You mean like the Messiah would rise from the dead? I said "APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS", not Hebrew traditions...
And to say that the scriptures are not necessary flies in the face of many of the early church fathers' writings where they relied upon the scriptural teachings (please is Iraeneus works).
Please. You don't know what you are talking about. The following are all from St. Ireneaus. It is clear that he did not do away with the Apostolic Tradition...
"To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition,(3) believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible." Scripture is not absolutely necessary to follow Christ.
"...they (Gnostics) proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations." the danger of reading Scripture without Tradition
"I carefully noticed the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions." same thing. Private interpretation without tradtion = garbling fictions.
"But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known" So who IS the truth? The Church is the teacher of truth.
"WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." The Church is the source of Apostolic teaching, which came FIRST.
"But since this man is the only one who has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures" Again, mutilating Scripture implies there is a particular WAY to read them.
"These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, without [the aid of] the Scriptures: wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour." Isn't that quite obvious which came first?
"Chapter 26, Book IV...THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE. Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory." This is what St. Ireneaus thinks about people who think they can interpret Scriptures outside of the Church
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him,(6) if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out."
There are many others, but you should get the gist of things. St. Ireneaus clearly believes that the Church is the sole source of authoritatively interpetating Scriptures. It is not to be read outside of Apostolic Teachings. And finally, he realized that oral teachings were sufficient to instruct the faithful, thus, the Bible was not absolutely necessary.
Regards
There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.
These four gospels are in actual fact one single Gospel, a fourfold Gospel inspired by the one Spirit, a Gospel which has four aspects representing the work of the Son of God.
These aspects are like the four cherubs described by Ezekiel. In the prophet's words: `The first had the like ness of a lion,' symbolizing the masterly and kingly role of Christ in priesthood; `the second had the appearance of an ox,' the beast of sacrifice, recalling the perfect sacrifice of Christ; `the third had the face of a man,' undoubtedly referring to the coming of the Lord in human nature; `and the fourth had the aspect of a flying eagle,' with a clear allusion to the grace of the Spirit hovering over the Church. [cf. Ezek. 1:10; Rev. 4:7]
The four Gospels correspond to these symbols. Christ is at the center of them.
John actually speaks of his kingly and glorious Sonship to the Father in his opening words: `In the beginning was the Word.' [John 1:1] Luke begins with Zaccharias offering sacrifice. Matthew chooses first of all the Lord's human genealogy. And Mark leads off by calling on the prophetic Spirit which invests humanity from on high.
The reason why the divine power has give us the Scriptures is not solely to present facts according to the literal interpretation of the narrative. If one looks to the letter of the text, some of the facts have not actually happened and would be irrational and illogical.
Granted , the facts that have happened in the literal sense are much more numerous than the facts that have been added and have only a spiritual meaning.
All the same, in the face of certain pages the reader feels embarrassed. Without accurate research it is not possible to discover if a fact that seems historical actually happened according to the literal sense of the words or if it did not happen at all.
By keeping the commandment of the Lord to "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), one ought to examine with care and attention where the literal meaning is historical and where it is not.
In Scripture not everything is objectively historical in the literal sense. Sometimes it is obvious that the result of taking it literally is impossible. But the divine Scripture, taken as a whole, has a spiritual meaning.
Sorry but it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century. Not only does the Holy Scriptures states this isn’t so, (I would hope the Roman Catholics would admitted the Book of 1 Peter isn't wrong) but as I stated earlier the early church fathers also believed. Granted they believe the interpretation should be held by the councils but that a different matter. They held a very high regards for the scripture and if they for once thought that it could be passed on through word of mouth it was only because they never assumed the text would be so thoroughly abused by those inside the Church.
It is a sad commentary on the Roman Catholic Church and those in this system today that they would attack the only credible source on which the Christian faith is founded. It goes back to the tradition of men.