I do believe you are now arguing for the mere sake of arguing.
But to each their own.
I've done it too. I certainly don't condemn you for it. But I know it for what it is.
Not for the sake of arguing but because it has been my experience many people claim to want to know for the sake of knowledge.
OK fine. USA4ME has implied such things as well. Yet, when it comes down to it anything that upsets the apple cart of received tradition will be dismissed without comment.
When this conversation first started I said tradition could be stultifying...but it also served as a bulwark of bad doctrine. The Reformation gained strength under the cry of
sola scritptura, "by scripture alone," because they believed the papacy had infected the gospel with unfounded tradition. [No offense to Catholics, I'm just reciting history, not a personal opinion.]
Sounds good...but in time the decentralization of the protestant sects lead to some fairly heinous doctrines and in turn it was the older churches that best guarded against "heresy". I noted the "name it and claim it" movement c. 1995 as the most recent and egregious manifestation of making-it-up-as-you-go-along. Those idiots cited plenty of scripture and I'm sure a few had degrees...but they were still idiots at best, hucksters most likely.
As Doc noted, there is a *seeming* paradox. Traditional scholarship doesn't satisfy because--perchance--the "traditional" interpretation neglects the real tradition behind the passage. If I claim to be a constitutionalist I must accept the COTUS, all of it, history included, otherwise my claim has no merit.
Admittedly, I'm not a christian but I tore mercilessly into TNO and wilbur about their atheistic myths because those myths were inconsistent with what they claimed to be. I do not like being fed bullshit even if the bullshitter cannot smell his own crap.
BTW - I like Christians better than the TNO types because Christians do have scriptures. Christians have an objective standard that can be tested. People like TNO can make shit up as they go along and change it at whim...and he did. In this regard religion is far more substantive than most atheist philosophies.
Back at the dim beginnings of this discussion, the question arose.....Does the Mosaic Covenant (Old Testament Law) survive the Resurrection of Christ, and the :"New Covenant"......based on at least some interpretation of passages in the New Testament, there is evidence that it did, if perhaps only in part.......that debate has funneled down to examples of where the believers of the Mosaic Covenant (the Jews, including the Apostles), and the New Covenant believers differ.....one of these is examples is the establishment of the "day" on which the Sabbath falls in the week......ergo:
Under Hebrew Law the Sabbath (Shabot) begins at sunset on Friday, and extends to sunset on Saturday.....the Christian Sabbath is celebrated on Sunday......
Where the passage MSB cites in his translation matrix becomes interesting is.....that it describes what (and when) the two Marys went to the tomb of Christ after the Crucifixion......the paradox "suggests" that the death and Resurrection (if this translation is to be believed) somehow "changed" the celebration of the Sabbath to coincide with the Resurrection, abandoning the Old Covenant......or at least the portion of it that establishes the Sabbath in the liturgical calendar....
And there IS the possibility that I don't have a clue.....
doc
The Greek word for the Mosaic law is "nomos." A survey of its every occurrence would be...intriguing.