No, it is you that are being stubborn, unresponsive and rude.
There has been no time when the followers of Yeshua have held oral traditions.
What you’re not grasping is that the mess in Rome has never followed Him, but persecuted those that did, unmercifully.
Antichrist has had his home in Rome since the mid 4th century.
Just read the material posted top you showing categorically that all of his way is written, and none is carried in the vapors of oral tradition.
Written by WHOM?
Written WHEN?
Written when FIRST spoken by Jesus or when written by Paul?
Perhaps SPOKEN for several generations and then written?
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were CLEARLY not written down when first spoken.
Paul’s writings were copied but were also memorized and also became part of an oral tradition.
You have absolutely NO theological expert ANYWHERE who agrees with all you have posted here.
And again, you FALSELY posted on this thread that the Jewish Apologists, who debated the Catholic scholars, had access to Scripture copied directly from Jesus into Hebrew.
This is CLEARLY false, you have no experts on your side at all.
Catholic roots of King James Bible:
In reality, the King James Bible was created using preceding English translations and Greek texts dating to the 12th to 15th centuries - the “Textus Receptus” - as well as “some influence from the Latin Vulgate,” the edition by Catholic saint Jerome in the fourth century. The original Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536) was hurriedly put together and contained “thousands of typographical errors,” as well as scribal commentary that was not in the original Greek. In 1550, the TR was eventually reissued by Parisian printer Robert Estienne, also known as Stephanus/Stefanus/Stephens, whose edition was the basis of the KJV, with a significant amount of the same problems intact. The fact that various versions of the Bible differ from each other is very significant and needs to be kept in mind, as does the realization of the flawed nature of the Textus Receptus, upon which the King James Bible is based.”
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/king-james-bible-history.html
King James version, based on TR Greek, does contain errors:
“The King James Version Errancy Debate
Four Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke and JohnIn “Discovering and Classifying New Testament Manuscripts,” fundamentalist Christian writer James Arlandson discusses the orthodox Christian belief that the four canonical gospels were inerrant and divinely inspired:
“The original authors were inspired, but we do not have their very originals… The original New Testament documents were transmitted by scribes, who were not inspired.”
This more recent claim regarding only the originals being inspired essentially overrides the centuries-old, widely held notion that English translations such as the King James Bible are inerrant; yet, there remain King James inerrantists.
Because such a position appears untenable, many Christian scholars and apologists today no longer adhere to the notion that translations themselves are inspired, claiming instead that only the “originals” are inspired, as noted. The rank-and-file believers, however, still frequently maintain - as they have been taught - that the King James translation, for one, is inerrant and its translators inspired. Regardless of whether or not trained apologists believe this claim anymore, the average Christian may not be aware of the debate regarding various translations and may indeed receive the impression that the Bible favored in his or her church is inerrant. In the words of evangelical Christian Gary Amirault:
“At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the ‘Inerrant Bible’ doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of God and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the “Alexandrian cult” and the Roman Catholic Church.”[1]
Image: Worldwide Mission Fellowship, www.wwmf.org/faith/The reality is that even today many pastors continue to promote the purported inerrancy of the King James Bible. In fact, there remain ministries fervently dedicated to “defending and promoting the KJV.” Within these organizations, the King James Bible continues to be held up as “inerrant,” despite the scholarship that has revealed the Textus Receptus at its basis to be flawed.
One fundamentalist KJV defender, Brandon Staggs, comments on the debate thus:
“Almost every “fundamental” statement of faith reads that God’s word is perfect and inspired in the original autographs.
“But isn’t that a statement of unbelief? What good is God’s word if it only exists in manuscripts which no longer exist? Why would God inspire Scripture just to let it wither to dust?
“Many modern scholars believe that the real ending of the Gospel of Mark has been lost and that we can not be certain how Mark concluded his Gospel. And yet these same scholars will boldly declare belief in God’s preservation of Scripture.”[2]
“It is my belief that the King James Bible is God’s word in the English language without admixture of error.”
Evangelicals like David Sorenson, in fact, go so far as to deem “apostates” those who follow the “critical text,” such as the Revised Standard Version, as opposed to those who maintain the inerrancy of the “Received Text,” i.e., the basis for the KJV.[3] Continuing with his apology for the KJV, Staggs states:
“It is my belief that the King James Bible, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is God’s word in the English language without admixture of error.”
Despite this indoctrination of inerrancy, an investigation of the translations of the New Testament into English reveals much, as to whether or not they could possibly be considered “inerrant” works by “infallibly” inspired scribes.”
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/king-james-bible-history.html