And the Scriptures affirms men testing claims by the Scriptures as available to them. (Acts 17:11)
And the scriptures also say it is wrong (2 Peter 1:20).
According to.. This is a major issue, and I submit that it does not, and the attempt of Rome make its say so militates against the idea that she is the infallible interpreter of it. The text states, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. {21} For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. " (2 Peter 1:20-21)
The context is that of how the inspired prophecy about Christ was written, (2Pt. 1:16) with a corresponding text being, "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. " (1 Peter 1:11)
That is, those who wrote the prophecies were mystified as to what it all meant, rather than being something contrived by their minds, and is not about spiritual truth-loving souls who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
The objection by Rome to souls interpreting Scripture in order to ascertain truth is that human reasoning is fallible and only her assuredly infallible magisterium is protected from that defect, when it defines something that fulfills her criteria for infallibility. Thus the only way for men to be certain of spiritual truth is by assent of faith to her magisterium. And by which “the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture.” And having assented to her, Catholics are discouraged from searching the Scriptures in order to verify her truths by examining both sides of the issue.
However, it can be well substantiated that in the Scriptures human reasoning is often appealed to judge things in the light of evidence, including by scriptural substantiation, (Is. 34:16; Lk.. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:2; 18:23) Rome even states that “St. Paul alone appeals expressly more than eighty times to those Divine oracles of which Israel was made the guardian” of, yet his means of persuasion was by “manifestation of the truth” commending themselves “to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2) And as stated before, common folk who examined the very apostle's teaching by such were commended. (Acts 17:11) 1Jn. 5:13 even appeals to men to judge their own lives in the light of the truth concerning what constitutes Christian faith, and out of two to have assurance that they have eternal life. And again, rather than fostering implicit faith in an infallible magisterium, those who seemed to suppose they were such were reproved by the Scriptures. (Mk. 7:6-13)
while John 8:44 is another example on Jesus correcting the fallible Jews
John is an example of the Christian attempt to demonize the Jews who kicked the Christians out of synagogues when John was writing it at the end of the first century and needed a scapegoat and a new (Hellenized) God.
So you say. Naturally, those seeking for a way to deny the authority of the Scriptures invoke this as a convenient hypothesis.
“Naturally, the Jews will try to deny this (no different than anyone else denying something undesirable), by blaming the scribes, etc...”
Certainly they would, and I affirmed Jesus correctness in reproving their forerunners, as both denied the Scriptures which manifest the devil as a real entity, and the New Testament treats such stories as historical events. Meanwhile, to hold the Scripture as infallible and supreme judge does not deny that other religions have some truth, and in fact Rm. 1+2 affirms that men have a basic revelation of truth, but which can become radically corrupted.
All of which is really irrelevant to the issue, as the Roman Catholic church affirms Jesus words as being divinely inspired truth.
Matter of faith not fact.
Warranted faith based on evidence which supplies a degree of warrant, which results in more evidence if real.
By this we understand that for something to be divine it must preclude using human recollection
Really? What is divine?
I was referring to your restriction. As for Divine, I realize it can used for something less than God so let me clarify I was speaking is something being from God. In this case, Luke was guided by God in collecting the research and inspired in writing it.
But again in this, the Catholic Church to whom you ascribe authority of the scriptures disagrees with you in what you determined constitutes inspiration.
Again, the Catholic Church is the Church of the first millennium, and that church is rather different from the its modern namesake. And also I did not determine what constitutes inspiration. And neither did the Church. The linguists did.
Its conformity with the Scriptures which it holds it authoritative and its essential basis for authority is the issue, and as for the second, it tries (see next post).
And as we agree with her in other foundational doctrines that are Scripturally substantiated, so here also.
And this must be true because you say it's true, right? Whatever.
No, we present our case, seeking to persuade men, while the issue was that “The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible.” And it is her who asserts the veracity of things evangelicals most universally agree on with her, while she also recognizes , that those “separated Churches and Communities” as such such as “who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal,.. in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood,” also stating. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”
The context is that of how the inspired prophecy about Christ was written, (2Pt. 1:16)
Oh, yes, especially the part of "nor by fables " but by "eyewitness" account, in a book written a hundred years after Christ that even hard-line Christian apologetics had a hard time incorporating into the canon.
That is, those who wrote the prophecies were mystified as to what it all meant, rather than being something contrived by their minds
What prophesies? All these "prophesies" are either twisted into being prophesies or written after the fact, such as in the book of Daniel, the last book of the OT to be written (2nd century BC), which pretends to be written 400 or so years earlier.
The objection by Rome to souls interpreting Scripture in order to ascertain truth is that human reasoning is fallible and only her assuredly infallible magisterium is protected from that defect, when it defines something that fulfills her criteria for infallibility
No, the objection by the Church (not just by Rome) is that by private interpretation the morality of the Bible becomes relative. It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read.
Paul, on the other hand, is inconsistent, as usual. On the one hand, he teaches that Bereans could somehow "verify" his preaching the risen Christ (the only one he supposedly witnessed) through the Old testament, and on the other hand he writes that God appointed (ordained) some people for specific roles in the Church , and that no all can be apostles, prophets, teachers and interpreters, etc. (1 Cor. 12:28)
Thus the only way for men to be certain of spiritual truth
The Church teaches that there is no certainty in faith, just hope. There are those who say "Lord, Lord," and believe, with certainty that they are saved, and yet the Bible says otherwise. (Mat. 7:21) The Church teaches against excessive self-confidence in second-guessing God.
And by which “the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture.”
Well, if no one's interpretation is infallible, then the truth isn't and cannot be known. End of story. I could have told you that from the beginning.
And again, rather than fostering implicit faith in an infallible magisterium
Whether you place your faith in an infallible magisterium of men or in your own personal infallible magisterium, it is fallible human beings interpreting writings of other fallible human beings. Second, if the Holy Spirit guides you personally why not the magisterium? Are members of the magisterium also not believers in whom indwells the Spirit?
So you say. Naturally, those seeking for a way to deny the authority of the Scriptures invoke this as a convenient hypothesis.
Asserting the authority of the scriptures is a matter of faith. The Jews reject your scriptures as Christians reject Mormon scriptures; and all three accept theirs on faith alone.
But, here is the futility of all these arguments: the Bible contains enough self-contradiction, because it's so open to personal interpretation, and because of factual contradictions, as to make it possible for every extant sect and cult to defend its beliefs using the very same Bible! All heresies are judged and founded on the biblical interpretation.
What I wrote about John's Gospel is a reflection of history, namely that the tensions between the Christians and Jews were intensifying and that by the time John & al wrote their Gospel, the Christians were declared apostates and cursed by the rabbis. Since then Christianity took a progressively anti-Jewish turn, and became progressively more Hellenized.
Certainly they would, and I affirmed Jesus correctness in reproving their forerunners, as both denied the Scriptures which manifest the devil as a real entity, and the New Testament treats such stories as historical events
The NT is a reflection of a particular sect adhering to Zoroastrian dualism, which is unknown to Judaism before the Persian liberation of the Jews from Babylon, and is soundly rejected by Judaism.
Meanwhile, to hold the Scripture as infallible and supreme judge does not deny that other religions have some truth, and in fact Rm. 1+2 affirms that men have a basic revelation of truth, but which can become radically corrupted. And the same can be said of Christianity.
Matter of faith not fact.
Warranted faith based on evidence
Such as?
Really? What is divine?
I was speaking is something being from God.
How do you know it's from God?
In this case, Luke was guided by God in collecting the research and inspired in writing it.
How do you know that?
Again, the Catholic Church is the Church of the first millennium, and that church is rather different from the its modern namesake. And also I did not determine what constitutes inspiration. And neither did the Church. The linguists did.
Its conformity with the Scriptures which it holds it authoritative and its essential basis for authority is the issue, and as for the second, it tries (see next post).
The Church was never based entirely on scripture, especially because the scripture was a loose term for quite a while. If anything, the Church was, and is to this day based on the Gospels first and foremost, the only Christian scripture uniformly accepted by what is known as the orthodox faction of Christianity.
And this must be true because you say it's true, right? Whatever.
No, we present our case, seeking to persuade men, while the issue was that “The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible.”
Persuade with what? Your own infallible interpretation? The Church at least can claim the authorship; you can't. You are just a reader.
The rest of your paragraph still doesn't say why is it supposedly true. I guess because there is no answer to that. It's something people like others to accept on thin air. Despicable.