Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wannano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wannano

Guest
Did Jesus ever rely on Tradition rather than Scripture to establish His authority?

It seems like none of the teachings of Christ rely on OT tradition rather than on Scripture?
 
Wannano said:
Did Jesus ever rely on Tradition rather than Scripture to establish His authority?

It seems like none of the teachings of Christ rely on OT tradition rather than on Scripture?
Click to expand...
St. Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 tells us to " hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us ( Apostles ), either by word of mouth or letter".

It seems tradition is part of the Christian life not to be taken lightly or just picked through
 
Wannano said:
Did Jesus ever rely on Tradition rather than Scripture to establish His authority?

It seems like none of the teachings of Christ rely on OT tradition rather than on Scripture?
Click to expand...
Is the OT not scripture? I always thought it was
 
Michael68 said:
Is the OT not scripture? I always thought it was
Click to expand...
I must be really dense this morning. Of course OT is scripture, that is exactly my point in the first sentence of my op. How would you ever arrive at the the conclusion that I don’t see OT as scripture?
 
Wannano said:
I must be really dense this morning. Of course OT is scripture, that is exactly my point in the first sentence of my op. How would you ever arrive at the the conclusion that I don’t see OT as scripture?
Click to expand...
The last sentence of your OP
 
Wannano said:
Did Jesus ever rely on Tradition rather than Scripture to establish His authority?

It seems like none of the teachings of Christ rely on OT tradition rather than on Scripture?
Click to expand...
Since Jesus is God, His teachings don’t “rely” on tradition, or scripture at all, as if they were higher authority than Him, that He needed to cite. Obviously, God doesn’t need tradition, the OT, or the NT, for that matter. He could, and did, perform miracles, though He didn’t have to.

But Jesus did refer to things the apostles, and others would be familiar with. The problem with “OT tradition” is that there is no single, fixed canon of pre Christian “Sacred Tradition” comparable to what most Christians accept for the early centuries of Christianity. The OT era included doctrinal development within Judaism. For instance, some, like the pharisees, accepted the development of some kind of immortality, while the Saducees rejected that doctrinal development.

But there was not, and still is not, an official canonizer of traditions within Judaism; just various schools of interpretation. Thus, if Jesus makes reference to a current event within Israel people would know about, that doesn’t make “current events” authoritative. So the concept of “Scripture vs. Tradition” that Christians are familiar with may, or may not, apply to “OT tradition”. Apples and oranges.
 
Wannano said:
Did Jesus ever rely on Tradition rather than Scripture to establish His authority?

It seems like none of the teachings of Christ rely on OT tradition rather than on Scripture?
Click to expand...
Yes. In fact most of the concepts connected with the Jewish expectations of the Messiah are found in Jewish tradition.

While the Prophets and some of the Psalms mention God ushering in a Golden Age, and there are clear connections with this age being ruled under the Davidic dynasty, there are no direct references to the specific Messiah figure in the Hebrew Scriptures. We don’t find any texts specifically detailing the Messiah, his duties, how to identify him, etc. What Scripture texts do exist are actually limited and quite scattered. Most texts declared Messianic by both Jews and Christians do not even specifically mention a Messianic figure at all.

The theology of the Messiah that developed within Judaism came mostly out of the writings of rabbis in the Mishna, Midrash, and Talmud. The rabbis used these many and scattered Bible texts for inspiration in developing the Messianic concept into something far more concrete and specific than what we find in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was Jewish tradition that tied the many prophecies of a coming Golden Age with the different aspects and elements of the Messiah.

Jesus came to fulfill these expectations of the Jewish people that the Messiah would usher in the age or redemption, though they didn’t understand fully what God had truly planned. The entire concept of “Messiah” is a Jewish one, and it comes from a combination of Scripture and traditional Jewish exegesis that developed the subject.
 
Michael68 said:
I’m sorry sir, I have provided scripture to answer the OP
Click to expand...
Mark 7:7-9Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

7 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.
8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.
9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

Matthew 15:1-4Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

15 Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying:
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said:
4 Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death.

I’ll only post 2 for now as OP asked what Jesus himself said.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Charity please.
 
Jesus himself taught that he fulfilled not only the Scriptural views of the Messiah, but the traditional teachings of the Jews as well.

For instance, the tradition of the scribes was that Elijah would return and restore all things before the Messiah came.

“The disciples asked [Jesus], ‘Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ He said in reply, ‘Elijah will indeed come and restore all things.’”–Matthew 17:10-11, italics added.

Here Jesus says that his coming will occur exactly as the traditions of the scribes stated. Jewish tradition stated that Malachi 3:23-24 was a prophecy that had to be fulfilled before and in connection with the Messiah, even though the text never mentions the Messiah.

There are many other examples like this where Jesus proves himself to be the Messiah expected by the Jews in both Scripture and Tradition.
 
CeelosDeznos said:
Jesus himself taught that he fulfilled not only the Scriptural views of the Messiah, but the traditional teachings of the Jews as well.

For instance, the tradition of the scribes was that Elijah would return and restore all things before the Messiah came.

“The disciples asked [Jesus], ‘Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ He said in reply, ‘Elijah will indeed come and restore all things.’”–Matthew 17:10-11, italics added.

Here Jesus says that his coming will occur exactly as the traditions of the scribes stated. Jewish tradition stated that Malachi 3:23-24 was a prophecy that had to be fulfilled before and in connection with the Messiah, even though the text never mentions the Messiah.

There are many other examples like this where Jesus proves himself to be the Messiah expected by the Jews in both Scripture and Tradition.
Click to expand...
Can you refer us to a few of those examples. The traditions you are referring to are prophecies written in scripture.

Every time Jesus speaks about tradition, He strangely refutes it by quoting scripture.
 
CeelosDeznos said:
Yes. In fact most of the concepts connected with the Jewish expectations of the Messiah are found in Jewish tradition.

While the Prophets and some of the Psalms mention God ushering in a Golden Age, and there are clear connections with this age being ruled under the Davidic dynasty, there are no direct references to the specific Messiah figure in the Hebrew Scriptures. We don’t find any texts specifically detailing the Messiah, his duties, how to identify him, etc. What Scripture texts do exist are actually limited and quite scattered. Most texts declared Messianic by both Jews and Christians do not even specifically mention a Messianic figure at all.

The theology of the Messiah that developed within Judaism came mostly out of the writings of rabbis in the Mishna, Midrash, and Talmud. The rabbis used these many and scattered Bible texts for inspiration in developing the Messianic concept into something far more concrete and specific than what we find in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was Jewish tradition that tied the many prophecies of a coming Golden Age with the different aspects and elements of the Messiah.

Jesus came to fulfill these expectations of the Jewish people that the Messiah would usher in the age or redemption, though they didn’t understand fully what God had truly planned. The entire concept of “Messiah” is a Jewish one, and it comes from a combination of Scripture and traditional Jewish exegesis that developed the subject.
Click to expand...
Hi CD,

Thank you. Good post.

Still the rabbis used the Torah and Writ as the basis for the Talmud. Correct interpretation and understanding can in itself become a “tradition”, *just as *an incorrect one. The debate is whether "tradition’ then becomes "Tradition’’, equal in authority to Writ, or even the rabbis, or any magisterium, that make tradition equal to Writ.

So then the question is did Jesus use the correct interpretation of Writ as understood in tradition, and is Writ paramount to Him for any understanding, above rabbis and any magisterium.

Moses seat was only as good as those sitting in it, and their interpretations. Tradition was conditional, whereas Writ is not.

Blessings

PS I also understand that within the Jewish community there is a split on whether the Talmud is equal in authority to the Torah etc. As you know I side with Writ being above Talmud, , or that they have differing roles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top