"But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - John 21:25
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations�and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19-20
In his Gospel, John says that there are many things that Jesus did that were not written down. Now, in Matthew's Gospel, he says that Jesus told His apostles to teach EVERYTHING that He taught them, not just certain doctrines that are "essential." Where do we go to get these doctrines? From Holy Tradition.
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
This is one of the main verses (if not THE main verse) that Catholics use to defend Holy Tradition. Protestants, however, say that all this Tradition was eventually written down in the bible, so we don't need to hold fast to any oral traditions anymore. Some even say that the oral Traditions Paul was talking about were the same as the written Traditions.
The Protestant claim that the written and oral Traditions Paul is speaking of are the same has no basis whatsoever. They say that since Paul said "by word of mouth OR by our letter," the Traditions must have been the same; however, I disagree. Was the whole New Testament made up of Paul's letters (in particular 1 and 2 Thessalonians)? No. Was the whole New Testament written at this point? No. The oral Traditions HAD to have been different from the written Traditions. Now, Protestants must try to prove that all of this oral Tradition was written down, but they make one crucial error here. God (through Paul), in Scripture, commands us to believe in the oral Traditions. Why do Protestants ignore this command and say that it has become "outdated" and "obsolete?" Why would God inspire Paul to write a command in Scripture that was only valid for a short period of time?
"Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me�" - 2 Timothy 1:13
"and what you have heard from me entrust to faithful witnesses�" - 2 Timothy 2:2
2 Timothy (the book that includes the famous 2 Timothy 3:16-17) was Paul's last letter. He was about to die shortly, and he was instructing Timothy on how to be a faithful pastor to his people. Just like in 2 Thessalonians, Paul commands that we believe in the oral Traditions. Timothy is to pass on the teachings that he heard from Paul, not merely read or learned.
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you have learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." - 2 Timothy 3:14-15
Here, the verses preceding the famous 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul appeals to two authorities, Scripture and Tradition.
1) "knowing from whom you have learned it" (Tradition)
- Here, Paul appeals to his apostolic authority apart from Scripture (because he appeals to Scripture later), which can only mean that he is appealing to Apostolic Tradition
2) "and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings" (Scripture)
- Here, Paul appeals to the authority of Scripture.
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons�" - 1 Corinthians 5:9
"And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea." - Colossians 4:16
These are two very interesting verses; they show that there are at least two letters of Paul that have not survived and are not in the bible. Now, there are a few beliefs that people can have regarding these passages. First, one can believe that since we don't have all of Paul's letters, we don't have all of Scripture, so we don't have all of God's revelation. Because we don't have all of God's revelation, we don't know all we need to know, and God has failed. This is utterly ridiculous. Secondly, we can believe that these letters weren't inspired as his biblical letters, but this leads us to question the canonicity of the rest of his letters (and the letters of Peter, James, John, and Jude). Third, we can believe that Tradition makes up for those letters.
"But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring condemnation of slander against him, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" - Jude 9
"It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him." - Jude 14-15
These two quotes from Jude's letter are not from any book of the Old Testament, yet they are considered to be true and prophetical. The first quote is from the Assumption of Moses, and the second one is from the book of Enoch, both of which are apocryphal writings. These are two examples of the New Testament writers relying on Jewish extra-biblical tradition that was widely known and considered inspired.
"There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean.'" - Matthew 2:23
This is another example of the New Testament authors relying on extra-biblical tradition. Nowhere in the Old Testament is this prophecy made, but Matthew still used it in his Gospel to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, just as he used prophecies from the Old Testament.
