Aaron's sons, which I doubt you could do just from your King James Bible). Evidently you are having trouble even understanding what I'm saying because you just now seem to be getting this and you're hurling it at me as if it is somehow supposed to be destructive of my argument.
I'm just taking your example to it's conclusion. You say that tradition dictates how things are done. If something isn't mentioned in tradition is it unimportant? Has tradition preserved everything that God ever wished to convey to mankind? How are new traditions created? What is the newest traditions?
If you are a Jew you've surely encountered these same questions. Even Jews disagree as to their importance and Jews disagree on their traditions. So what flavor of Judaism do you agree with and what makes your belief superior over any other Jews?
And finally, with regard thread on the Revelation at Sinai, the people received the first two commandments from the Mouth of G-d but then asked Moses to relay the rest.
Is that tradition?
So what do you mean by "authentic?" Can an authentic tradition be wrong?
The Authentic Tradition is from G-d on Mt. Sinai. The traditions of other religions with other sources are the inventions of human beings.
Can an authentic tradition be wrong?
No.
Holy tradition Batman! You know that Catholics make the exact same arguments.
So? Mormons make the same arguments you make, whether invoking a book they accept a priori to having a "burning in the bosom" that convicts them of "truth." I guess if the fact that Catholics appeal to tradition invalidates all tradition, then mormons' (and moslems') appeal to scripture invalidates all scripture, right?
Are you even capable of thinking logically?
And the MESSIAH said:
For the hundred millionth time, your appeal to an authority I do not acknowledge is fallacious. How would you try to convert a native of some far away Pacific island who had never heard of chr*tianity? By just start in with "J*sus said" and start quoting Matthew? What are you, some sort of KJV-only Seventh Day Pentecostal Calvinist?
I'm just taking your example to it's conclusion. You say that tradition dictates how things are done. If something isn't mentioned in tradition is it unimportant? Has tradition preserved everything that God ever wished to convey to mankind? How are new traditions created? What is the newest traditions?
And this is your argument against the idea that G-d has prescribed in the Oral Tradition exactly how the rituals are to be carried out? Wow.
If you are a Jew you've surely encountered these same questions. Even Jews disagree as to their importance and Jews disagree on their traditions. So what flavor of Judaism do you agree with and what makes your belief superior over any other Jews?
And how do you know you are right and the Baptists, churches of chr*st, J-- Witnesses, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Amish, etc., are wrong?
How do Biblical interpretations get started? Who makes up Biblical interpretations? What is the newest Biblical interpretation?
And finally, with regard thread on the Revelation at Sinai, the people received the first two commandments from the Mouth of G-d but then asked Moses to relay the rest.
Is that tradition?
Duh, Sherlock. It's also in the Torah (only the first two commandments are in the First Person). Where in the Bible do you derive your "Bible only" idea? And if you think to do so by quoting the "new testament," what has the "new testament" got to do with the issue of whether Israel was given Oral Laws at Mt. Sinai? Even if chr*stians are, as Protestants claim, forbidden to stray beyond what is written, how do you know that this was true before chr*stianity came into existence?
Unfortunately, my friend, you can't even read the Bible. You can only read a translation, and a translation of the Bible is just that--a translation of the Bible, and not the Bible itself. The Bible cannot be translated because doing so removes the precise letters written by Moses at G-d's dictation.
Did you even read my earlier argument that the purest and most authoritative form of G-d's Word is a hand-written Torah Scroll, and that these Scrolls must be written in accordance with a strict set of rules (which are not recorded in the Bible)? Did you? Do you understand that how every single letter is to be written is carefully prescribed and if even a single letter is copied incorrectly the Scroll can't be used? Did you know that the first letter in the Torah is written large? Did you know that there are two yods in the word vayiytzer to teach that G-d created man with both the good and evil inclination? Did you know that any number of words are apparently "misspelled" but that they cannot be corrected but must be written exactly as they have always been written, "misspelled?" Are you going to declare all of this nonsense and say that all they needed was a Thomas Nelson published KJV?
Sunday was my tenth anniversary on Free Republic. During that time I have devoted a great deal of time to defending people like you from, and pointing out the hypocrisy of, your critics. But I must tell you that your absolute refusal to provide a single logical non-fallacious reason for what you believe reminds me that that there is some truth in all stereotypes and I can see why so many people don't like you.