Have you not ever wondered why not?
But He did through the Holy Spirit. Men were moved to pen the words we have in the NT.
Luke is a good example. He tells us why he wrote his gospel.
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things [a]accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning [b]were eyewitnesses and [c]servants of the [d]word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having [e]investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been [f]taught. Luke 1:1-4
John was commanded to write in Revelation to the seven churches.
So we do have, Jesus either directly or working via the Holy Spirit, moving men to write what He's commanded.
This also relates to my question regarding why do we have the New Testament.
When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments...what medium did He use?
Was the Law written down?
The written word has long been used in both Old and New Testaments to convey God's truth for the generation receiving it and for future generations.
You will also note that Jesus appealed to the written word as did the disciples. Mary appealed to the written word.
If you do a word search on write/written v tradition you will see the heavy reliance upon the written word and very few uses of tradition. Most of the references to the use of tradition are in the negative.
There is far more appeal to the written word and for good reason.
There you go, just like a Catholic, making another assertion instead of relying on a direct verse of scripture!
You want me to show a verse that directly states that Mary was conceived without sin, but refuse to show me a verse that directly says that Jesus commanded His Apostles to write the scriptures.
I do believe that the Gospel writers were moved by the Holy Spirit to write down their accounts of Jesus’ life, but it is by Church tradition that I know this, not by having seen it directly written as such in the sacred scriptures.
It is the same with the sinlessness of Mary which I believe in and you don’t.
(Incidentally, the Church teaches that the blessed virgin did need to be redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary, but that God applied the graces to her in advance of her conception.)
elageone:
“...If you do a word search on write/written v tradition you will see the heavy reliance upon the written word and very few uses of tradition. Most of the references to the use of tradition are in the negative.
There is far more appeal to the written word and for good reason.”
RB:
Your logic in asserting that the written word is far more important than tradition doesn’t hold water, and your methodology of proof is by nature of the question biased toward the written word.
Paul told his disciples to imitate him. Jesus told His disciples to follow Him. Parents and teachers are constantly reminded to give good example.
These all have to do with tradition, and by the very nature little is written in its application, for it is imitation, not reading and reciting that has its effect when speaking strictly of tradition. It is thus, when I read in depth accounts of the most holy, reverent, and like-Jesus people in history, it is the Catholic saints who the books are written about.
Finally, Saint John in the final words of his Gospel writes
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”
But by Protestant theology if someone were to teach of the things of Jesus that didn’t get written down (such as mentioned by Saint John above), they are to be condemned.
THAT, ealgeone, is part of the shortsighted arrogance found in Protestant heresy.
There you go, just like a Catholic, making another assertion instead of relying on a direct verse of scripture!
You want me to show a verse that directly states that Mary was conceived without sin, but refuse to show me a verse that directly says that Jesus commanded His Apostles to write the scriptures.
I do believe that the Gospel writers were moved by the Holy Spirit to write down their accounts of Jesus’ life, but it is by Church tradition that I know this, not by having seen it directly written as such in the sacred scriptures.
It is the same with the sinlessness of Mary which I believe in and you don’t.
(Incidentally, the Church teaches that the blessed virgin did need to be redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary, but that God applied the graces to her in advance of her conception.)
elageone:
“...If you do a word search on write/written v tradition you will see the heavy reliance upon the written word and very few uses of tradition. Most of the references to the use of tradition are in the negative.
There is far more appeal to the written word and for good reason.”
RB:
Your logic in asserting that the written word is far more important than tradition doesn’t hold water, and your methodology of proof is by nature of the question biased toward the written word.
Paul told his disciples to imitate him. Jesus told His disciples to follow Him. Parents and teachers are constantly reminded to give good example.
These all have to do with tradition, and by the very nature little is written in its application, for it is imitation, not reading and reciting that has its effect when speaking strictly of tradition.
It is thus true, that when I read in depth accounts of the most holy, reverent, and like-Jesus people in history, it is the Catholic saints who the books are written about.
Finally, Saint John in the final words of his Gospel writes
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”
But by Protestant theology if someone were to teach of the things of Jesus that didn’t get written down (such as mentioned by Saint John above), they are to be condemned.
THAT, ealgeone, is part of the shortsighted arrogance found in Protestant heresy.