[grip_daddy]

It is this method that's the problem, Grip, scriptures have to be understood in their historical context. Not through Biblical scholasticism. Scholasticism just allows for subjectivity.



One thing we share with you is the Trinity of God. Historically this nature of God became ratified as a church's doctrine years after the apostles had all died, and it happens to conform to scholastic approach of study, so I believe in Trinity too. There are truths that were not recorded by the apostles, but when found, they happen to CONFORM, not CONTRADICT, with the scriptures. Please mark the word CONTRADICT.

In Acts Paul commended the believers who were searching the scriptures in order to compare the apostolic preachings with the prophecies of OT. In another place Jesus told the Pharacees that they err because they knew not the scriptures.

History and the so called tradition must agree with underlying principles of the bible, of which if they are in disagreement, I choose the bible and disregard the tradition.

You're still using the Bible-only approach. The fact that the New Testament is silent about the change doesn't mean that the change didn't happen or that it isn't significant.

The change happened as an express change to the law of God. This change is given by history to have taken place gradually to accommodate pagan worshippers who rested on Sunday and also to ease the persecution pain by acquiring a form of similarity to Roman worship methods. A lot of the traditions which we see in the mainstrain Orthodox churches are documented to have formed a greater part of Babylonian religious festivities and sacramental systems which were past on to the Roman religious culture. Actually a closer study of History reveals Sunday worship to have existed during the captivity of Israelites in Babylon.

Just to mention a few, some of the practices borrowed from Babylon included infant baptism, water sprinkling, 25th Dec holidays, etc.

There's some teachings Christ taught that are not recorded in the New Testament. An example is in Acts 20:35, Paul quotes Jesus as saying "It is more blessed to give than to receive." None of the Gospels record that. The closest to this quote is "Freely you have received, freely give."

Agreed. But any teachings that are said to be from inspiration, those with a closer walk of God, any new prophet or seer, any ancient writings that may be discovered today, any word of mouth passage of information, any inherited culture and tradition, must be in agreement to the established truth as God's people documented in OT specifically, and should not contradict the teachings of the apostles.

For example, would you believe the story of Jesus' marriage and His two sons from tradition? If no, what would prevent you from believing it if some letter was discovered claiming to have come from Peter addressed to the said wife of Jesus?

I wont believe because of Isaiah 53, Hebrews 7, and such like scriptures. You?