Yes.
Well, since then I've learned that you think of the scripture as part of Tradition. I see your view as being that if there were 10,000 stories to tell, the authors of the NT just decided to write some of them down, leave others out, and it didn't really matter because it would all be picked back up again through the Church. The scriptures are fine, as a supplement, but Tradition is really where the truth rests. After all, it was first. If anyone ever thinks that the scripture does not match Tradition, then in every single case it is the person misinterpreting scripture, not misinterpreting Tradition.
If God "wrote" the Bible, how could their personalities come through unless they added a little of their own "zest" to the text? ... the scribes' personalities somehow "snuck" in?
Their personalities didn't come through because of them, but because God wanted it that way. There was no sneakery involved. It was all God's will. There could be a dozen reasons for this. Just speculating, one could have been to authenticate the letters from the Biblical writer. Paul visited places and then wrote letters. If they didn't sound anything like him, then that would not have been productive.
A similar idea could have worked for the Gospel authors, the people heard the oral teaching first and then read the written word. If they did not match both in content and in style, then that would have been a red flag for new believers. In any event, I am merely observing what appears to be patently true in terms of the fact that personalities came through. I do not claim to declare the reason for it with certainty.
If what St. Ignatius, a disciple of Apostle Peter, we are confident that his writings reflect the knowledge of the Church and St. Peter himself, for otherwise I doubt he would have made him a bishop and patriarch of Antioch and his spiritual successor.
I honestly am not sure what the missing words are, but I think my answer would be that you have thrown out many teachings of the early Fathers, most notably, Augustine. (Wikipedia even says that Tertullian questioned that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but I don't quote that source as gospel. :) How do you know which of the works of these heralded Saints is true and which is bogus. My understanding is that other fallible men get together and have a vote on it. Those fallible men decide what God meant, and you are bound by it. Your confidence is based on fallible men.
So, you put yourself in the position of being the correct interpreter of the word of God!?
No, not in a million years. It only looks that way to you because I differ from the Church. So, when I see a verse that says "For it is by grace you are saved, through faith ...", and I interpret it to mean that we are saved by grace through faith, you would say that I am coming up with my own private (crazy) interpretation, because the Church strongly disagrees with this.
Actually, FK, I know with utmost certainty that the New Testament (not all Scripture) is a result of the Holy Tradition.
I do understand that to you this may be as disappointing as it must have been to find out that Santa Klaus really did not exist or that in the real world he was a Saint, but that's what they call "growing pains."
In order for the New Testament to become compiled from existing writings the Church had to know what is orthodox and what is heretical. That knowledge did not exist in neatly packaged book called the New Testament.
The compilation of the New Testament served the purpose to eliminate any possibility of having heretical books used liturgically.
The fathers of the early Church had to be able to tell the difference between Gnostic lies that masqueraded as "gospels" from genuine Apostolic writings. They didn't have an instruction manual on how to tell the genuine from the false. The had to know.
Today, you know because you read the New Testament. But they didn't have one. They had many scrolls, hundreds of them in fact, that looked and sounded like "real" Gospels and Epistles, yet all but 27 of them turned out to be false.
That we have the New Testament today so you can than God who inspired the writers, and your "fallible men" of the Church who gathered the genuine books and compiled them into a book we know as the New Testament.
St. Augustine is a Saint in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, so that would be absurd. The other day, they quoted St. Augustine during homily in my Orthodox church. What the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches do with St. Augustine is that not all of his writing is necessarily concensus patrum, which is the only "security measure" that guards against private, individualistic or relativistic corruptions.
But, speaking of discarding and distortions, it is really the Protestants who throw out all the other Saints as "bogus" and embraced only one, St. Augustine, and generally only Apostle Paul, and predominately the Old Testament.
Wikipedia even says that Tertullian questioned that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but I don't quote that source as gospel. :) How do you know which of the works of these heralded Saints is true and which is bogus
Tertullian is a perfect example of someone who used to be orthodox and then later on in life left the Church through heresy because he placed his personal beliefs and interpretations above the concensus patrum, which is another way of saying that he thought himself smarter than the rest of the bishops.
So, when I see a verse that says "For it is by grace you are saved, through faith ...", and I interpret it to mean that we are saved by grace through faith, you would say that I am coming up with my own private (crazy) interpretation, because the Church strongly disagrees with this
No, I would say that only because the Church does not say that. We read the same verse the same way as you do, except that your definition of being "saved" is something form the left field.
You also read Scripture that is not the Scripture of the Church but of man called Luther, and men called Calvinists. Your Scripture is not identical to ours, nor does it say the same thing and is not the same canon.
What is ironic about this response is that is EXACTLY how the Church determined which writings were not legitimately inspired by God. The Church had a body of teaching, an inner sense, of what was given to it - and after reading the Gospel of Mark, knew it was legitimate, as it matched what they had heard orally. The same is true regarding Gnostic Gospels and writings. They recognized that this Gospel was NOT in tune with the Tradition given, both orally and written. Thus, the FIRST teachings are used as our foundation, our basis for judging whether something given later (written letters) are legitimately from Paul, or are forgeries, or are from an un-orthodox Christian.
It only looks that way to you because I differ from the Church
What is the pillar and foundation of the truth, the Bible or the Church? The community of faith has been given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit cannot lie. You KNOW this! And yet, you willingly "differ from the Church". What sort of response do you expect from us?
Regards