I gotta admit I haven’t thoroughly read the thread in meticulous detail (although I’ve skimmed over it, and also checked my ping list to be sure that this didn’t happen), but I haven’t seen any further response by you (Quix) or anyone (except for a few people who I’ve already replied to, who, by the way, never really addressed the central question) to my post #145 on this thread.
I’m sincerely interested in what you (everyone, and not just those pinged, hence the “All” in the ping) think of it. Even if you will post something that I already addressed with any one else about it, don’t worry about said “repetition” (I won’t scold you for it I promise! LOL)
I’m interested in everyone’s opinion about it, because I think it relates to the OP better than anything else that has transpired in the last 1000+ posts.
I’m pinging you Quix because you asked me to remind you about it. Again though, I’d like anyone’s opinion about it.
It seems this thread has (once again, that is, like many other Protestant vs Catholic thread) devolved, and yes, I use the word “devolved” for what should be obvious reasons to anyone who bothers to even skim it, into the typical issues of “Mary, the Saints in general, the Eucharist, etc”, even though that wasn’t the original post’s intent (which was sola scriptura, as far as I can tell).
General rant not directed at you particularly Quix, but at everyone: I mean, do we want to discuss issues to make progress, or do we want to “discuss” issues to “beat the other guy up”? Because if we don’t want to make progress in at least understanding the other side, I see little point to any of these types (Catholic vs Protestant) of threads.
Please, what do you all think of my post #145? This is the last time I’ll ask if my repeated question to that end is getting annoying to anyone and/or is simply ignored (and, if so, I’ll leave you all to “My belief is better than yours”, “discussion”, like Manfred the Wonder Dawg’s now huge thread “Conclusion from Peru and Mexico”).
How do we know any Bible we have today is an accurate representation of what was written in the first and second centuries? We have no “original documents” to verify such a claim, independently, apart from the Church. I do believe that the oldest existing document we have from the first century is a fragment of the book of Matthew. (or some Gospel, I can’t remember which one with 100% accuracy).
We can know that by several means . . . .
1. Holy Spirit within us is our witness.
2. There is adequate scholarship to demonstrate that what we have is QUITE CLOSE ENOUGH to the original artifacts that we can be confident that what the Scriptures we have tell us about forming an eternal relationship with God are reliable.
3. It IS logical, as well, that God would protect HIS WRITTEN WORD sufficiently to show us how to relate to Him; gain eternal life and relate to one another.
4. It is plausible, given His fierce exhortations against idolatry that He would have caused the original artifacts to disappear lest they become idols as well.
5. It is logical that He would have insured that there were a diversity of secondary artifacts, fragments of some diversity of location and origin so that no one little clubby clique could claim any RELIGIOUS NOR SPIRITUAL monopoly.
6. The Scriptures we have are congruent with the Old Testament description of God The Father.
7. The Scriptures we have are congruent with reality about man; the heart of man; man's tendencies in relationships; man's tendencies toward arrogance and idolatry . . .
8.The Scriptures we have are congruent with history and prophetically have been validated repeatedly in terms of fulfilled prophecy.
Doesn’t this fact shock people? Doesn’t the fact that we have, at best, “copies of copies” force people to realize that we need an authoritative body to verify, through continual witness to the fact, that the “bible” we have today is indeed a fair (if not 100% accurate) representation of what was written in the first century? How do we know that what we have today wasn’t corrupted between the first, and early part of the second century, and when it was finally compiled in the 4th century?
Actually, I'm much more shocked that any group of people with IQs above that of a slug could even FANTASIZE OR PRETEND that the RC edifice and magicsterical has had any serious semblance of a "continual witness" even from 400 AD on. And the idea that they did from Christ chatting with pebble Peter on is beyond hysterically ludicrous.
It is also hysterically ludicrous that any rational RC folks would really buy into the utter unmitigated farce that the RC magicsterical has been a seamless, homogeneous, UNIFIED, STRICTLY KOSHER AND RIGHTEOUS WITNESS even from AD 400 to this . . . in the face of an abundance of historical record to the contrary.
To me, this is the ultimate destruction of sola scriptura. If we claim the Church is incapable of teaching authoritatively, then we are left with nagging doubt, “How do we know the english Bible I have in my hand accurately represents what was originally taught back in the 1st and 2nd centuries?” We certainly can’t claim it “verifies itself”, as a general distortion of all Scripture could still “verify itself”; it would be “verifying” error though.
Holy Spirit has been more than adequate in my life to fulfill that role. Sorry so many RC's are so disinclined/unable/unwilling to ear HIM on such scores. Christ died that we might have 1:1 direct fellowship with The Father.
It seems to me that the RC magicsterical and edifice have been concocting and fabricating out of thin air all manner of rationalizations to do the opposite--tu construct untold numbers of layers between the individual and God; to construct untold layers of hierarchy and fantasized jr god personages to get between the individual and God.
And on top of such blasphemous heresies as that--they expect us to think that THEIR interpretation of Scripture is the more SOUND one!????
That's about like putting the most faith as young parents in a Jeffry Dahlmer book on the care and feeding of sons to prevent child abuse and canibalism.
Off to supper. Maybe more when I return.
I revisited your question on original source documents for the Bible. That is a good question. I don't have the answer but perhaps you can find it here. Consider that we do not have the two tablets on which God wrote the Ten Commandments yet no one questions their validity. Just a thought ;-)