Posted on 05/22/2009 1:58:04 PM PDT by DouglasKC
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.
Did God specify how far apart to place your feet when you're waving and heaving? Did he specify the exact angle your head should be at? Did he specify the exact distance that your fingers should be spread? Did he specify the exact length the hairs on your arms needed to be when you waved or heaved? Is there no authentic tradition for these things?
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 supported from scripture that the tabernacle could have been built and was built without tradition. I showed that God infused people with his spirit to give them the wisdom and knowledge of how to do the things he wanted done. And your response is to dismiss it by comparing my spirituality to biblical figures? Do you not think God could do the same thing to a lowly sinner like myself if he so chose?
No, you compared yourself to Biblical figures, saying that you could do it as well as they. And by the way, thank you for acknowledging that G-d had to impart wisdom and knowledge not found in the written Bible. I guess I win the argument after all, though I doubt you will notice that.
It is pointless to argue with someone who doesn't even notice that your position is itself imposed on Scripture from the outside, that the Bible contains no inspired table of contents (meaning that after G-d dictated the Torah to Moses all other Biblical books had to be approved by some human authority in order to be included), and that evidently the KJV and the "holy spirit" never seem to say the same thing to any two people. What a foundation of air on which to build a religion.
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. And Moses was not just a prophet. He was the man who spoke with G-d "face to face," which means his authority is greater than that of any prophet and the Revelation vouchsafed to him is higher than any other revelation.
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.
Nope. And once again there's nothing wrong with tradition. But when man made tradition is elevated to scriptural status it's dangerous because then you have men who are purporting to speak for God.
Are you even capable of thinking logically?
Are you capable of having a discussion without resorting to petty insults?
And the MESSIAH said: For the hundred millionth time, your appeal to an authority I do not acknowledge is fallacious.
I don't care what you believe. I believe Jesus is and was the messiah. I'm not ashamed of that. I embrace his words and report them because they are the words of God.
How would you try to convert a native of some far away Pacific island who had never heard of chr*tianity?
I don't have the power of the means to convert anyone.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT BY GOD.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
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.
They were serious questions.
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?
I don't believe any one group has it totally right. However there are identifying characteristics associated with with those who have God's spirit and characteristics associated with those who don't know God. Patience and longsuffering for example are Godly characteristics.
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).
That's not how it's written. But why do you seem to be arguing against this notion in the other thread you mentioned. You seem to be making the case over there that God spoke to everything in scripture directly to ALL the people.
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?
Of course. Did you read my response?
Sunday was my tenth anniversary on Free Republic. Congratulations on your ten years freeping newbie. I just passed 11 years myself.
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.
I appreciate that.
But I must tell you that your absolute refusal to provide a single logical non-fallacious reason for what you believe
Your not understanding or agreeing doesn't mean that my answers aren't logical or fallacious.
reminds me that that there is some truth in all stereotypes and I can see why so many people don't like you.
If people don't like me because of some character flaw I have then I'll repent and ask God to show me my character faults and if he's merciful he will and I can overcome them with his help.
BUT if they don't like me because I'm standing up for the bible and the Lord Jesus Christ then that's fantastic and a joyful thing indeed:
Luk 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake.
Luk 6:23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
First of all, I sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness for losing my temper and being so abusive to you in our dialogue. I forgot some very important things from my own days as a Fundamentalist Protestant.
FP's have a bit of a quandary. They insist that, since everyone in the new testament was an adult convert then all chr*stians must be adult converts. However, in the new testament chr*stianity was new and all its converts had to be intellectually converted. This is something today's FP's can't identify with because the vast majority of them were raised believing in all the tenets of chr*stianity, but since they must be "converted" as adults they have developed the "born again experience" as a mystical/emotional adult conversion for people who have been believing chr*stians all their lives. Thus the idea of having to be intellectually converted to chr*stianity is literally outside the FP worldview. Instead at a certain point in their lives after hearing or reading a few bible-verses the electricity starts playing up and down their spine and they are "converted." It is for this reason that FP's know one and only one way to prove anything--by quoting bible verses. The idea that not everyone believes the Bible, that you must first use an argument external to the Bible itself in order to establish its authority before you can begin quoting it to prove anything, is simply alien to their world view. Hence your refusal to argue in any other way or to "prove" anything in any other way than very large quotes from the nt in red, in the expectation that the reader (if he is one of the "elect") will experience "conviction." But what you don't realize is that the nt can't convict anyone who doesn't believe it is the word of G-d. You have to first prove that it is by arguments external to the nt itself. Once you have thus convinced your opponent that the nt is what you claim it is, then and only then can you prove points by merely quoting it.
Second, you evince an inability to even peek outside your own worldview for just a few seconds in order to defuse someone else's argument. When I said that the fact that the Torah doesn't specify how sacrifices (or people) are to be "waved" or "heaved" and that therefore there must be an authoritative Tradition you assumed I meant that this was an excuse for people to make stuff up, because this is the only definition of "tradition" you know. I meant know such thing. I meant that obviously, by sheer logic, G-d must therefore have Himself given instructions as to how these ritual actions were to be performed. Oral Torah is just that Torah that was not written down, not stuff made up by people. But because of your argument with the Catholics and Orthodox you know only one definition of "tradition"--inauthentic stuff made up by people. I am not saying that G-d's silence gives man a license to make stuff up. I'm saying that G-d obviously was not silent, that He must have specified how these things were to be done, and that this part of the Torah was not written down in the Scroll. This is not the same thing as "G-d didn't say, so we'll make something up." Have you ever read Deuteronomy 12:21 where G-d mentions having given instructions about slaughtering animals which are not found written down anywhere in the Torah?
At this point you may object that G-d would not say anything without having it written down in the Bible because that wouldn't be fair; not everyone would have the information. But Israel would have the information, and Israel is the only people the Torah was given to. The Torah was not given to mankind; the "ten commandments" weren't given to mankind--these are the exclusive heritage of Israel and no one else. Where did you ever get the idea that the Torah was given to all mankind? It was addressed to the Nation of Israel gathered at Sinai, not to mankind as a whole, and it even begins with the words "I am HaShem your G-d Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." And if you say that this cannot be so, because if it were how else could anyone other than Israel be saved (in which case I congratulate you, because you are moving outside the Bible itself to argue from logic), I must remind you that the Torah is not about being "saved" in the chr*stian sense at all. The purpose of Torah observance is to channel G-dliness into the material world, not to "save souls" (there's nothing in the Hebrew Bible at all about "saving souls" in the chr*stian sense, and if you think that's what the ancient Israelites were all about then you do believe in oral tradition after all).
But finally, we come to why any further argument with you is useless. You said that it doesn't matter what I (or by extension) anyone else believes; you simply believe that J*sus was the messiah. No reason given. You just believe. And as has often been pointed out, you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Which raises the question of why you're trying to convert me or anyone else when you can't convert anyone. I've always wondered why Calvinists would try to convert anyone.
However, after defending your beliefs with no reason given other than that's what you believe (how would you like a mormon to say "I just believe in the book of mormon and that settles it"?) you make one very curious final statement. You don't believe anyone has it all right. That's a very liberal, archaeological way of looking at religion, but one that is inevitable when one rejects the idea that G-d gave no oral instructions. So does this mean that you may not have it all right either? In which case what are you arguing about? You'd best be correcting your own mistakes.
It's not worth it. It's not worth the blood pressure and it's not worth me getting all frustrated and abusive to a fellow human being.
Farewell, and may G-d, according to His own Will, draw you ever further into His Truth.
Again, I apologize for my abusive language directed to you and ask your forgiveness.
Plus of course the most important point, which no chr*stian understands, is that the Prophets are not a higher form of Revelation than Torah, but lower. No Prophet may overrule the Torah nor shall it ever cease to be valid. Many, many prophecies were uttered in ancient times (always under the Spirit of Prophecy and never face to face as with Moses) but only the ones in we have in the TaNa"KH were canonized by the 'Anshei HaKenesset HaGedolah (the Men of the Great Assembly) because their fulfillment awaits the days of Mashiach. Once Mashiach comes they will have been fulfilled and will no longer be read as Scripture (not that they won't be available for study, but their purpose will have been fulfilled). Any "prophecy" that predicted a higher law than the Torah would never have been canonized.
Chag Shavu`ot sameach!
As per the Torah being written before the Universe was created...don’t the Books of Moses contain reference to events that happened after Creation? Was this added by Moses or known to G-d and prophesied by him?
It's Shavu`ot. Time to go.
All history and all that ever is, was, or shall be is encoded in the Torah. It is the logos.
I thought you were Jewish?
I am! Just not particularily observant. I should also know this stuff from my academic background (English Lit).
Sorry for the length of time getting back to. The preparation for and the double sabbaths this weekend prevented me from a timely response.
Thank you for your three humble and heartfelt apologies and I apologize for any ungraciousness in tone or demeanor that I might have exhibited.
FP's have a bit of a quandary.
I'm not a fundamental protestant. I'm not even a protestant. You've raised a number of interesting issues which are probably not best answered in sound bites. In most cases you're attributing these same types of beliefs to me and in most cases it's not what I believe. So bear with me and I'll try to explain as fully as possible given the limited forum and the limited time we both have.
They insist that, since everyone in the new testament was an adult convert then all chr*stians must be adult converts. However, in the new testament chr*stianity was new and all its converts had to be intellectually converted. This is something today's FP's can't identify with because the vast majority of them were raised believing in all the tenets of chr*stianity, but since they must be "converted" as adults they have developed the "born again experience" as a mystical/emotional adult conversion for people who have been believing chr*stians all their lives. Thus the idea of having to be intellectually converted to chr*stianity is literally outside the FP worldview.
I agree completely that Christianity is more than just a mystical/emotional feeling. The process of conversion encompasses the heart, soul and mind. I agree completely that you must be intellectually converted. And being converted is impossible without the indwelling spirit of God.
It is for this reason that FP's know one and only one way to prove anything--by quoting bible verses. The idea that not everyone believes the Bible, that you must first use an argument external to the Bible itself in order to establish its authority before you can begin quoting it to prove anything, is simply alien to their world view.
USUALLY I don't engage in debate with Mormons, Catholics OR Jews exactly because they don't hold the bible to be their source of authority. That's why I said back in post 96: "I simply can't debate tradition. It's pointless." We don't have a common frame of reference.
But you pegged it on authority. When it comes to belief, there HAS to be an authority in which to place your trust and belief. Trusting in ourselves...our thoughts, feelings, emotions and logic is folly. We naturally don't have Godly wisdom, understanding or logic. We lack the capacity to understand and embrace Godly things.
Putting your faith in others thoughts, feelings, emotions and logic is even more of a folly. It's the blind leading the blind.
Scripture IS the guidebook for Godly living and behavior. It is HOW God speaks to us today. It is God's revelation to us. It's what he wanted preserved. Is it everything that God said and did? Of course not. There's no storage medium capable of holding that much information.
So I quote scripture to prove my points because MY thoughts and feelings are irrelevant. They don't mean jack. They're human based thought and human based reasoning.
Hence your refusal to argue in any other way or to "prove" anything in any other way than very large quotes from the nt in red, in the expectation that the reader (if he is one of the "elect") will experience "conviction." But what you don't realize is that the nt can't convict anyone who doesn't believe it is the word of G-d. You have to first prove that it is by arguments external to the nt itself. Once you have thus convinced your opponent that the nt is what you claim it is, then and only then can you prove points by merely quoting it.
This might be a valid viewpoint concerning some people, but not me. I'm not trying to convict or convert anyone. It's not my goal. In the grand scheme of thing I couldn't care less if you agree with what I'm putting down here. It's not my job to convert or convict anyone to what I believe. BUT.
But it IS my job to present the information. It IS my job to make sure the information is out there and available to those whom God is calling. Those who recognize that calling and heed it WILL be led to the truth by God. They'll study, they'll learn and they'll PROVE it to themselves.
I'm not sitting here thinking "Oh golly oh gee if Zionist Conspirator would be "saved" because of me that would be great!" It's not in my mind. I AM supremely confident that God IS going to "save" the vast majority of humankind. He promises this in scripture. I'm content to let God work things out in his own way in his own time. His plan gives this opportunity for redemption to everyone that has ever lived or will live.
Second, you evince an inability to even peek outside your own worldview for just a few seconds in order to defuse someone else's argument.
I don't have that inability. But arguments are best defused by truth, not by catering to someone elses worldview.
When I said that the fact that the Torah doesn't specify how sacrifices (or people) are to be "waved" or "heaved" and that therefore there must be an authoritative Tradition you assumed I meant that this was an excuse for people to make stuff up, because this is the only definition of "tradition" you know.
Well you're being kind of rough with your characterization. In that particular case I think that if it were that important as to the specific details that God would have caused it to be written down. I'm not saying that it's "bad" for an organization to come up with a "standard" way of doing things. That's good in a lot of ways.
I meant know such thing. I meant that obviously, by sheer logic, G-d must therefore have Himself given instructions as to how these ritual actions were to be performed. Oral Torah is just that Torah that was not written down, not stuff made up by people. But because of your argument with the Catholics and Orthodox you know only one definition of "tradition"--inauthentic stuff made up by people.
I am not saying that G-d's silence gives man a license to make stuff up. I'm saying that G-d obviously was not silent, that He must have specified how these things were to be done, and that this part of the Torah was not written down in the Scroll. This is not the same thing as "G-d didn't say, so we'll make something up." Have you ever read Deuteronomy 12:21 where G-d mentions having given instructions about slaughtering animals which are not found written down anywhere in the Torah?
It's not my position that God never said or did anything outside of scripture. Of course he did as I said. What's in question is whether or not tradition is in fact an accurate transmission of Godly wishes or whether it's been colored and influenced by the actions and desires of men. I say the latter.
At this point you may object that G-d would not say anything without having it written down in the Bible because that wouldn't be fair; not everyone would have the information. But Israel would have the information, and Israel is the only people the Torah was given to. The Torah was not given to mankind; the "ten commandments" weren't given to mankind--these are the exclusive heritage of Israel and no one else. Where did you ever get the idea that the Torah was given to all mankind?
I don't have that idea and I never stated that idea. You made an assumption based on your ignorance of my beliefs.
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
Non-Israelites can join themselves to these covenants and promises through Christ.
But finally, we come to why any further argument with you is useless. You said that it doesn't matter what I (or by extension) anyone else believes; you simply believe that J*sus was the messiah. No reason given. You just believe.
Not giving a reason and not having a reason aren't the same things. I believe Jesus is the messiah because of the miraculous effect this belief has had on my thoughts, attitudes, emotions, life and my family. I can go into detail if you would like.
And as has often been pointed out, you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Which raises the question of why you're trying to convert me or anyone else when you can't convert anyone. I've always wondered why Calvinists would try to convert anyone.
Understand again that I'm not trying to convert anyone. I can't. It's above my paygrade.
However, after defending your beliefs with no reason given other than that's what you believe (how would you like a mormon to say "I just believe in the book of mormon and that settles it"?) you make one very curious final statement. You don't believe anyone has it all right. That's a very liberal, archaeological way of looking at religion, but one that is inevitable when one rejects the idea that G-d gave no oral instructions. So does this mean that you may not have it all right either? In which case what are you arguing about? You'd best be correcting your own mistakes.
We're imperfect people. That's a fact. To posit that *any* organization has their viewpoint of God perfect is positing that everyone in that organization throughout history have been perfect vessels of God. Flawless transmitters of what God wishes and desires. We're flawed. I do believe that some views are closer to what God wants and these are views that most closely line up with scripture. The further away from scripture a view is, the more wrong it is.
Thank you for your graciousness and for your forgiveness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.