***In a nutshell. Because there were so many sources floating around, the Church used some of them in formulating doctrine; then they decided that the books as a whole were not inspired, although they kept some of the ideas and doctrines associated with them. That is why we rely on the Church’s Tradition and not just the Canon of Scripture
Mark, unlike the Western Church, the Church of the East considers scriptures part of the Holy Tradition, and not separate from it. This is a significant difference. Tradition of the Church is, of course, defined as the life of the Church, so scriptures play a role in it, liturgically and otherwise, and while there is a belief in infallibility of the Church as a whole (i.e. that the gates of hell will not overcome it), there is no claim of any inerrency. It is the duty of the Church to make sure the correct faith is transmitted despite errors and variants that may appear.***
Ummm, well, the differences may be in the translation rather than the actual. We believe that the overlap is so great so as to virtual containment. It may just be different in definitional words.
***The story we know form the Church is of course different, well choreographed and tailored to fit the doctrine. Some prefer it that way. I don’t because it doesn’t fit the facts.***
There is a certain level of glossing, sure. But the thing is that the basic Faith requires belief. The Church developed the Faith based upon its own authority and its own maturing understanding of the great truths of Jesus.
Facts? The fact that the Gospels all treat the events on the day of Resurrection totally differently does not alter the Faith. The references in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul do not agree on the eyewitness level by any means. That does not alter the Faith.
***The scriptures were no better. They existed in a variety of versions and Christianity pretty much progressed freely and without too many doctrinal or theological restrictions. Copyists were not professionals and undertook to change manuscripts to keep up with doctrinal developments.***
Or in some cases subsitute their own.
***It is the duty of the Church to make sure the correct faith is transmitted despite errors and variants that may appear.***
And emphatically not Luther’s every milkmaid or youth of nine.
I have no issues with that, Mark. That becomes somewhat pertinent when universal authority is claimed on faith alone.
Facts? The fact that the Gospels all treat the events on the day of Resurrection totally differently does not alter the Faith.
The question is: does the Bible give faith or do believers agree with the Bible because it reflects their faith? And how does one establish the order? based on how the NT was put together, I would say the latter. In which case, what the Bible says neither reveals nor teaches anything one doesn't already know, and that smacks of Gnosticism.
The references in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul do not agree on the eyewitness level by any means. That does not alter the Faith
The problem with development and growth and maturing is that the knowledge is incomplete, and is being perfected. And that which is incomplete is imperfect by definition (perfect coming from the word meaning complete). If the Church is "developing" and receiving "updates" as Alex seems to think, then the Church cannot claim to know the truth, but only that it's learning it.
Or in some cases subsitute their own
Yes, that too, unfortunately.