Excuse me but this is just gobblygook nonsense and Church revisionist history. The Church from its earliest foundation separated the inspired word of God. That was the entire purpose of identifying the Bible. There was NEVER any claims in the early church that the scriptures were only part of the story with more to follow later. In fact, Augustine writes that the purpose of separating the scriptures from the other writings were, in fact, to perserve them from the flawed man-inspired writings. They held the scriptures at a higher level than other teachings.
So, the correct interpretation of God's revelation, as understood and taught by the Apostles, is maintained in the life of the Church, which doesn't change
Which Church? The Orthodox or Catholic? Who has the right interpretation?
Our Divine Liturgy has not changed in at least 1,700 years,
Considering Christianity is 2100 years old you're short by about 400 years. Why did you change? And, btw, the Orthodox never has accepted a number of the very early creeds of the Church (e.g. Nicene Creed). You've may have accepted some of the early divine liturgy but not all.
In other words, whatever the mindset of the Church was 1700 years ago, when the Bible was canonized, is what we believe and practice.
Well, considering you have admitted that you don't buy into the OT and a significant portion of the NT, I would suggest what's in the Bible is not really what is believed.
“There was NEVER any claims in the early church that the scriptures were only part of the story with more to follow later.”
There is no such claim in Orthodoxy today (or ever as far as I know), nor did Kosta say there was, HD.
“They held the scriptures at a higher level than other teachings.”
Eventually, yes they did, but only because those scriptures were in accord with what The Church always and everywhere believed.
“Which Church? The Orthodox or Catholic? Who has the right interpretation?”
Do you mean “The Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic”? If so, then The Orthodox Church.
“Considering Christianity is 2100 years old you’re short by about 400 years. Why did you change?”
2000, but who’s counting, right? 1700 years is a very safe statement. In fact, the Divine Liturgy may not have changed in substance since the time of +James.
“And, btw, the Orthodox never has accepted a number of the very early creeds of the Church (e.g. Nicene Creed).”
HD, we wrote the Nicene Creed and recite it as it was adopted by the Council every Sunday. Where did you get this odd idea?
“You’ve may have accepted some of the early divine liturgy but not all.”
What parts of the “early divine liturgy” didn’t we accept, the “praise bands”?
The point is quite simple, HD, and Kosta stated it well. That NT you folks thump was put together by bishops who worshipped God and spoke about and believed about God the exact same way we Orthodox of today do. You people don’t. Now you may believe things about the bible, but you don;t believe what the men who assembled it believed. Now I know you know that and I know that doesn’t bother you. What I am curious about is WHY that doesn’t bother you.