If there's a gap between 4 and 7, and one person fills it in with 5 and another with 6, it's not wrong.
Christ died on the Cross to save us from our sins.
That's not what the Bible teaches though.
What is that whole thing to have been written by Jesus word by word?
The Bible. The literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't know about you personally (notice I said "may") but it seems pretty standard doctrine among biblical creationists. And, there appears to be a rising fashion that whether one is talking about God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Ghost, He is to be called "Jesus." Still getting used to that one.
Didn't you say that the texts of the Bible are fully authoritative based on divine inspiration?
In what way are those other things that you mentioned different from what you believe?
Where else do you base your faith in if not the Bible?
I do not believe that the Bible is literal, inerrant perspicupus and self-interpreting product pf Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't know how the Bible was inspired nor whether it was inspired by the same method throughout. There are other theories about it, older and more convincing than Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I don't believe that only scripture should be used to interpret scripture. There are many extra-biblical contemporary texts which need to be examined--not for doctrine--but for linguistic and narrative practices as an aid to interpreting biblical texts, as well as findings from archaeology and anthropology. I don't believe the Bible is perspicuous--it's not the National Enquirer. The layman, with instruction, can expect to find his Salvation revealed therein, but anything beyond that requires scholarly expertise and careful, prayerful study. I don't believe that the Bible is "literal and inerrant" in all that it affirms about any sphere of human knowledge. The knowledge of the natural world it contains is purely phenomenological and need not reflect the findings of modern science. Likewise, I see the Bible not as a single text by a single author but an heterogeneous collection of texts by many inspired authors, editors and redactors over a long period of time and widely scattered locations. Consequently, I don't expect the texts to be fully coordinated. I do not, for example, see a "Synoptic Problem" nor am I much concerned with the apparent discrepancies in Jesus' two genealogies.
Sacred Tradition, divinely inspired Scripture and reason--in about that order.
What do you make of what Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes here then?
Why does it have to be "or?"
In the Bible and in the living witness of Sacred Tradition.
Because if there is a contradiction between human tradition and the word of God, we would need to choose one over the other.
How do you know the "living witness of Sacred Tradition" is the word of God?
You asked a question and so I answered. You are free to believe whatever you like. God has given us free will after all. I am just showing you what the Bible says.
Sorry your attempt misfired. The way I read those texts, Jesus was only opposed to tradition when it was at odds with scripture, not when scripture and tradition corroborated each other.
That's how I read it as well. I never said human tradition is bad. It is only bad if it is opposed to the scripture, which would mean, we should use the scripture to verify human traditions, not the other way round.
That order represents how I feel the strength of each supports my faith. The Bible is the source of our doctrine, but doctrine aside, the main reason I believe is tradition, not scripture. The Christian faith could survive without the Bible, but without tradition it would just be a moderately interesting collection of ancient texts.
