But that is the BIG 'IF'. In order to accept the early fathers as evidence, one must inevitably accept the Romanist premise that their religion has sprung forth whole cloth directly from the Apostles and their immediate successors, as these books ARE their proofs. The whole idea is ludicrous to me - That a Torah believing sect of Judaism, whose Progenitor expounded day and night against the traditions of the Pharisees, would establish instead another religion, based upon a very similar authority-and-tradition model confounds all logic.
Did you know that the Pharisaical argument is the same? Their claim is that there were TWO Torahs delivered at Sinai - The written WORD, as delivered by Moses, and the oral tradition, which was kept by the priests (through succession). And while the written Word was kept inviolate for thousands of years, the dynamic nature of their oral tradition (which eventually was written down in the Talmud and Mishnah) was the very thing which Yeshua decried as 'nullifying the commandments of YHWH.'
It is not merely similar - It is the very same thing... AGAIN.
Since the Messiah's claim against the Pharisees is the defining foundation of impropriety in worship to those who follow the Nazarene (whose ministry, btw, lifts up the Torah), it is absurd to believe that He began anew on those very self-same improprieties (as being 'ok' now, since they are done in His Name). And the closer one tries to push those suddenly 'sanctified' improprieties toward 30AD, the more ludicrous the assertion becomes.
We are blessed to be in possession of the Word of YHWH - The original contract(s), as it were - which are designed by their hierarchy to be different than the religious texts produced by man - YHWH's Words are never retracted or changed - so the old is more important than the new - If the new seeks to change the old, it cannot be from YHWH. Apply that truth to any religion claiming to be of the Messiah (or of YHWH generally), and the fruits of tradition become radically and readily apparent.
Amen!
We are blessed to be in possession of the Word of YHWH ...OK, where is it? In the King James Version?
Ping to post 613.
GREAT post.
Dear friend,do you even realize the possible implications of what you're saying is?
The OT is revealed in the NT through Christ and therfore superior.
Just one example through typology...
Moses is a "type"(typology) of Christ and is inferior to the superior NT reality which is Christ
Excellent points! Thank you. We have the Bible because God desired that we have it and those who would like nothing better than to usurp its authority will fight the concept every chance they get.
Great post, roamer —
Thanks — and thanks for the ping, Mom!
Hoss
roamer_1 wrote:
“We are blessed to be in possession of the Word of YHWH ...”
OK, where is it? In the King James Version?
Technically the Word of God (ref. the Gospel of John chapter 1) is Jesus Christ. No one is in "possession" of Christ -- He is in communion with us and we share in Him in communion.
Technically the Word of God (ref. the Gospel of John chapter 1) is Jesus Christ. No one is in "possession" of Christ -- He is in communion with us and we share in Him in communion.