Tradition is what is added to the law by men. The Law was given by God through Moses and to Israel. Tradition was added by men to the Law, thus making tradition part of the spoken and unspoken Law of God. Christ came to fulfill the Law, not tradition. Therefore, Christ stood in defiance of Tradition. Because it came from men, not God. Therefore, He did not sin. How could he sin? The breaking of the Law from God to Moses is sin. The breaking of tradition, given by men, is not the breaking of the Law.
Does this make sense?
SURE DOES TO ME.
THX.
-Does this make sense?
Yes. Quite... Except that the written Law was held inviolate... In a similar fashion to what happens today... Or at least as it was some decades ago... Like now, the Word was added to by bolting on traditions through "oral law," supposedly passed down through the ages... This was finally written down primarily as the Mishna, but it is quite similar in design to all who use tradition equal to the Word of God.
Tradition is what is added to the law by men. The Law was given by God through Moses and to Israel. Tradition was added by men to the Law, thus making tradition part of the spoken and unspoken Law of God. Christ came to fulfill the Law, not tradition. Therefore, Christ stood in defiance of Tradition. Because it came from men, not God. Therefore, He did not sin. How could he sin? The breaking of the Law from God to Moses is sin. The breaking of tradition, given by men, is not the breaking of the Law.
Does this make sense?
WELL PUT.