[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

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.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

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.

Actually its the other way Grip. Tradition was a standard by which the New Testament texts were exposed to when they were being canonized in the 4th century. If this church fell into paganism, then you shouldn't even trust the Bible.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

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.

Grip, Here's a quote from St Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Magnesians, who was a disciple of John. Don't you think John would have corrected him of such an error?
Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

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.

So how do you distinguish between traditions of man and tradition of the apostles?

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

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?

Well, it isn't. Its actually you who faces this problem. When the church fathers came together and canonized the New Testament, you're placing faith in them. Why trust them on this issue and not on the issue of Sunday worship etc?

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

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

you mean you won't believe because of your interpretation of those scriptures

I think we're getting too sidetracked in this thread, we should probably start another thread that deals specifically with the issue of Church Tradition.