“No human beings “decided” what would be in the holy canon of scripture. No human being kept God’s word from being destroyed.”
I know some protestant sects believe that that the authors of the OT and NT as well as the bishops who decided what was in and what was out were, like Mohammed, at base automotons, mere scribes for God. Would that include yours? Do you believe that the authors were in trances, like Mohammed?
” And even when leaders of your religion tried to dilute the scriptures with phony writings and altered texts, the actual scriptures emerged unscathed.”
Which phoney writings and altered texts did the Eastern Fathers and Patriarchs use to dilute the scriptures? The writings of the early Fathers were among the standards used by The Church to determine what in fact was Holy Writ and what was not, unlearner. Even that lead to compromises. Revelation was rejected in the East and Hebrews in the West. Eventually there was a deal and in they came. Truth be told, though, for us, Revelation is kept on top of the bookcase in the back...dusty.
” And even when the leaders of your religion had people burned at the stake for translating the scriptures and printing them in the common language of the people, God preserved His word and enabled men like William Tyndale to do His work before being martyred by the leaders of your religion who were too busy having orgies and setting up houses of prostitution to care about the common people hearing the word of God.”
The scriptures in The Church in the East have always been in the “common language of the people”, at least until we converted the Slavs and even then, the Patriarch of Constantinople sent out Sts. Cyril and Methodios to translate the OT, the NT and the Liturgy and other services into Slavonic. We also didn’t do burnings at the stake, even of heretics. You have us confused with some other church perhaps?
” If you want to claim credit for what your religion under the supposedly infallible leadership of continuous succession has done, then take credit for the whole ball of wax.”
We don’t have an “infallible leadership under continuous succession”, unlearner. Our bishops and patriarchs are all too fallible. The only infallible institutions we have are Ecumenical Councils.
“like Mohammed, at base automotons, mere scribes for God”
I would like to know which Christian sects believe the writers of the Bible were similar to Muhammed. I don’t know of any that would accept such a comparison. It is the kind of thing only opponents would assert to discredit someone else. No one would agree to the comparison.
My opinion is that various writings of the Bible were constructed under a variety of circumstances, writing styles, methods and forms. For example, Psalms and Proverbs are collections of writings that originated from multiple authors but were compiled by God’s divine direction. Some scriptures contain parts that were directly dictated by God as if He was speaking to a scribe. Some are largely from the author’s description of visions from God. Some probably came from men who had been taught by God, taught others over many years, and then carefully compiled a form of these teachings. Some are simply recollections of historical events.
What is not my opinion, but is fact, is that all of the scriptures were inspired (God-breathed). This means they contain no errors and are directly from God as general revelation to us.
The Apocryphal writings have been rejected because they were not inspired writings.
Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Codex Alexandrinus, Vetus Latina, Vulgate are among the manuscripts which are not authoritative even though they may contain scriptures and may have attempted to faithfully preserve them.
The Textus Receptus is authoritative. Attempts to dilute it with “higher criticism” (John Mill in early 1700’s through Westcott and Hort in the late 1800’s) failed. This text comes to us mainly through the majority text.
Since there is the potential to spend a lifetime studying the history, language, and roles that people had in the transmission of scriptures to us today, it is impossible to have “simple” debate on the subject.
As far as your church history, I thought I was addressing a Roman Catholic. My mistake.