No amigo, it is the self-attestation of the Scripture itself that I trust.
***if their “theology” as you say, does not jive with yours, the likelihood of your theology being wrong is great.***
While you may be deluded into thinking that along the time continuum the early fathers were homogeneous in their theology I hold no such delusions. My theology needs to “jive” with the prophets and apostles who were the ones who received the revelation. The fathers merely interpreted revelation and where they interpreted correctly I agree and where they misinterpreted I throw it out with the garbage.
***The fact is that none of the Scriptures are signed by the Apostles***
This is an instructive statement as it goes to show the discursive thinking of the heirarchialist. At the bottom of “Catholic” thinking is a reliance on old Enlightenment epistemology's that believe that truth may only be obtained only through empirical evidence. This debunked epistemology tries to build a foundation on sand and as the edifice grows more and more false premises are tossed out to protect the leaning tower. The statement above is just one of many laughable premises used to try to prop up the theology of glory.
***only scraps remain.***
Enough scraps to put the whole revelation together along with scraping the redacted Latin Vulgate.
Self-attestation to oneself? Ever heard of solipsism? It's akin to Gnosticism. It's a self-worship of kinds. The self is the alpha and the omega of reality and truth.
The fathers merely interpreted revelation and where they interpreted correctly I agree and where they misinterpreted I throw it out with the garbage
Because your self knows what they interpreted correctly and what they misinterprted? You know better than they do? Yet they were trustworthy enough to put that Bible together for you? SDomehow they knew what was scirputre, but some just didn't know how to interpret it correclty!? Oh boy!
And what do bible believers have to offer? Miracles? Next time you are sick, don't seek solution from epistemiologists whose healing skills come from reliable and repeatable empirical evidence. Rely on miracles instead.
Enough scraps to put the whole revelation together
Miniscule shreds, copies of copies of copies, by different authors, written at different times, full of transcribing errors, without any authentication. The earliest complete bibles are a mess to put it plainly, a mix of different text-types and hundreds of variants. By the 9th century the only complete single-text-type bible was the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus. All others were a mix of text-types, some missing sections or whole chapters, even books in their entirety from their volumes.
But why would we want to know such evidence based facts when we can just assume the bible dropped from the sky just as we have it today?
And speaking of "debunked epistemology" which "tries to build a foundation on sand and as the edifice grows more and more false premises are tossed out to protect the leaning tower" what do you make of prehistoric fossils and finds? How do you fit them into your bible? Or is it Satan planting them in the ground in order to deceive us? LOL!
Speaking of sand, the only thing that's in it are the heads of fundamentalists who pretend the sun doesn't shine.