Written vs Spoken

Catholics rely on doctrines that aren't written in the scriptures. They believe in the idea of Oral (Spoken) vs written dogmas. An example of written vs. spoken can be found in Matthew where Bethlehem is mentioned as Christ's birth place and Nazareth is mentioned as Christ's hometown. Nazareth is not used in the Old Testament. Yet, it says the prophets spoke of it. Bethlehem was actually written in prophecy.

Mat 2:5  And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 

Mat 2:6  And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. 

but concerning Nazareth,

Mat 2:23  And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. 

People have busied themselves with finding where the prophets wrote about Nazareth, but they may have only spoke it in extra biblical teaching. This could lead to the idea of Oral tradition. It really doesn't. Since oral tradition is always a possibility and some could be correct and some incorrect, it takes something more to verify it, the Holy Spirit can clarify in scripture later if it is important.. He clarified Old traditions with current scripture in this instance.

1. The Holy Spirit included it into the New Testament, he chose to make it clear, other wise Jews against Jesus could have refuted it as simple tradition. Major details that could be refuted were clarified in scripture. It could no longer be considered oral tradition once verified in scripture.

2. All of the prophets spoke it, so that it wasn't a sporadic teaching as the Catholic dogmas can be. Very few Catholic dogmas have a clear historical foot print.

3. It could have been figured out by the prophets by deduction. Nazareth may have been called by a different name as different cultures controlled the region. Isaiah 9:1 gives enough information to make a logical guess at Christ's location.

Isa 9:1  Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. 

Lightly afflicted could be the idea of smaller works and miracles in the area of Nazareth, but greater works in Capernaum and along the sea. The border of the two tribes of Zebulon and Naphtali is near Nazareth and Cana. Jesus could not be called a Nazarene until the name was actually called Nazareth, perhaps after the Old Testament prophets wrote. There is no clear mention of a town by that name in their writings.

From this one prophecy a general location can be deduced. He traveled by way of the sea, so his starting point would be the border area of Zebulun and Naphtali. It is also reasoned by some that the word Branch in the prophets is the same root word Nazareth. NZR in Hebrew. The word Branch could be a mistranslation or later teachers deduced from that word the name Nazarene.

There are multiple ways students of the Bible could deduce general location and have an opinion. Matthew seems to clear up all deductions. The Holy Spirit clarified so that we no longer have to rely on oral statements.

A doctrine such as the papacy or infant baptism could easily be clarified in scripture without relying on unreliable spoken dogma. It is obvious those doctrines were not expressly written in scripture. Christ's hometown was. It was spoken in the Old Testament period and written in the New. Since the Holy Spirit did not clarify these major Catholic oral interpretations they likely aren't true, plus there are statements in both statements that disprove the major Catholic dogmas.

We can also say that Luke's writing was spoken before being written, but once written those subjects can no longer be considered spoken dogma, once written it was written. It was scripture. Thus, not to be considered oral.