[metmom]

Which means the use of tradition. No interpretation can happen without tradition.

Of course it can. All anyone has to do is read what was written.

And if Scripture is just tradition written down, then we now, in this time period, are back to using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

[smvoice]

HELLLLLOOOO!! You are as right as right can be, metmom. Are we speaking martian and don't realize it?

THINK PEOPLE. THINK

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Of course it can. All anyone has to do is read what was written.”

Which means tradition. Words have to be learned and they are learned according to traditions. Look at the word “cleave”. What does it mean? It can mean to cut in two. It can also mean to bring together two halves. Traditional understanding of usage (i.e. syntax and rendering) are what tells you what it means. I doubt you read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Thus, you, like most of us have to rely on translators, lexicogiphers, editors, commentators, etc. That means traditions and lots of them.

“And if Scripture is just tradition written down, then we now, in this time period, are back to using Scripture to interpret Scripture.”

No. We use traditions to interpret scripture. Again, translators, lexicogiphers, editors, commentators, etc.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

But metmom you, as a formerly practicing Catholic, knew or should have known that scripture is not just Tradition written down, not for the Jews and not for us.

They may have used scriptures to test Paul but, Jesus talked about Traditions not even in the OT such as the seat of Moses. That would be the oral Tradition of the Jews.

Scripture and Tradition, not scripture instead of Tradition.