The question of the (physical) origins of Scripture is an interesting one. It’s one of the points that led me back to the Church actually.
When I first started to believe in God again (and Jesus his Son) I found myself wondering the best way to interpret Scripture (since there were/are many different interpretations out there). So I thought, “Well, where did the Bible come from?” (Because I had no idea at the time). I thought, “if I can find out where it came from, or really who had the Bible from the beginning, then that’s where I want to go for my Bible questions. Because if I can find such a church, then they obviously must know the Bible!”
This is essentially what you said above, I think, just in different words.
So what’s wrong with that line of reasoning? I mean, who wouldn’t want to go to the same group of people who had the Bible since Jesus’ time?
“I mean, who wouldn’t want to go to the same group of people who had the Bible since Jesus’ time?”
Christians had it. Christians have it.
Better question, why aren’t you converting to Judaism, since they had 2/3 of the Bible first, according to your thought process??? Hmmmmmm?
So what’s wrong with that line of reasoning? I mean, who wouldn’t want to go to the same group of people who had the Bible since Jesus’ time?
The answer to what's wrong with that line of reasoning is simple, which is why RCs keep refusing to answer the question asked in response to their we-gave-you-the-Bible polemical assertion, which is,
are you saying that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God?
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it effectively nukes the church, since it began in dissent from those who had historical descent, and sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4).
Unto whom “were committed the oracles of God.” “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 9:4-5)
But whom, like Rome, they likewise presumed of themselves a veracity above Scripture,* and thus rejected Christ and His apostles, asking, like Rome, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28)
But the church began in dissent, following a holy man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and who established His truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As did the apostles and early church (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) - not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.
And which led to both division and basic unity.
In addition, formal historical decent does not establish in the New Covenant, (Rm. 2:28,29) but Scriptural faith does, Scripture being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced.
An d in the light of which it is manifest that the church of Rome, despite its problematic "unbroken succession," and even because of it, is critically different than the NT church, and cannot lay claim to her popes being apostles.
See my prior post on this and more .
Therefore your decision to submit to Rome was based upon a fallacious line of reasoning , and which logically would require you to submit to those who were the instruments and stewards of Scripture when Christ came, rather than following an itinerant Preacher whom they rejected.
However, if your basis for assurance of Truth is that of scriptural substantiation, then you not only would follow the Lord Jesus in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, but you also would dissent from Rome in order to follow the Lord Jesus, as she also presumed of herself a level of veracity above that which is written, teaching traditions of men as doctrines of God. (Mk. 7:2-16)
As a RC, you are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, but submit to Rome, as your assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
And for whom Scripture is simply a servant to be used (and abused) to support her, as she presumes to be the supreme authority, and Scripture, Tradition and history can only authoritatively mean what she says they mean.
And which is cultic, and fosters faith to a strong degree in herself and her powers and one's own merit for salvation, while to believe on the Lord Jesus is to cast all your faith and confident in the Lord Jesus to save you as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, really believing that He can and will by His sinless shed blood and righteousness, and so be baptized and follow Him. Thanks be to God.
*For the decision of their Scribes,...they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error...By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a), they put the entire calendric system upon a new basis, independent of the priesthood. They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows...-http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees
Because almost 2,000 years have passed from the time it was written until now and I daresay that none of the original writers are still alive today to tell us what they meant.
And unless you can absolutely, positively guarantee that what was passed down was passed down faithfully, then after 2,000 years, one person's interpretation is as good as another.
Being 2.000 years removed does not guarantee anything, much less any special ability to interpret something *correctly*.
The line of reasoning fails.