I questioned the use of "vs." in the thread title because the one-to-one correspondance seems obvious. How could it even be possible to intentionally craft a religion that is more deserving of the moniker "human tradition" than a religious ediface that constantly intones "rabbi so-and-so said in the name of rabbi so-and-so" and follows it with verbage called "law"? Why are people supposed to accept as prescriptive these musings of men speaking in the name of men?
Tradition.
Does more really need to be said?
ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."
David Paul:Does more really need to be said?
Bet you can guess that I have no interest of reading your theology and opinion here. There is a Faithlife group in which such comments with sufficient supporting documentation would be appropriate.
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
Yes, yes...but what I'm saying here is that a simple comparison of Tanakh and Talmuudh presents data points that explicitly resolve this seeming quagmire of uncertainty you suggest you are in. Nothing more is necessary than a modicum of semantic awareness of word meanings and the concept of "opposite".
David Paul: this seeming quagmire of uncertainty you suggest you are in.
My only problem with this explanation is that I am NOT in a quagmire of uncertainty. I am simply trying to fill in the logical gaps for an argument map which so far runs about 6 parts I disagree with to 1 part I do agree with. If I were to argue with the gaps I find in apologetic works, I would be embarrassed. I truly want to present the positions I disagree with the same respect I give my own position. I use the term "versus" not as "opposite of" but in the sense of "in contrast to". I simply need someone to provide evidence or logical argument for the equating of two concepts that historically are separate but overlapping. I cannot build a solid argument for solo or sola scriptura without this puzzle piece.
MJ. Smith: Yes, I'm still working away on an argument map despite the lack of reasonable functionality on the Faithlife site. I've come across a common assertion in conservative resources for which I find no one trying to justify. Do you know of any source - book or article - that explains why oral Torah is assumed to be identical to/part of human tradition rather than there being two independent things? No discussion -- just references.Note: I have been concentrating my readings recently on conservative resources so don't go reading anything into "conservative" beyond these forums are where I am most apt to find people with these resources.
Yes, I'm still working away on an argument map despite the lack of reasonable functionality on the Faithlife site. I've come across a common assertion in conservative resources for which I find no one trying to justify. Do you know of any source - book or article - that explains why oral Torah is assumed to be identical to/part of human tradition rather than there being two independent things? No discussion -- just references.Note: I have been concentrating my readings recently on conservative resources so don't go reading anything into "conservative" beyond these forums are where I am most apt to find people with these resources.
I'm no expert, but here is a suggested resource; https://www.logos.com/product/47649/answering-jewish-objections-to-jesus-vol-5
Thanks, Bill, I'll check it out.