I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that all of tradition was written in the NT. I am saying that the NT came from the fount of tradition which the Apostles preached. Much of it was not written. Remember John 20:30-31: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name."
John says quite explicitly that not everything was written down...and that the NT was not meant to be an exhaustive account of what Jesus did, but rather a way of calling people to belief.
Paul writes in II Thessalonians 2:15 "Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle." The traditions that he is talking about there are those that have to do with the Day of the Lord and the Man of Sin which he told them about when he was with them [verse 5], and then just got finished reinforcing by written documentation in that very letter.
Thanks for the ref. I think you are unnecessarily compartmentalizing this verse though. Read all of the end of 2 Thess 2, and it's clear that statement is occuring in a generic sense of believing in Christ and not the specific sense of the prophecy:
But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.The traditions there seems to be referring to "our gospel". There's no indication he was only speaking about the prophecy.
On 3:6, of course tradition is past tense...it couldn't be any other way. We don't believe in progressive revelation, but a revelation delivered once for all, delivered orally (part of which was then written). And as to "from us" not meaning the people who came afterward, well, Irenaeus certainly didn't see it that way!
I think that Irenaeus did see it that way as he writes in the following discourse posted earlier:
"On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"
The "writings of the apostles" were "the authority" according to Irenaeus here. The writings that had already been handed down [past tense] were the "tradition of the truth" and the "course of the tradition handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches", per Irenaeus. He says clearly that if there is a dispute over an important question, the churchmen should defer to the "writings of the apostles".