No, that’s also completely wrong, but I’m not running an education camp here to educate you on everything.

Its not wrong, and I’m starting to wonder if you know shit from shinola or not.

The canon of the New Testament was not assembled and codified until the 4th century. Before that, various writings were accepted as authoritative in different places by different local churches, usually including (but not always including) the books that are currently included in the New Testament canon; other writings that today are either included in the works of the (a) Apostolic Fathers (such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas) or (b) considered totally apocryphal were also considered authoritatative in some places by some churches.

When you don’t have a written tradition that everyone agrees on, what tradition are you left with? (Class? Class?) That’s right, an ORAL tradition that supported by, but not dependent on, extant writings.

For crying out loud, what on EARTH has the opinion of the unwashed masses got to do with what people of a particular faith do during their worship services, and how essential various aspects of it are to their religion?

Nothing, although I’m getting tired of repeating that, since you don’t seem to understand what I write. You are absolutely determined to miss what is in effect a simple point.

If you care to go back to the Original Point that set you off some days ago, it is quite simple. I’ll simply replace the term “source document”, since it upsets you so much:

You cannot, from the New Testament writings alone, derive the belief that the Sunday Church Service is either central or essential to Christian worship. Jesus never ordained it and Paul never established it in his writings.

The importance and centrality of the Sunday worship service is attributable to (as you correctly stated) the Traditions of the Roman and Eastern Churches, which were then adopted without question by Protestants.

Capice?

But if you’re going to lecture religious people about what their own religion teaches, I’m saying you’re way out of your depth.

But I never commented AT ALL about what anyone’s religion teaches. All I said was what I said above: that the centrality of Sunday worship is not derivable from New Testament alone.

Regarding the term “source document”, it is entirely rational to point out that if members of a religion do not agree on what is a source document, then the only source document is the one which they DO agree on. And when you put Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants in a room, the only thing they are going to agree on is the canon of the New Testament.

This is why “hadith”, taken inclusively, cannot be considered a source document of Islam. The Sunnis accept Bukhari as authoritative, the Shia do not. Same problem. The source document becomes the one they agree on, which is Quran.

This entire debate has been one of semantics, as I said to you six exchanges ago. You objected to my use of the term “source document” to refer to the Old and New Testaments alone vis a vis Christianity. And because you objected (vehemently) with that usage, you impugned my character and insulted me and my beliefs.

Nice work. Go ahead, you can have the last word.