Ok...your post is quite long, and I don't have the time to reply to it, nor do I believe that an epically long reply would benefit anyway! So I'll just try and boil it down!
Not necessarily.
Oral Tradition that is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Thess 2:15, etc. does not refer to orally transmitting the message of the Bible. It refers to the Oral Tradition apart from the Written Tradition (the Bible).
The Oral Tradition has not been corrupted and we know this for three reasons:
1) Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.
Oral Tradition was a long time aspect of the religious life of the Jews. They recognized the existence of Divine Oral Tradition. There are some passages in the New Testament, for example, that refer to the Divine Revelation of the Old Testament but deal with items not in the written Old Testament.
A) Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
B ) Matthew 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
C) 1Cor.10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
It is obvious the Apostles knew and believed in a Divine Oral Tradition.
I have to disagree with how you interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:15. All these verses are Paul talking about them upholding the things he has taught them, either through his visits to them, or his writings to them. We see both in scripture. So far nothing here suggests we have leave to believe that anything we are told is 'from God because it's been done for generations'.
Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
(John 21:25 ESV)
John tells us here that not everything Jesus did or said has been written down. He does not go on to say that we are given leave to suppose anything we 'hear' about Jesus is therefore factual, just left out of scripture. Remember all those people who love to try and claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene? It's this very situation and false claims that requires us to rely on what scripture teaches and not what comes through man.
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
(Acts 20:35 ESV)
'Remembering the words of the Lord Jesus' is hardly proof that the bible tells us to rely as much on word of man, as that of the word of God. Especially considering he goes on to repeat a teaching that is clearly found in scripture..."it is better to give than receive"...yes, clearly a teaching of Christ.
I have no doubt that God can preserve his word in any way he chooses. But the simple fact is that he has chosen to give us the bible. Now, if Oral Tradition is directly backed up by scripture, then I have zero problem with it, but anything that cannot be found confirmed and affirmed in scripture must be viewed as suspect. It's foolishness to think we can rely on word of man equally as the word of God.
2) The importance of Oral Tradition is great. This is seen by the fact that St. Paul tells us to listen to and obey Tradition (that is Divine Tradition, not human customs) as Scripture. He even tells us that people who do not follow this Divine Oral Tradition are to be shunned (2 Thess 3:14).
All the possible teachings of Jesus cannot possible be placed into one book and the Bible itself affirms. Also, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the early decades of the Church. All that existed was the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. Even after the letters of the New Testament began to be written and passed around it was not until the 4th century that the Church put in place exactly which letters were to be considered Scripture and which were not. How the bishops made that decision was, in part, on whether the letter in question was consistent with the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.
Oral Tradition ALWAYS precedes Written Tradition. Written Tradition (the bible) is a small subset of the larger Oral Tradition. This has always been the case - in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times.
Uhmmmm.....
If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 ESV)
This letter...as in...2 Thessalonians...as in...the bible.
And no...the bible certainly does not affirm that other teachings of Jesus is to be found elsewhere. The bible is THE word of God...not A word of God.
Here's the thing...and I wonder if it's this point that is providing some problem here. When the Apostles taught these things to the people then....naturally they spoke them. It's sort of how people communicate primarily...they speak. So sure...in that case maybe we could say that oral tradition came first. But you what, when the disciples...the eye witnesses...those people whom God the Spirit worked through directly to give his message of Christ to the world...when they died or were martyred, the most reliable and therefore primary way to assure themselves of what they were teaching, following, believing, was what the apostles had taught, was to read their words directly....the words of God as he spoke through them. Any other words that did not come through the apostles and from God, is just opinions, musings and ideas. All liable to human mistakes...especially over time.
3) I proper concern is whether or not this Divine Oral Tradition is passed on from generation to generation accurately. Well, God is not so cruel that He would not account for some way to preserve His Word. His Word, after all is life. We must have a way to preserve the Word of God. God did that through a Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place --- just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23).
Yeah, see, this is where I just flatly disagree with you. God gave us scripture. He gave that to us through all the apostles, not just Peter. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Peter was your first Pope. Sure, he was the head of the Apostles, but as I already mentioned to Neo, how the Pope presents himself and how Peter knew Christ would call the 'head' apostle to behave are different. Peter knew that to be a Christ like leader, he was to put himself last...to serve people...not give himself a throne to sit on, a ring to kiss, welcoming devotion. He made sure all the attention was for Jesus, none for himself. And he certainly didn't call himself infallible. I don't hate Catholics, but truly...I believe that Peter would have some serious rebuking to do over the position of Pope...especially after he just witnesses Jesus tear the curtain between God and man....the Pope is not needed. Just man, on his knees, loving and worshipping Jesus.
