I have no idea why the word wasn't translated into "sacrament". We don't use translations so there's no problem for us. Maybe the people who did the English translations didn't like the idea of Latin Church sacraments? "...according to the Strong's concordance, it means a hidden thing or secret."
For us, the essence of a "sacrament" is hidden or secret thing. "So I'm not getting the sense that it is really like you say in that it implies the same thing as the Church's term "sacrament".
The "sacraments" do not comprise all of the mysteries of and around and about God, bb. In the East we don't constrain God, putting Him in little boxes, having Him compelled by Necessity and limiting Him to what we can fully understand.
"I did not find anywhere a mystery of marriage, of baptism, of communion/Eucharist, of Holy Orders, of healing or of last rites that would justify your assertion of the sacraments being described in Scripture."
I assume you are familiar with the biblical (not Traditional) basis for the Mysteria so I won't go into that. So far as I recall, the only one actually called a Mysterion in the NT is marriage but calling it a Mysterion is not the point. Mysterion and Mysteria are not "magic words". The point is that we do not fully (or even marginally) understand the what and how of the Mysteria because these are matters of God, not us. When we claim we do, we inevitably fall into error. Can you explain how baptism works on us (not what it does visibly), or Holy Orders, or the Annointing of the sick, or confession or Holy Communion or how matrimony is a type of Christ's relationship to The Church and how it advances us in theosis?
The West is fixated on "proving" and explaining matters of Faith and rejecting matters of Faith when it cannot "prove" or explain what is essentially unprovable and inexplicable. It is absolutist and legalistic, whether in Latin Rite or Protestant vestments, which leads to otherwise perfectly rational human beings arguing over whether bats really are birds! What does this lead to? Simple, it leads to atheistic secularism. Western Christians need to learn humility. A step in that direction will be to accept that they don't need to know everything!
"The power to bear Mysteries, which the humble man has received, which makes him perfect in every virtue without toil, this is the very power which the blessed apostles received in the form of fire. For its sake the Savior commanded them not to leave Jerusalem until they should receive power from on high, that is to say, the Paraclete, which, being interpreted, is the Spirit of consolation. And this is the Spirit of divine visions. Concerning this it is said in divine Scripture: 'Mysteries are revealed to the humble'. The humble are accounted worthy of receiving in themselves this Spirit of revelations Who teaches mysteries" +Isaac the Syrian
Spot on, Kolo mou. One cannot approach faith with reason and remain faithful. The Age or reason is the precursor of atheism and it is no coincidence that it was energized by the Protestant west.
Western Christians need to learn humility. A step in that direction will be to accept that they don't need to know everything!
That's what happens when you treat your faith as knowledge and not hope.
I have never had a problem with admitting that I didn't understand everything that I knew about something. ;o)
If by this you mean, or allow it to mean, that Christian faith is baseless, like a wish, rather than it being a qualified step of faith based upon some warrant, and which results in realities which correspond to the claims of its object, as it is in the Bible, then i disagree. From Abraham to Moses to the apostle, God provided some warrant for taking a step of faith, and attested to it, and so it is today. That is the difference between dead sentimental religion and the church of the living God.