Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

Sorry to bother you but I only see 139 posts Is it in another thread?God Bless

Sorry 131.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Can you answer this for me?I read your answer,but most people do not have guidelines and alot of History knowledge and have not studied historical customs of the day Jesus in the Gospels gives authority to the apostles to teach ,ect.There were illiterate people in the majority for centuries,so in effect they would be left hanging or rely on someones interpretation,who protects that?If they were taught a bad interpretation,who would be responsible?God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

Can you answer this for me?I read your answer,but most people do not have guidelines and alot of History knowledge and have not studied historical customs of the day Jesus in the Gospels gives authority to the apostles to teach ,ect.There were illiterate people in the majority for centuries,so in effect they would be left hanging or rely on someones interpretation,who protects that?If they were taught a bad interpretation,who would be responsible?God Bless

Well, most interpretation is self-evident. For example, it is not hard to get the basic interpreation for John 1:1 or Romans 8:28 even after 2000 years. So you will have to give me an illustration of a real problem.

But please do not think that I am saying that ALL Scripture is easy to interpret. Some is very difficult and you have to have training. Just as some of the Catechism is very difficult and people need training. Lisa, all that I am saying on this thread is that all information must ultimately be interpreted by the individual. You read your Catechism and interpret it according the rules of english grammer. When there is an ambiguity, you emotions, experience, and other predispositions and immediate traditons aid in your interpretation. We have to interpret information, whether it be from the Bible alone or the Magisterium’s interpretation of the Bible. Tell me where I have gone wrong.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Well, most interpretation is self-evident. For example, it is not hard to get the basic interpreation for John 1:1 or Romans 8:28 even after 2000 years. So you will have to give me an illustration of a real problem.

But please do not think that I am saying that ALL Scripture is easy to interpret. Some is very difficult and you have to have training. Just as some of the Catechism is very difficult and people need training. Lisa, all that I am saying on this thread is that all information must ultimately be interpreted by the individual. You read your Catechism and interpret it according the rules of english grammer. When there is an ambiguity, you emotions, experience, and other predispositions and immediate traditons aid in your interpretation. We have to interpret information, whether it be from the Bible alone or the Magisterium’s interpretation of the Bible. Tell me where I have gone wrong.

Michael

No,what I am saying is that through alot of history most people were unable to read.Where did it leave them?Michael you are searching for the truth,your not going wrong.I have posted on the thread you started and I am quite emotional right now.PM me please.God Bless

 

[RDCalleja]

This thread also demonstrates that the Magisterium does not create quite the unity that some RCs would believe and champion since many people interpret it differently becuase of some inherent ambibuity.

Michael,

This is indeed an interesting discussion. I’ve gone back and read the whole thing.
Considering your quote from above:
I respectfully disagree w/ your assessment. As I’ve read it, I’ve seen no divergence in the RC position demonstrated by all the different people who’ve remarked. Different approaches to responding, different illustrations used but all in an effort to make the same exact point . . . which is my point here. All have defended the Magisterium as the sole, infallible interptreter of Scripture and Tradition protected in truth by the Holy Spirit so that the Deposit of Faith is not and cannot be lost.

Continuing in that tradition then -

Lisa4Catholics in the last exchange, once again, in defending the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic position, brings up another great issue - that of the history of human illiteracy which, until more recent times involved most people. Further, until the printing press almost no one, even if they were among the few who could read, could have their own Bible as it had to be hand written on animal skin and was so costly that nearly nobody could afford one. Even after the press was invented and Bibles could be widely distributed, most common people couldn’t read. That leaves the majority of Christians over the past 2000 yrs. w/o the ability to interpret Scripture for themselves.

Why would God make a book that few throughout the ages have been able to read and interpret the sole way for people to find salvation? Talk about handing a man w/ no teeth an apple!

Christ didn’t come to establish a book but a kingdom.

Thank you for allowing me to join this discussion & God bless

Bob

 

[Ignatius]

michaelp:

Here are your choices:

1. You just read the Bible and come to your own personal conclusions.
2. You read the Bible, but you have an infallible teacher (the Magisterium made up of sinners). When you have a question, you can ask him, and he’ll mail you a written response.
3. Christ Himself meeting with you daily, giving you direction for the day?

Well, David Koresh, Jim Jones and Joseph Smith all chose #3.

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

Some comments regarding your three choices:

1. “You just read the Bible and come to your own personal conclusions.”

That’s a bit of a problem if you can’t read, which has been true for the vast majority of people throughout history and is still true today in parts of the world. Nor can everyone afford a Bible, even if they are able to read. Seems a lousy way to spread a message, in particular a message of supreme importance. Kinda explains why Jesus founded a Church, not a publishing company.

1. “You read the Bible, but you have an infallible teacher (the Magisterium made up of sinners). When you have a question, you can ask him, and he’ll mail you a written response.”

I have asked many questions of my priest, and he has always responded to me right then, verbally, without feeling the need to sit down and write me a letter—ah, but you’re being sarcastic, I see. Sure, the Magisterium is made up of sinners, and sometimes it takes a while for Church teaching to “settle”—but by and large, this system has worked well for 2000 years. Many Protestants have essentially self-destructed within a relatively short 500 years, with no end to the constant splintering in sight. Catholics don’t expect to see perfection on earth, and so we survive the various problems caused by sinners in the Church.

1. “Christ Himself meeting with you daily, giving you direction for the day?”

Ignatius answered this one better than I can: “Well, David Koresh, Jim Jones and Joseph Smith all chose #3.”

 

[michaelp]

Ignatius:

Well, David Koresh, Jim Jones and Joseph Smith all chose #3.

And the JWs and Mormans use 2. I guess that if we were to use the guilt by association argument, let be safe and choose 1!

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

If the institution of the RCC is needed to interpret the Scripture so that there will be unity in the Church, and the traditions that have been handed down have done this, why is it that no one can agree on the interpretation of Tradition? On this website alone there are thousands of different opinions on how to interpret the counsels (especially Vatican II).

In reality, doesn’t the Roman Catholic understanding of Tradition just move the problem up one level? Do we we need another institution to preside over the interpretation of Tradition? If so, who? This is one of the many problems I have with the RCCs understanding of Tradition–it is just as hard to interpret as Scripture.

I am not asking this to be difficult. I know that you must have thought this through, so I really do look forward to hearing your response.

I pray God’s richest blessings upon you all.

Michael

Hi Michael:

I’ll be brief because I haven’t read any other posts and because we have covered this before:

• The “disagreements” you continue to allege are minimal and usually involve complex topics of relative insignificance to Catholics. Whereas the fundamental disagreements among even Evangelicals are significant, not to mention the rest of the Sola Scriptura adherents. For example: The necessity of baptism, baptism of infants, artificial birth control, the Real Presence etc, etc, etc
• The words of Scripture are fixed and there can be no dialogue with them to clear up confusion. The Church, however, can clear up confusion through dialogue - it may take time, but progress is possible.
• The Church can speak in affirmative language (yes or no) to answer questions simply and directly. Scripture often speaks in descriptive language (ie, unless you are "born of water’) which leaves meaning unclear in many instances on critical issues. The many interpretations of Scripture by those genuinely seeking the Truth using it alone testifies strongly to this fact.

I went to your website. You’re some sort of big shot aren’t you!? Wipe that smile off your face - gotcha! Don’t worry, I’m to stupid to hold my tongue - I’ll still tell you what I think.

Phil

 

[RDCalleja]

michaelp:

And the JWs and Mormans use 2. I guess that if we were to use the guilt by association argument, let be safe and choose 1!

The JWs & Mormons are founded on #1 and then reverted to the concept of #2 as a way to bind their flock . . . this is not the same (in case that’s where you would take this) as the Catholic Magisterium which was commissioned by Jesus Christ when he gave the Apostles the authority to teach in His name, to bind and loose on earth and heaven, to forgive sins, etc.
Guess what they did w/ that power? Among other things, they commissioned the next generation of leaders (Bishops) and confered on them the same powers that Christ gave to them (Apostles) which they had the authority to do since it was given them by Christ . . . and so on and so on until the present day.

JWs and Mormons invented their own doctrine based on their own private interpretation of Scripture (#1) as did all the heretical sects that came before them. One can attempt to bind and loose the conscience of followers within a heretical movement but would be doing so w/o the Divinely granted authority to do so that the Apostles had from Christ and their successors still have because of the unbroken lineage through which these gifts flow.

God bless,
Bob

 

[RDCalleja]

Michael,

Here’s another thought:

A while back in your postings you mentioned how you thought that disagreement could be a tool of God’s and that the idea of an authority that “tells” us what to believe in some way stifles creativity and deeper understanding through debate.
I would say that it’s the structure and barriers given us by the Magisterium that make the Catholic faith so beautiful and rich and truly free the mind and heart to contemplate God as he is.

G.K. Chesterton once described the duty of the Church this way:
*"Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over again forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves. The truth about the Catholic attitude towards heresy, or as some would say, towards liberty, can best be expressed perhaps by the metaphor of a map. The Catholic Church carries a sort of map of the mind which looks like the map of a maze, but which is in fact a guide to the maze. It has been compiled from knowledge which, even considered as human knowledge, is quite without any human parallel. *

            *There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.*

            *On this map of the mind the errors are marked as exceptions. The greater part of it consists of playgrounds and happy hunting-fields, where the mind may have as much liberty as it likes; not to mention any number of intellectual battle-fields in which the battle is indefinitely open and undecided. But it does definitely take the responsibility of marking certain roads as leading nowhere or leading to destruction, to a blank wall, or a sheer precipice. By this means, it does prevent men from wasting their time or losing their lives upon paths that have been found futile or disastrous again and again in the past, but which might otherwise entrap travelers again and again in the future. The Church does make herself responsible for warning her people against these; and upon these the real issue of the case depends. She does dogmatically defend humanity from its worst foes, those hoary and horrible and devouring monsters of the old mistakes. Now all these false issues have a way of looking quite fresh, especially to a fresh generation. Their first statement always sounds harmless and plausible. I will give only two examples. It sounds harmless to say, as most modern people have said: "Actions are only wrong if they are bad for society." Follow it out, and sooner or later you will have the inhumanity of a hive or a heathen city, establishing slavery as the cheapest and most certain means of production, torturing the slaves for evidence because the individual is nothing to the State, declaring that an innocent man must die for the people, as did the murderers of Christ. Then, perhaps, you will go back to Catholic definitions, and find that the Church, while she also says it is our duty to work for society, says other things also which forbid individual injustice. Or again, it sounds quite pious to say, "Our moral conflict should end with a victory of the spiritual over the material." Follow it out, and you may end in the madness of the Manicheans, saying that a suicide is good because it is a sacrifice, that a sexual perversion is good because it produces no life, that the devil made the sun and moon because they are material. Then you may begin to guess why Catholicism insists that there are evil spirits as well as good; and that materials also may be sacred, as in the Incarnation or the Mass, in the sacrament of marriage or the resurrection of the body."*

Contemplate the meaning of this for a while.

God bless,
Bob

 

[michaelp]

I’ll be brief because I haven’t read any other posts and because we have covered this before:

Yes we have my friend.

The “disagreements” you continue to allege are minimal and usually involve complex topics of relative insignificance to Catholics.

Thanks for underlining that because “outside the church there is no salvation” is by no means non-essential to Protestants and all other non-catholic. As well, the disagreements concerning what statements of the past are truly infallible (especially that of the pope) are not non-essential either. I don’t see how anyone can say that they are.

Whereas the fundamental disagreements among even Evangelicals are significant

Why don’t you put “To Catholics”? here as well. I believe, as I have said before, that there is just as much unity in beliefs among Evangelicals than there is Catholics. Your claim is subjective and you are not able to verify it since you cannot prove what is a significant disagreement and what is not. Evangelicals are united on the five solas, and the first two creeds. There is room for disagreement beyond this. Significantly, this unity is not forced, but an act of “free will.” In other words, this unity is more significant and real, IMHO, since Protestant don’t have any necessary obligation to these five solas. Would you rather have forced unity, or people who study the individual issues and come to a unity based upon a unified concensus of the clarity of Scripture? You cannot claim this.

The necessity of baptism, baptism of infants, artificial birth control, the Real Presence etc, etc, etc

Non-essential that Evangelicals are free to disagree on. The most essential issue in Evangelicalism is Perseverence of the Saints. But most in the scholarly evangelical world agree on this as well, even though they may articulate it differently.

The words of Scripture are fixed and there can be no dialogue with them to clear up confusion. The Church, however, can clear up confusion through dialogue - it may take time, but progress is possible.

What Scriptures has the Church explicitly spoken on? Shall I start a thread and sit back and watch all the disagreements? Do you know the answer? If you do, then you will see that this statement makes little sense.

The Church can speak in affirmative language (yes or no) to answer questions simply and directly. Scripture often speaks in descriptive language (ie, unless you are "born of water’) which leaves meaning unclear in many instances on critical issues.

That is why people must study dilegently. Phil, you are created in the image of God. You are able to recognize his voice.

The many interpretations of Scripture by those genuinely seeking the Truth using it alone testifies strongly to this fact.

What about the many interpretations of the infallible statements of the Magisterium. If you were to go to your local bishop to ask for an answer, could you get infallibility?

Can you go to the pope and ask?
Can you call a council together?

Not much practical good. You have to interpret the statements of the infallible Magisterium.

I went to your website. You’re some sort of big shot aren’t you!? Wipe that smile off your face - gotcha! Don’t worry, I’m to stupid to hold my tongue - I’ll still tell you what I think.

I just happen to teach at a “celebrity” preachers church. They will soon find me out. But I will stick around here.

Thanks Phil.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

The JWs & Mormons are founded on #1 and then reverted to the concept of #2 as a way to bind their flock . . . this is not the same (in case that’s where you would take this) as the Catholic Magisterium which was commissioned by Jesus Christ when he gave the Apostles the authority to teach in His name, to bind and loose on earth and heaven, to forgive sins, etc.
Guess what they did w/ that power? Among other things, they commissioned the next generation of leaders (Bishops) and confered on them the same powers that Christ gave to them (Apostles) which they had the authority to do since it was given them by Christ . . . and so on and so on until the present day.

Got it. But from my perspective, there is no difference. I am sure that they would say the same thing about you. Although, I would not compare Roman Catholics to those cults. It just served as a comparison according to the options.

JWs and Mormons invented their own doctrine based on their own private interpretation of Scripture (#1) as did all the heretical sects that came before them.

This is really circular since they would say the same thing about you. I believe that you are right, but it does not help this discussion.

Thanks Bob.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

RDCalleja:

Michael,

Here’s another thought:

A while back in your postings you mentioned how you thought that disagreement could be a tool of God’s and that the idea of an authority that “tells” us what to believe in some way stifles creativity and deeper understanding through debate.
I would say that it’s the structure and barriers given us by the Magisterium that make the Catholic faith so beautiful and rich and truly free the mind and heart to contemplate God as he is.

G.K. Chesterton once described the duty of the Church this way:
*"Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over again forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves. The truth about the Catholic attitude towards heresy, or as some would say, towards liberty, can best be expressed perhaps by the metaphor of a map. The Catholic Church carries a sort of map of the mind which looks like the map of a maze, but which is in fact a guide to the maze. It has been compiled from knowledge which, even considered as human knowledge, is quite without any human parallel. *

There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.

On this map of the mind the errors are marked as exceptions. The greater part of it consists of playgrounds and happy hunting-fields, where the mind may have as much liberty as it likes; not to mention any number of intellectual battle-fields in which the battle is indefinitely open and undecided. But it does definitely take the responsibility of marking certain roads as leading nowhere or leading to destruction, to a blank wall, or a sheer precipice. By this means, it does prevent men from wasting their time or losing their lives upon paths that have been found futile or disastrous again and again in the past, but which might otherwise entrap travelers again and again in the future. The Church does make herself responsible for warning her people against these; and upon these the real issue of the case depends. She does dogmatically defend humanity from its worst foes, those hoary and horrible and devouring monsters of the old mistakes. Now all these false issues have a way of looking quite fresh, especially to a fresh generation. Their first statement always sounds harmless and plausible. I will give only two examples. It sounds harmless to say, as most modern people have said: “Actions are only wrong if they are bad for society.” Follow it out, and sooner or later you will have the inhumanity of a hive or a heathen city, establishing slavery as the cheapest and most certain means of production, torturing the slaves for evidence because the individual is nothing to the State, declaring that an innocent man must die for the people, as did the murderers of Christ. Then, perhaps, you will go back to Catholic definitions, and find that the Church, while she also says it is our duty to work for society, says other things also which forbid individual injustice. Or again, it sounds quite pious to say, “Our moral conflict should end with a victory of the spiritual over the material.” Follow it out, and you may end in the madness of the Manicheans, saying that a suicide is good because it is a sacrifice, that a sexual perversion is good because it produces no life, that the devil made the sun and moon because they are material. Then you may begin to guess why Catholicism insists that there are evil spirits as well as good; and that materials also may be sacred, as in the Incarnation or the Mass, in the sacrament of marriage or the resurrection of the body."

Contemplate the meaning of this for a while.

God bless,
Bob

Good quote Bob. Thanks.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Since you are a preacher at a “celebrity” preachers church I am sure that when you are called by the Holy Spirit you will bring the preacher and church with you I too went to your website,I saw the questions on Catholicism and frankly I am shocked that as long as you have been here you did not correct some of that God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

Since you are a preacher at a “celebrity” preachers church I am sure that when you are called by the Holy Spirit you will bring the preacher and church with you I too went to your website,I saw the questions on Catholicism and frankly I am shocked that as long as you have been here you did not correct some of that God Bless

Lisa, that is a host site for my program. While I do agree with most of the material on that site, it is not “mine.”

What is mine is The Theology Program and the teaching therein.

What exactly needs correcting anyway. I do have some influence there and I don’t want any misrepresentations. If it is just things you disagree with, you are going to have to let them be. But if there are valid errors, I would like to know.

Thanks Lisa. (have you watched any of the videos yet . . . or upgraded your computer so that you have audio or video). Not trying to evangelize since this is a Catholic site, but I was just curious.

Have a good one.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Lisa, that is a host site for my program. While I do agree with most of the material on that site, it is not “mine.”

What is mine is The Theology Program and the teaching therein.

What exactly needs correcting anyway. I do have some influence there and I don’t want any misrepresentations. If it is just things you disagree with, you are going to have to let them be. But if there are valid errors, I would like to know.

Thanks Lisa. (have you watched any of the videos yet . . . or upgraded your computer so that you have audio or video). Not trying to evangelize since this is a Catholic site, but I was just curious.

Have a good one.

Michael

My audio still doesn’t work,I need to get some funds we are broke,enough crying from me.Yes the thread said we worship Mary because we pray and ask her to pray in intercession to Jesus.The word pray is not always used in a worship context,we certainly do not use it that way.Also the patron Saints intercession,has the same kind of accusation and again it is not true.If they ceased to be Christians at physical death it would be scandalous,but if their souls remain with the Lord and death no longer has a sting then it is no different than me asking or saying I pray you send some prayers to Jesus for me It states that the prayers of the Saints are before Gods throne.Those are a couple and the are Catholics Christians question seems to have an evasive answer.God Bless
PS Thanks

 

[RDCalleja]

michaelp:

Got it. But from my perspective, there is no difference. I am sure that they would say the same thing about you. Although, I would not compare Roman Catholics to those cults. It just served as a comparison according to the options.

This is really circular since they would say the same thing about you. I believe that you are right, but it does not help this discussion.

Thanks Bob.

Michael

Michael,

Why are you so convinced that the Catholic position isn’t correct? Ok, so the JWs, etc. would say the same about the RCC but, as you did note, we both know they’re wrong, so why is what they would say relevant here? They’re wrong! We agree about that. They’re not even playing in the same ball park that we are.
The reason that it “doesn’t help the discussion” for me to point out their flawed personal interpretation is that you can’t seem to bring yourself to consider that 2000 years of Catholic thought has anything over the 500 years of protest-ant reformation and even more over a couple hundred years of JW re-invention. It’s kind of like a teenager telling his parents that he understands the world better than they do and that they just don’t get it anymore (we all know how that turns out eventually).

Michael, I respect you, I applaud your courage for engaging your RC brothers and sisters and I pray for you as I trust you would for me, but until you’re willing to even consider the larger picture, the fullness of Christ’s revelation (reading the Early Fathers, considering the Apostolic succession, discovering the Inspired continuity in Catholic doctrine that exists beyond the efforts to reach a human understanding of it), I don’t see the point of this 5 month version of “Who’s on First?”

Walk the road, don’t just look and scoff at it. It’s more glorious than you can possibly imagine . . . yet.

God bless,
Bob

 

[michaelp]

RDCalleja:

Michael,

Why are you so convinced that the Catholic position isn’t correct? Ok, so the JWs, etc. would say the same about the RCC but, as you did note, we both know they’re wrong, so why is what they would say relevant here? They’re wrong! We agree about that. They’re not even playing in the same ball park that we are.
The reason that it “doesn’t help the discussion” for me to point out their flawed personal interpretation is that you can’t seem to bring yourself to consider that 2000 years of Catholic thought has anything over the 500 years of protest-ant reformation and even more over a couple hundred years of JW re-invention. It’s kind of like a teenager telling his parents that he understands the world better than they do and that they just don’t get it anymore (we all know how that turns out eventually).

Evangelical Protestant do not believe obviously do not believe that RC represent historic Christianity, but that they do. Protestants see the RCC as coming into being in its current form in the 11th or 12th century.

the-highway.com/catholic-toc_Armstrong.html

Therefore, it is begging the question to say that we are only 500 years old. When the Church lost the Gospel and introduced infallibility in the late middle ages, then Reforms began.

Michael, I respect you, I applaud your courage for engaging your RC brothers and sisters and I pray for you as I trust you would for me, but until you’re willing to even consider the larger picture, the fullness of Christ’s revelation (reading the Early Fathers, considering the Apostolic succession, discovering the Inspired continuity in Catholic doctrine that exists beyond the efforts to reach a human understanding of it), I don’t see the point of this 5 month version of “Who’s on First?”

Believe me, I am a student of the early church as much as any RC. I just don’t read things with RC glasses on. I can be more objective in my interpretation of history since I am not necessarily bound to agree with any preset interpretations as you are. Therefore, I do believe Evangelicals are at an advantage when studying history. This does not make them right, it just provides more evidence of objectivity in their methodology.

As John Hannah (Church Historian) but it:

“We all walk through the gardens of Church history and pick the flowers that we like the best.”

Walk the road, don’t just look and scoff at it. It’s more glorious than you can possibly imagine . . . yet.

I could say the same thing to you my friend. Have a great night.

Michael

 

[jphilapy]

EXAMPLES OF THE SACRED APOSTOLIC TRADITION

It has been said, that all that is written in the Gospels cumulatively, would only cover 18 days in the life of Christ. Jesus lived for 33 years or 33 X 365 = 12045 days. What about the missing 12027 days? Christ walked among humanity and gave us 3 years or 3X 365 = 1095 days of verbal teaching before his death, What about Christ’s verbal peaching of the missing 1077 days? Did not Christ promise “the heavens and earth shall pass away but, my words shall not” where are thay? Where are the ‘writings’ of over 99% of His life? Are most of Christ’s words and actions lost to Christianity? The remainder is, no doubt are the unwritten SACRED APOSTOLIC TRADITION!

A good example of this would be the “Agrapha” (unwritten things). Agrapha denotes words of Christ not written in the Four canonical gospels. Many of these are found elsewhere in the New Testament, the early Fathers. The best authenticated are of course those found in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. The following list comes from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Copyright © 2001-2002]

Ok so what if Jesus said many things that were not written down. Do you have them anywhere at all? If not then what is the point of making this argument?

Thanks,
Jeff