Christian faith is a faith based on alleged revelation, which is a fancy way of saying uncovering of new knowledge, be it a "prophesy," or a new meaning. I take inspiration to mean what it means in English: to be inspired means to be moved or motivated by something, i.e. a 12-year old boy sees a doctor save someone's life and is inspired by this doctor's example to devote his own life to medicine.
The issue being RC's authority, part of her expression of this is fitting:
No matter where the knowledge of the writer on this point comes from, whether it be acquired naturally or due to Divine revelation, inspiration has not essentially for its object to teach something new to the sacred writer, but to render him capable of writing with Divine authority. Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part, or which were related to him. It is highly probable that most of the sayings of theBook of Proverbs were familiar to the sages of the East, before being set down in an inspired writing. God, inasmuch as he is the principal cause, when he inspires a writer, subordinates all that writer's cognitive faculties so as to make him accomplish the different actions which would be naturally gone through by a man who, first of all, has the design of composing a book, then gets together his materials, subjects them to a critical examination, arranges them, makes them enter into his plan, and finally brands them with the mark of his personality — i.e. his own peculiar style.
the very scriptures which are authorized attest that the authority of a true believer or church is not established by formal historical lineage, but by scriptural faith by which it exists
You seem to lack neither verbosity nor empty suppositions. Whatever your sentence was supposed to prove, I will reword it to reveal to you how it sounds to me: the pink unicorns which are real prove that the authority of those who believe they exist is not established by formal historical lineage, but by the faith that they exist.
Your insistence rendering of such things is why detailed replies are often necessary, nor is my supposition faulty.
In short, “the mythical pink unicorns prove that the authority of those who believe they exist is by the faith that they exist,” by analogy meaning that “the inspired Scriptures prove that the authority of those who believe they are is by the faith that they exist.” However, mystical pink unicorns have nothing to say, and the issue is not whether the Scripture exists, but as they do and faith is grounded in them, it is that whether these material writings, even apart from the inspiration attributed to them but which a church claims consistency with, upholds her historical argument as the essential basis for her authenticity. Even if you make the pink unicorns analogous to faith in Divine inspiration of Scripture, those who believe in them must be consistent with what they say. Thus the real issue is Romes autocratic interpretive authority.
Supernatural qualities and attestation, which was given to such men as Moses, Jesus, and the apostles, and which contrite, repentant, believing souls in the Lord Jesus Christ find today today and due measure.
The problem with this is that biblical God used "miracles" and "signs" to convince people that Moses was right or that Jesus was right, and then had to go on "fixing" things, regardless, because very few people believed them. And when the miracles and signs had stopped, people believed, and still do, the stories more than they believed alleged miracles and signs.
I have responded to your narrow thinking in this before, and God was never under any delusion that majority would choose the broad path of destruction, but gave grace anyway, nor is it any wonder that it is only those who are of the humble and contrite spirit that manifestly come to Christ. (It would be good we they all stayed that way). No have miracles never stopped, even if not as prevalent and powerful as when God was instituting new revelation, as under Moses, Jesus and the apostles. But neither was i only referring to overt miraculous, but also to endure suffering and afflictions, needed for individual and corporate character, and overall that of the transformative effects of the new birth, with immediate new affections and other, ongoing, effects of regeneration, and of God's leading and working in other ways in the lives of faithful Christians, in the midst of all that passes for it.
I think we all understand that despite your affirmation of the Orthodox Church has concerns historical warrant, you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically. And for that I think both sides here are grieved and saddened.
The Orthodox Church deserves due consideration because it is the Church that still uses the same language in which the New Testament and the Septuagint were written, and in the spirit of the languge and culture of the times. The EOC provides an invalueable perspectvie on the phronema and the interpretation of the faith by early Christians.
Certainly of historical value to you.
I have no antagonism towards God, whatever God may be. Nor do I hate the Church as some former Catholic seem to. As for condemning biblical collusion and extensive doctrinal "harmonization" of biblical authors and copyists by using manipulative techniques to get people to believe them ..
Kosta, need i post some of it and let other judge? And it is the former which can easily drive the latter view. And if we wanted to could go into far more extensive posting than we both probably are able to now on manuscripts variants and their import, i could deal with that.
Both groups seem to have a certain view they believe is true, along with the idea that ends justify the means.
Indeed, and also a type of firewall which disallows objectivity. I do try to analytically look at both sides of the issue despite my shortcomings, and myself have dealt with the venom of militant atheists and considered enough of their arguments while attempting to be reasonable to recognize a narrow mindedness particularly among such, which they often seem determined to justify. The arguments of such can present challenges, though it does not personally threaten my faith, and the reality of Christ on life for the past 30 years after becoming born again certainly gives me a different perspective, which I am sorry such do not know and resist allowing any possible valid warrant for.
The issue being RC's authority, part of her expression of this is fitting: Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part...
Oh, sure, Luke was there in person in Chapter 1...so much for that. Luke never saw Jesus in person.
I have responded to your narrow thinking in this before, and God was never under any delusion that majority would choose the broad path of destruction
Oh yeah, raise a lot of children and let the dumb ones play in traffic. The smart ones will survive and enjoy your rewards. Nice God.
But neither was i only referring to overt miraculous, but also to endure suffering and afflictions, needed for individual and corporate character, and overall that of the transformative effects of the new birth, with immediate new affections
Oh sure such as John 3:9. The born again do not sin, to which some say "as a habit." Oh, really? Every religion claims some transformative effects as a "sign" of its authenticity. Hogwash.
I have no antagonism towards God, whatever God may be. Nor do I hate the Church as some former Catholic seem to. As for condemning biblical collusion and extensive doctrinal "harmonization" of biblical authors and copyists by using manipulative techniques to get people to believe them ..
Kosta, need i post some of it and let other judge?
If that would please you, I don't mind. When I say I have no antagonism towards God I mean whatever God may be, not whatever man has made God to be. Nor do I, as a matter of habit attack the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I do object to some of their manipulative practices that are common to all partisan organizations, but not as to what the Church seeks to accomplish in good faith.
Both groups seem to have a certain view they believe is true, along with the idea that ends justify the means.
Indeed, and also a type of firewall which disallows objectivity. I do try to analytically look at both sides of the issue despite my shortcomings, and myself have dealt with the venom of militant atheists and considered enough of their arguments while attempting to be reasonable to recognize a narrow mindedness particularly among such, which they often seem determined to justify.
What about the venom of militant, narrow-minded, dogmatic zealots?
john 3:9 says "Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?" and John 5:18 says "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
Maybe it wouldn't hurt to check on those references every now and then.