No need to be abusive. What is important is that the events happened. The Church existed before even a word of the NT was committed to paper.
Who's being "abusive", or are you trying to divert attention away from the substance of the discussion? What is important is that, without the Scripture, you would have no idea what the events which happened even were. Without Scripture, why would there be any reason to believe one group who claims that they "know" from their traditions how it all happened, versus any myriad of other groups making the same claim? "Traditions", such as they are, are defined by Scripture, and any tradition, of "the church" or otherwise, which deviates from Scripture, is a false tradition.
WHERE in heaven’s name is he being abusive here? LOL.