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.
The Catholic Church predates Scripture. Your analysis fails.
The one group that DOES know from their traditions is the Catholic Church, because the fathers of the Catholic Church were THERE. Pope Peter I, Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc.
“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.”
The Gospel is not confined to Scripture. Scripture is a useful compilation of the Gospel, but the Gospel pre-existed the New Testament.
Nowhere in NT scripture is there a complete catcheism, nor is there a handbook or a rule book.