Not comparable, not even close.
I think you're putting too much into "in" as opposed to "to"
Sometimes one word sets Gnostic "gospels" apart from the genuine ones. If you read Gnostic "gospels" without knowing they are Gnostic, you may have difficulty discerning them as Gnostic. Try reading some of them. They sure read "authentic."
Paul says: Gal 1:15-16 : 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace
That's wonderful, but it is his word and that's all. We have no way of authenticating it, not objectively for sure.
And he also says: Gal 2:20 : I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
Again, the same "truism." His word, take it or leave it on blind faith.
Paul's claim is only that Christ is working through him
Gnostic writers do the same. Mohammad claims that he was only doing God's will. It's a cliché phrase, like those intended to shut opponents like "God didn't give you eyes and ears to see and hear" the truth. Gnostics loved that (except they used "knowledge").
and that he had been especially chosen to carry Christ's message
Right...
Any Apostle could have said the same thing.
Indeed. Many a non-Apostle does too. Appealing to being "God's chosen" is an instant authority without having to show a diploma of authenticity.
Then name one that you think stands up to the Bible in terms of external historical accuracy, bibliography, claims made, internal consistency, and timelessness
I didn't make the claim; you did. I say that all "holy books" lack objective proof and must be accepted on blind faith. That is prima facie modus operandi of such books. You said that the Bible is unlike any other "holy book." I agree, but that doesn't objectively prove its veracity.
Actually, we don't say that at all. Instead, we say that the whole of God's Church authenticated them, not any hierarchy.
Well, when one lacks any apostolic succession and valid clergy, what else can they say? :) The historical fact is that it was precisely the Church hierarchy that approved and canonized the NT in a special Council in Carthage (end of 4th century). But we wouldn't want historical facts to get in the way of Reformed innovations...would we? :)
If you're right, this further proves there was no centralized authority at the beginning
It's historically verifiable. A little Google does wonders...
If the Holy Scripture is truly holy, than the Church is holy for recognizing what was holy and what belonged to the canon.
Yeah, the whole Church, not some hierarchy
The "whole" Church could not read and write, FK. Very few people had the skills to do this...sola scriptura was no invented yet. Historically and factually: the Council of Carthage canonized the NT; the hierarchy of the whole Church, that is.
If one believes that Christianity is a revealed faith then one MUST believe it. If it is a hidden faith, then anything goes
But all authors, true and false, claim inspiration and revelation! If one believes A, and he beieves B=A "just because," then he must believe B just the same. The "leap" of faith is to believe A first. The rest follows "naturally." But, if A is an assumption and not a "fact," then B and all subsequent letters are assumptions of the assumption.
Then you freely admit that the Church is higher than God's word itself
We don't have the original and we can make no claims of infallibility based on copies of copies. If you accept the Christian canon (NT) then you accept that it was proclaimed, by inspiration, infallibly by fallible men in an infallible Church. Only an inspired body can recognize infallibly what is inspired.
At which point did the Church become "fallible," fallible individuals in it notwithstanding?
We have 2 Tim. 3:16-17 along with other self-authenticating scriptures
2 Timothy simply speaks of all scriptures (at that time that was only the uncanonzied OT), and since the OT canon was not finalized (yet), 2 Tim really does not provide us with any knowledge what constitutes scripture and how do we really "know" it is scripture. Don't forget that the Apostles quoted form the Septuagint in in over 90% of the cases and used "Apocrypha" as sources, and that at the time +Paul wrote Timothy (although this is disputed by many scholars), there was no New testament written yet and all the Gospels were being taught orally , but word of mouth.
However, if one's premise is that the scriptures are NOT authoritative, then that is that
A claim must be authenticated. Otherwise we have no way of knowing what is true and what is a lie. All scriptures lack any objective authentication. They are accepted on blind faith. We accept Incarnation because the Bible says so. We believe the Bible is true "just because." The Muslims believe the Koran is "true" also "just because," just as the Hindus believe panishiads are "true" (actually a lot closer to Christianity than Islam!) "just because."
A document may be internally consistent, but that doesn't make it true. There's more to it than that. An infallible document must also pass the truth test
And who has the qualifications and monopoly on "truth?" The reader? Is it objective or subjective truth? What constitutes a "proof" a passing score on the truth test— 50%, 75%, 100%???
Then those lone wolf Bishops were apparently all over the map as to what scripture even was according to your earlier statement
Telling isn't it?
Ah, then perhaps I was projecting onto you from a conversation I was having with Alex. My apologies
No problem. Hierarchy and central authority are not synonymous. You can have a decentralized ecclesial communities and more centralized ones. It's a matter of administration, not of structure.
Then for you the term "God's Holy word" is really a misnomer because the Bible is neither Holy (because it contains much human error) nor is it God's word (it's the unreliable word of the authors).
I didn't make the claim; you did. I say that all "holy books" lack objective proof and must be accepted on blind faith.
I suppose that your faith in the truth of the Fathers' writings is also blind?
The historical fact is that it was precisely the Church hierarchy that approved and canonized the NT in a special Council in Carthage (end of 4th century). But we wouldn't want historical facts to get in the way of Reformed innovations...would we? :)
So, the Bible is unreliable as historical fact, but the word of the Fathers IS absolutely historical fact? This again puts the hierarchy ahead of the Apostles since you only believe the hierarchy is reliable.
The "whole" Church could not read and write, FK. Very few people had the skills to do this...sola scriptura was no invented yet. Historically and factually: the Council of Carthage canonized the NT; the hierarchy of the whole Church, that is.
The people didn't need to know how to read or write to know whether or not the Gospels they heard were true. The Holy Spirit led them to the truth. The hierarchy did a fine thing by putting a rubber stamp on the earlier work of Holy Spirit, but it wasn't their original work.
If one believes A, and he believes B=A "just because," then he must believe B just the same. The "leap" of faith is to believe A first. The rest follows "naturally." But, if A is an assumption and not a "fact," then B and all subsequent letters are assumptions of the assumption.
So, the trick is to be able to reasonably accept "A" as a fact, and not an assumption. Then a total leap of faith is never necessary, and there CAN be real answers to all the big questions concerning man and God.
If you accept the Christian canon (NT) then you accept that it was proclaimed, by inspiration, infallibly by fallible men in an infallible Church. Only an inspired body can recognize infallibly what is inspired.
There is no basis for this claim. Why MUST the Holy Spirit ONLY lead a small body of men instead of leading His whole Church?
At which point did the Church become "fallible," fallible individuals in it notwithstanding?
The hierarchy of the Church has been fallible since the Apostles, since only the Apostles (and other Biblical authors) were inspired. Being fallible doesn't automatically mean being wrong about everything, though.
2 Timothy simply speaks of all scriptures (at that time that was only the uncanonzied OT), and since the OT canon was not finalized (yet), 2 Tim really does not provide us with any knowledge what constitutes scripture and how do we really "know" it is scripture.
I'm glad Jesus didn't have the extra-Biblical belief that something written had to be Canonized by uninspired men to be true and His real teaching. I guess since nothing was Canonized when Jesus spoke about scriptures, He was really talking about nothing?
We believe the Bible is true "just because." The Muslims believe the Koran is "true" also "just because," just as the Hindus believe panishiads are "true" (actually a lot closer to Christianity than Islam!) "just because."
Then why are you a Christian as opposed to one of those other faiths, or of any faith at all? Just because?
And who has the qualifications and monopoly on "truth?" The reader?
No, Holy Spirit does.