It is a problem of credibility, which is not established by anything credible. Why don't you tell me what makes one credible and the other one not? Just because?
It is partially a matter of faith, but it is not blind faith. The Bible is unlike any other "Holy Book" in the world. Christianity is the only faith where the main figure actually claims to BE God. In addition, the Bible passes all standard tests of textual criticism with flying colors. NT books were being circulated among those who were alive during Jesus' time and who would know if they were true or not. If they were fiction, then they would have been debunked and forgotten. Yet, that didn't happen. Finally, it seems that 99.9% of your faith is centered in the Church alone, and that same Church vouches for the authenticity of Paul's writings.
So [Biblical authors] are not perfect but their work is perfect?
In the drafting of scripture, God's work through them was perfect, yes. That's what inspired means.
Are you saying they are just pens in God's hands and none of what they wrote was theirs?
No, their personalities and writing styles clearly were allowed to come through, but the message was 100% pre-approved by God. IOW, no human mistakes or errors made their way into the original scriptures. Just as God managed that, He also managed to make sure that the copies we have today are substantially identical to the originals, at least as to the revelation that God wanted us to have.
St. Paul claims a lot of things to be his and not commandments of the Lord
One was cited earlier. There might be one more, but I know there is no pattern of any kind. There are not "a lot of things".
However, God brings us all along at different rates and paces, and people apprehend the Holy Spirit's leading in different ways.
That's relativism and that is not scriptural. Christ did not establish many "churches" or "denominations," all containing intsy-bintsy morsels of truth.
Of course it's scriptural. The first churches we are told about were all different and suffered from different spiritual problems. They were under no central human leadership. Paul's epistles prove all of this. In no way did the monolith you have now exist back then.
At least for now.
Any Christian body that has "Tradition" and "Church Authority/Magesterium" as coequals to Scripture can claim the authority to add or delete at anytime. The formalized inclusion of the Apocrypha wasn't done until Trent. Transubstantiation was not formalized as a dogma until the 1200's.
They were under no central human leadership. Paul's epistles prove all of this. In no way did the monolith you have now exist back then.
We will probably have to keep teaching this until the day we are taken home. Myths die hard and a great deal of what has come later is based on the mythology of the mono-bishophoric system having some special status and as a result the ability to do whatever it wants.
Thanks for the ping. I'm still really caught up in that eschatology thread. ;-)
I beg to disagree. It is always blind, because it is taken on someone's word. Such as +Paul's claim that God revealed His Son "in [sic] him," [rather than to him!] we have no way of knowing if that is true or not unless we are willing to take his word on blind faith. IOW, he claims that [the knoweldge of] Christ was in him all along (sounds very Gnostic to me). We have no way of authenticating that.
The Bible is unlike any other "Holy Book" in the world
I take it, on blind faith no less, that you speak authoritatively, having studies exhaustively all other "holy books."
Christianity is the only faith where the main figure actually claims to BE God
That is a unique feature of Christian faith, indeed, because God is otherwise ineffable and distant, which is the case in all religions, including Judaism. In the OT, God is even quoted as saying that He is unlike anything we are, that His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways. In the NT, +Paul tells us the opposite: Christians "have a mind of Christ." And we are called to imitate (obvously in His human nature).
So, His humanity is an essential element of Christian faith that makes our relationship with God understandable and human level (because we can only relate to God personally through His human nature). How can one feel "close" to an ineffable God? How can one feel close and personal with the Sun (shinto), or with an inconceivable entity?
In addition, the Bible passes all standard tests of textual criticism with flying colors
Textual criticism is a method of establishing which version of the many copies of biblical material is most likely authentic. It does not establish absolute Biblical veracity over other "holy books." Textual criticism does not establish which books are inspired and which profane. That was a decision made by fallible human beings in the Church hierarchy, or so I am reminded by the Protestant side.
NT books were being circulated among those who were alive during Jesus' time and who would know if they were true or not
Among those books were many books that were later rejected, and many of those who followed Christ (such as Ebionites) did not agree with Pauline approach to Christianity. Like I said, the Epistle of Barnabas were read as scripture for almost 3 centuries (the oldest copy of a complete Christian Bible, Codex Sinaiticus, written circa mid 4th century still has this Epistle as part of the biblical canon), only to be dropped without any explanation shortly thereafter.
If they were fiction, then they would have been debunked and forgotten
That's not what the historical development of the Christian canon indicates. For the longest time, different churches read publicly books that were later rejected. On the other hand, many churches rejected those writings that were later incorporated into the canon (2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Revelation, etc.).
Most importantly, the formation of the Christian canon in the 4th century by the Church Fathers presupposes by necessity that the Church as a whole is inspired, for only an inspired body can recognize and infallibly establish what is inspired. Otherwise, it is a guess, a hit and miss.
If we dismiss the latter and accept the Christian canon as true and credible, because it was an infallible decision, then we must presume the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and its Orthodox Faith, as an inspired Body of Christ.
Yet, that didn't happen
We know that what we consider the orthodox Christian teaching won over other sects and cults. Why this was the outcome is only a guess. We really don't know with any certainty why. But we believe it is because the Catholic Church, and its Orthodox Faith represent the true Church of Christ and as such it will never be brought down.
Finally, it seems that 99.9% of your faith is centered in the Church alone, and that same Church vouches for the authenticity of Paul's writings
A 100%! Just the way you place 100% of your faith in the Holy Scripture. If the Holy Scripture is truly holy, than the Church is holy for recognizing what was holy and what belonged to the canon.
In the drafting of scripture, God's work through them was perfect, yes. That's what inspired means
Then the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church is truly Orthodox, even if its individual members are not. :)
No, their personalities and writing styles clearly were allowed to come through, but the message was 100% pre-approved by God
The Jews, who gave us the OT, would disagree and call us That is what we believe but cannot claim as fact.IOW, no human mistakes or errors made their way into the original scriptures
Purely speculative, and true only to the extent that one is willing to believe it. But the Church did not posses the originals either because all extant copies of the Bible (save for a few shreds of older parts of biblical manuscripts) date to the 4th century.
That means the Church was making a decision what is infallibly accepted as the NT by all Christians, including the Reformed, on imperfect copies and not on the 100% God-approved originals. Such a decision could have been pure on either speculation or pure inspiration!
Just as God managed that, He also managed to make sure that the copies we have today are substantially identical to the originals, at least as to the revelation that God wanted us to have
He wanted us to have the Church that will safe keep the original meaning and intent of the teaching regardless of what corruption various copying and fraud created in the subsequent copies of His word. If the Church was holy enough to infallibly recognize inspired text for the NT, then it is holy enough to be the depository of the fullness of God's revelation as well, individual sinners in it notwithstanding.
One was cited earlier. There might be one more, but I know there is no pattern of any kind. There are not "a lot of things"
Yes, but what guarantee do we have that even one single example of a personal opinion is not fallible? We don't. It's a presumption. The infallibility of the scripture is based on being able to resolve all apparent "contradictions" of the scripture through scripture. That does not prove anything other than an incredible ability of our minds to rationalize even seemingly contradictory statements. Isn't it why we have lawyers for? :)
Of course it's scriptural. The first churches we are told about were all different and suffered from different spiritual problems. They were under no central human leadership. Paul's epistles prove all of this. In no way did the monolith you have now exist back then
They were under the central human leadership of the Apostles, and then under those appointed by the Apostles, the bishops, and later even by those who were appointed bishops by existing bishops.
Unfortunately, many of the churches were still pagan in their mind sets, or drifted towards pagan ways, as the Jews did through much of the OT period, and as +Luke reminds us in Acts that we can fall away.
Orthodox Churches are all different too, and not under one central authority, except Christ, but they all share the same theology and Divine Liturgy. In that sense, the Orthodox Churches are very much like the most ancient ones, and least changed.
The monolith is a Latin creation and, in time, with God's help the Latin Church will return to its ancient ecclasiastical roots and still preserve its rich liturgical and spiritual tradition because I firmly believe that is where the Catholic heart is leading the Church. The Church hierarchy is established in the NT, because some were appointed to be apostles, some teachers, etc.
:::The first churches we are told about were all different and suffered from different spiritual problems. They were under no central human leadership. Paul’s epistles prove all of this. In no way did the monolith you have now exist back then.:::
Paul, and the other apostles, served as bishops. We know that each of them had his own territory and was responsible for the churches within it. 12 Apostles plus Paul. Pretty centralized, I’d say.