“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.
You and I both know there are pronouncements that have been made by the Orthodox Church that supercedes the scriptures. The conversation we once had about bishops being married comes to mind.
Eventually, yes they did, but only because those scriptures were in accord with what The Church always and everywhere believed.
Of course. But what that means is there were some things the Church had disputes about. It is these disputed areas that never were meant to be considered inspirational. The reason the Orthodox and eventually the Protestants left was simply because of these disputed areas.
2000, but who’s counting, right?
Well, I took a bit of liberty here but assuming our Lord was crucified around 25AD and the church was formed shortly thereafter, I would suggest I'm a bit closer with stating 2100 years than you are in stating 2000. But I'll split the difference and say 2050 years. ;O)
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?
Oh, I thought the fillique was in dispute. Was this resolved recently? ;O) 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....What I am curious about is WHY that doesn’t bother you.
I would suggest the early western fathers were very much Reformers. After all, I got my views from reading them-not Calvin.