You just contradicted your previous statement "Scripture DOES say Jesus "did" many other things not written down and that if they could be, the world could not contain all that would be written."
In Mark 13:31, he tells us that heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. Mark further tells us in 3:14; 16:15 that Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it? The Evangelist Luke reinforces this oral Tradition in 10:15 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.
That is a far cry from pretending Jesus taught things secretly to certain people and they just happened to be omitted from Scripture
There are no "secret" things taught by the Catholic Church. Everything comes from the deposit of faith entrusted to Peter upon whom our Lord built His Church.
That was the gist of Gnosticism, by the way. Something the early church, including the Apostles, battled against.
You're right in that the Apostles fought against the heresies that sprung up quickly, following the Resurrection. Notice that the Canon of Scripture, compiled by the Catholic Church, does not include any of the "gnostic gospels".
Jesus told his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to them so that they would be reminded of all that he had taught them.
We know from Acts 2:3-4 that the the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word. Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth." (Acts 15:27)
In Matt. 15:3. Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. This verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.) The same is true for Mark 7:9.
Let's take a closer look at Oral Tradition. In Matt. 2:23, the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition. Matthew also tells us (Matt 23:2), that Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament. In Jude 9, he relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
"Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession
"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39 cont'd
No, actually I did no such thing. Wishful thinking? Can you understand that Jesus "did" and Jesus "said" do not mean the same thing? John said, Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25). If what Jesus did would take up more than the entire world to write down, obviously, they were not written down for a reason. One day, we WILL know as we are known and nothing will be hidden from us and we will have the "mind of Christ" to be able to grasp what is the fullness of all things. The Apostles would not have left anything out of their writings to believers that mattered to our salvation and walk of life in Christ. That's why the Apostle John said, "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31).
That really is the point, what HAS been written is so we would believe and be saved. Whatever the "Church" decided centuries later were part of those things Jesus "taught" that were not recorded for us in Scripture, both when he was here on earth or when he ascended to heaven and the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John when they wrote their epistles to the churches they ministered to, they left NOTHING out that made believers complete and thoroughly furnished for ALL good works. And God is able by His grace to equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever (Hebrews 13:21).
Prove it (you can't). The 'fundamental problem' with succession is that it means *nothing* unless a perfect pedigree can be produced. One can take any old nag and claim it was sired by Seattle Slew, but without the paper to back it up, even one questionable separation, bupkis.
Mark further tells us in 3:14; 16:15 that Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write
Then His disciples have disobeyed Him directly. That is a serious charge. Why then was Yeshua anointed by Mary the Magdalene? It would be an interesting study for you to inquire upon.
There are no "secret" things taught by the Catholic Church. Everything comes from the deposit of faith entrusted to Peter upon whom our Lord built His Church.
LOL! YahRight. Then your Jesus is not the Messiah.
Notice that the Canon of Scripture [...]
Wait a minnit... I thought writing was forbidden?
In Matt. 15:3. Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. This verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles.
So if the Apostles said it, it can void the Word of YHWH? REALLY?
(Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)
No, That is the SECOND example, and follows his admonition of them. What Yeshua was replying to is found in 15:2. Try and find that one in the Law. Not only did they 'take away from', They 'added to' as well. Both are represented by specific example in his exhortation. That should hold some meaning.
'Human Tradition'... You mean of course, their 'Oral Tradition', right? You see, the Pharisees claim there were TWO Torahs passed down from Mt Sinai... One which Moses wrote down, and the other, which was necessarily passed down orally among the priesthood.
Their oral tradition contains the 'law' on which they base their claim that they have the power to supersede the written Word as passed down by Moses... Nay, even change the laws of heaven, and YHWH must endorse it... They claimed the interpretive ability to take a bit here and a verse there (even down to a half sentence, no kidding) from the Torah and coax new meaning in order to introduce novelty... Is any of this sounding familiar?
Let's take a closer look at Oral Tradition. In Matt. 2:23, the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition.
No it is not.
It is not found in the Old Testament.
Yes it is. Perhaps you should look at the ancient name of Nazareth and research the word 'netzer'. Not only the name, but the meaning and type thereof. The Branch is certainly mentioned BY NAME in the Torah and the prophets.
This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
No, it really does not.
Matthew also tells us (Matt 23:2), that Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin).
No, He acknowledged Moses, not his seat. Look up ma'asim and takanot, and then study the passage.
In Jude 9, he relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
'The Assumption of Moses' is a reference without source. The source is lost. One may speculate upon it's origin, but it cannot be proven... So it is disingenuous to assign it to oral tradition.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Thanks, but 'traditions of men'...