Because He never said so. I would imagine that the word explicit I used would make that perfectly clear. Having said that, I will posit that it was also never His implicit plan.
Was Jesus part of God's plan? He was pretty late too wasn't He?
Late? What is late or early for God? I mean, on whose agenda are we, His or ours?
No, I would expect there to be errors in passing down oral tradition, both from the Hebrews and from the Catholics
You are slipping (again). First, Catholics do not go by oral tradition. The Jews do. Secondly, you obviously trust theirs, for the Old Testament was written based on oral tradition, yet you are hinting that you don't. Which is it?
I do believe that God's written word was authored by God Himself and is infallible and not subject to mistake, unlike tradition
Good! then perhaps you can explain variations in the Jewish Scripture -- the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text -- in length and content!
Oral teaching is fine as long as it doesn't change the meaning of scripture
But the Scripture was preserved by oral teachings, and therefore came from oral teachings! You are using circular arguments.
Your tradition disallows you
Your tradition is to trust a book that was part of my tradition which you don't trust.
Then why were so many of these exact writings and teachings rejected as unworthy of inclusion in the Bible?
Because they included teachings that were alien to Apostles and their disciples, and their disciples disciples...Because they contained Gnostic cultism, various pagan beliefs mixed in with sections stolen from the Gospels, and also because authorship of many was uncertain, yet it claimed to be one of the Apostles, and also because the Book of Revelation was difficult and unlike any other book of the Apostles.
Wasn't there a lot of disagreement about what got in? So, who is to know what to trust?
These disagreements were based mostly on uncertainty of authorship and fear that, because we are fallible, we could introduce satanitc verses into the Holy Bible. Oh, satan would have been ecstatic! The Fathers were always cognizant that satan tries to blind us and to twist our senses so that we perceive things differently, so no one rushed.
Because He never said so. I would imagine that the word explicit I used would make that perfectly clear. Having said that, I will posit that it was also never His implicit plan.
Then you must believe that Christianity is not a revealed faith at all. It is only revealed to the tiniest few in the hierarchy. Even these few make individual mistakes on important issues. You must believe that Christianity is a hidden faith.
FK: "Was Jesus part of God's plan? He was pretty late too wasn't He?"
Late? What is late or early for God? I mean, on whose agenda are we, His or ours?
You were arguing that the Bible is not God's plan because it showed up relatively late in history. I was countering that Jesus was also relatively late. I'm basically saying "so what?". What does timing have to do with God's plan?
First, Catholics do not go by oral tradition. The Jews do. Secondly, you obviously trust theirs, for the Old Testament was written based on oral tradition, yet you are hinting that you don't. Which is it?
I have been told by Catholics that tradition is one of the three legs of authority in the Church. Now I'm confused.
In general, to help me keep it straight, I think of tradition as being extra-Biblical. I know that many oral teachings that were passed down were exactly correct and made it into the Bible. So, once they make it in, I don't refer to them as "tradition" anymore. I believe the OT came directly from God, not in hope that the message was not corrupted in being passed through many generations.
Good! then perhaps you can explain variations in the Jewish Scripture -- the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text -- in length and content!
I can't explain the 'how', all I know is that God sorted it all out when He assembled the Bible.
But the Scripture was preserved by oral teachings, and therefore came from oral teachings! You are using circular arguments.
I believe the scripture was preserved by God. Nothing circular about that. You are giving credit to men. I disagree with that.
FK: "Wasn't there a lot of disagreement about what got in [to the Bible]? So, who is to know what to trust?"
These disagreements were based mostly on uncertainty of authorship and fear that, because we are fallible, we could introduce satanitc verses into the Holy Bible. Oh, satan would have been ecstatic!
I agree. But aren't some of these writings (that didn't get in) what you now call tradition and you trust them?