Tradition Was Accepted By Jesus And The Apostles

[jpy15026]

TRADITION WAS ACCEPTED BY JESUS AND THE APOSTLES

Matthew 2:23: the reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down “by the Prophets.” Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s Word”, was Passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.

Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a Legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or Idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament.

1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” The Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement

**Jude 9: **about a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses’ body, cannot be paralleled in the Old Testament, and appears to be a recounting of an oral Jewish tradition.

2 Timothy 3:8: Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related Old Testament

James 5:17: the reference to a lack of rain for three years is absent from the relevant Old Testament passage in 1 Kings 17.

**Mark 4:33 **With many such parables he spoke the word to them . . . In other words, by implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture.

Mark 6:34 . . . he began to teach them many things. None of these many things are recorded here.

**John 16:12 **I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

**John 20:30 **Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.

**John 21:25 **But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

DEI VERBUM - DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION

HANDING ON DIVINE REVELATION

In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching,and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.
But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them "the authority to teach in their own place."This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Excellent post for Protestants who bemoan the Magisterium of the Church.

It gives them much to mull over, even though a few other citations have been left out.

Parallel to the NT’s quotes are the references to books in the OT NOT in the later Jewish canon of 90 AD (the Jamnian text, or, textus receptus).

Some people are too literalist; many seem to forget that oral tradition was the foundation upon which the Church discerned (through the Holy Spirit) which of the books then floating around the various churches were reflective of that Tradition.

Thus, the Bible was put together to support the Church’s message entrusted to it by Jesus, not to taken as THE message for future believers and hearers of the Word.

Good job

Pax Christi

 

[Mintaka]

One of those is incorrect. “He will be called a Nazarene”, I believe refers to the wording in Hebrew of “branch”…

Google

Yes, it’s from “netser/natser/nazer”, branch or shoot. The Messiah was called the Branch (or rod, or shoot.Of Jesse.) This specific word “nazer” is used in Isaiah 11:1. Isaiah also uses the word “nazeroth”. Daniel apparently uses “nazer” too. So Isaiah and Daniel are “the prophets” in question.

ao.net/~fmoeller/nazer2.htm
This seems pretty complete on the issue. I don’t know anything about the accuracy of the rest of the site, but this article sure goes into all the stuff I’ve heard mentioned about Isaiah’s use of “nazer” and “Yeshu’a”.

 

[jpy15026]

Snippet from Marcus Grodi’s Coming Home Network;

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola8.htm

Matthew 2:23
Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.”
The proposed solutions to explain this verse are legion. They range from trying to find some word-play on “Nazarene” in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, to viewing this text as loosely “fulfilling” a conglomeration of Old Testament passages that refer to a despised Messiah. The serious grappling by scholars with the text is admirable, but in the end their solutions seem farfetched.
It may be that we should seek resolution in simplicity. When read in Greek, the introduction to this prophecy differs from all the other “fulfillment” sayings in Matthew (for example Matt. 1:22, 2:15, 3:15, and others). Thus, the failed attempts to locate the Old Testament background to this prophecy, coupled with this unique introduction, suggest to me that the simplest solution is probably the correct one: Matthew is drawing on oral Tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as ones he attributes to specific authors of the Old Testament. This then would be an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

.

 

[jpy15026]

One of those is incorrect. “He will be called a Nazarene”, I believe refers to the wording in Hebrew of “branch”…

ao.net/~fmoeller/nazer2.htm
This seems pretty complete on the issue. I don’t know anything about the accuracy of the rest of the site, but this article sure goes into all the stuff I’ve heard mentioned about Isaiah’s use of “nazer” and “Yeshu’a”.

Taken from your above site:
( ao.net/~fmoeller/nazer2.htm )

There is no prophet in the Old Testament who states the Messiah will be called a Nazarene! Matthew also says that the birth at Bethlehem fulfilled “that which was spoken by the prophet.” A verse can be found where this is recorded in Micah 5:2. He also said that the flight into Egypt fulfilled “that which was spoken by the prophet.” That verse also can be found, it is in Hosea 11:1. But no verse in the Old Testament says “He shall be called a Nazarene.” Since Matthew knew that, then his words "which was spoken by the prophets," indicate that there is no one prophet that makes the statement but when you put together the bits and pieces of the verses in the Old Testament about Nazareth and Nazarenes then the combination of those pieces make it plain that Jesus was to be called a “Nazarene.” Predicted, not by a prophet but by a compilation of “the prophets.”

.