You failed to understand what I was saying before and you are still failing to understand (whether deliberately or not I don't know).
Sacred Tradition is not in Scripture by definition, but it still of God by definition.
Who is that aimed at. Are you just trying to insult me?
As I have pointed out before when the apostles (or other) preached to Gentiles they did not hand out Scripture.
They preached orally (that's what preaching is).
The Gentiles would not know any Scripture (unless they were God-fearers) but could still believe without knowing any Scripture.
You failed to understand what I was saying before and you are still failing to understand (whether deliberately or not I don't know). Sacred Tradition is not in Scripture by definition, but it still of God by definition.
As are you with me.
That which is not written as Scripture, nor is confirmed by Scripture as true, is still not of God by definition: Sola Scriptura.
Men can call it Sacred all they want, but if it is not proven true by Scripture, without any reasoning of scripture, then it is not true of God.
Perhaps, what you are failing to understand is the difference between distinctly written Scripture, and the reasonable teaching and reasoning out of Scripture.
Example: Jesus Christ is the risen Lord and Saviour for all mankind, to save them that believe on His name, and He has died on the cross for all the sins of the world, without respect of persons, whether Jew or Greek.
That is not a quote of Scripture, but it certainly is a true reading and sense of Scriptures that are written.
Therefore, any teaching of doctrine and tradition of God must either be written distinctly, or reasonably taught from the Scriptures. Anything that cannot be confirmed as true by Scripture is therefore not to be taught as true of God: Sola Scriptura.
Are there any traditions and teachings you hold to, that cannot be supported by Scripture?
Who is that aimed at. Are you just trying to insult me?
Once again, do you have any 'Sacred' traditions, that Scripture does not confirm as necessarily true, and yet you would still teach them as doctrine and truth of Christ? I mock them that call 'Sacred' of God, and yet is not proven true by Scripture of God.
As I have pointed out before when the apostles (or other) preached to Gentiles they did not hand out Scripture.
And once again, I have addressed this in multiple ways, and you still refuse to believe.
Paul reasoned out of the scriptures and preached according to the scriptures, and the Gentiles knew the Scriptures of the Old covenant, because the Septuagint had been around for several hundred years, and Paul even quoted from it in (Heb 10:5)
And if there was anything Paul preached that was new to Scripture, then it would either be written as Scripture, or confirmed by Scriptures written. If anyone claims knowledge of that which was written to Laodicea, then that claim is proven true or not, by whether that knowledge agrees with what is written to Corinth, and to Rome, and to the 12 tribes scattered abroad...
The Bible didn't float down out of the air, as you say, and neither are their any words of Paul floating around in the air, that either are not written, or cannot be confirmed by what is written.
They preached orally (that's what preaching is).
And they preached orally according to the Scriptures, which is the gospel of Christ. That's what preaching the gospel of Christ is.
And they that preach orally not according to the Scriptures, it is another accursed gospel. That's what another accursed gospel is.
And so finally:
Do you believe any oral teaching and preaching as true of Christ, that cannot be confirmed by Scripture: whether distinctly written, nor a reasonable sense of what is written?