What historical evidence do you have about any of the scriptures? There is not a single original to be found. It's accepted on faith.
You cannot prove one quote in the New Testament came from the LXX
As much as you can prove that the five books of Moses came from Moses.
For the Protestant his final authority is the word of God and that is where the final appeal is to
No, it's what he considers to be the word of God. Again, it defaults to a man. In which case I would rather go with a consensus. The Protestants claim that what they believe is equal to the word of God. What proof is there of that?
No, it was put composed by men under the control of the Holy Spirit
And you can't prove it. First, not a single father agreed fully on what constitutes Christian canon and, second, it took a consensus to finalize it (and even then it wasn't fully accepted by all, Revelation of John being one case in point!). If the HS had anything to do with, it was in the Church as a whole and not in any individual father.
And the evidence of the correctness of the Books was attested to by Him
What "evidence" (proof)?
What we have is a perfect preservation of what God wanted to have
"Proving" scriptures with scriptures — on faith alone. Preconception is not a proof.
So now you are denying the authorship and validly of the book of Matthew?
I am merely stating the fact that it is unsigned (anonymous) and that the earliest 'proof' of that authorship comes from two men (Ignatius and papias) who were not inspired to the best of my knowledge, in the second century AD, anywhere from 55 to 65 yrears after the fact, by simply saying that it is!
You are placing your trust in two men who offer no proof, factual or spiritual, whatsoever that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
No, Chrysostom had it right and it is you who are assuming that God can't preserve what He gave to men to have, His perfect words
Oh, God certainly can, but men can't.
No, we have more historical evidence for the Old and New Testament then any other ancient work.
We do not need the 'originals' to be able to reconstruct the correct text with manuscript evidence.
We have noted how carefully the Jews copied their texts.
The TR differs very little between the various manuscripts (unlike the Critical text)
But, yes we do accept on faith the providential preservation of God's word.
You cannot prove one quote in the New Testament came from the LXX As much as you can prove that the five books of Moses came from Moses.
Sure I can, I can quote Christ who stated Moses did in Mt. 8:4; Jn. 5:46; 7:19.
For the Protestant his final authority is the word of God and that is where the final appeal is to No, it's what he considers to be the word of God. Again, it defaults to a man. In which case I would rather go with a consensus. The Protestants claim that what they believe is equal to the word of God. What proof is there of that?
In other words, you are doubting the word of God but are replacing it with the consensus of men.
No, it was put composed by men under the control of the Holy Spirit And you can't prove it. First, not a single father agreed fully on what constitutes Christian canon and, second, it took a consensus to finalize it (and even then it wasn't fully accepted by all, Revelation of John being one case in point!). If the HS had anything to do with, it was in the Church as a whole and not in any individual father.
The entire Canon was accepted by the Body of Christ (the church), long before any 'official' recognition of it occurred.
And the evidence of the correctness of the Books was attested to by Him What "evidence" (proof)?
The proof is in the fruit that it produced.
Christ attested to the complete Old Testament (minus the Apocrypha books) and by the end of the 1st century, we had the complete New Testament Books, the same books we have today and the same that your church accepts as well.
What we have is a perfect preservation of what God wanted to have "Proving" scriptures with scriptures — on faith alone. Preconception is not a proof.
Well, the only way you know of the birth, death, and Resurrection of Christ is through those Scriptures, so you have to accept them.
What you want is the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest.
So now you are denying the authorship and validly of the book of Matthew? I am merely stating the fact that it is unsigned (anonymous) and that the earliest 'proof' of that authorship comes from two men (Ignatius and papias) who were not inspired to the best of my knowledge, in the second century AD, anywhere from 55 to 65 yrears after the fact, by simply saying that it is!
The Greek heading tell us who the author is, just as it does Hebrews.
You are placing your trust in two men who offer no proof, factual or spiritual, whatsoever that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
No, I am not concerned with those two men at all, I have a King James Bible that gives me the correct authorship, coming from the correct Greek text, with the authors name on it.
No, Chrysostom had it right and it is you who are assuming that God can't preserve what He gave to men to have, His perfect words Oh, God certainly can, but men can't.
God certainly did and used men to do so, just as He used men to get the Originals to us.