And I have said you are wrong. The Bible does NOT authenticate itself.
First, who wrote the Gospels??? Nowhere in the Gospels do we have an author's name or claim on who actually wrote them. We have tradition telling us who wrote them. And what about Paul claiming to be an apostle? Where is that authenticated by someone else? Christ, nor the apostles themselves ever say that.
What about forgeries? Since we don't have the original writings, how can we know we have the ACTUAL writings? Paul himself was concerned about this in 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thes 3:17; Philem 19.; check esp. 2 Thes 2:2 ("We beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come"). So, again, this destroys the concept of self authentication.
If one were to use U.S. Federal Guidelines that we use today, the Bible would not fare very well in Self-Authentication. If you want to know about the specifics, read U.S. Code Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules no. 902. Only a few of the NT books would hold up to court scrutiny, as they mention an author. The Book of component parts cannot be its own criterion for infallibility. Any judge would laugh you out of court with this process and argument.
It is one thing to prove a doctrine from a book that is proven authoritative. It is quite another thing to prove the authority of a book, from that book, before the book itself is proven authoritative. These two are very different situations. This is circular reasoning. It is even worse when we realize that the book (New Testament) is made up of twenty-seven parts and was not a “unit” or canon for over three centuries. So, the Bible must not only prove that it is itself, in its present form, inspired and infallible, but it must also make that proof for each of the individual component parts. Discussing the whole as inspired is irrelevant until the component parts are proven to be inspired and infallible and I see that done nowhere in Scripture.
Really, the Bible ABSOLUTELY RELIES on the witness of the Church to verify its contents as being from God. Even Martin Luther admitted that the if it weren't for the Catholic Church, we would not HAVE knowledge of the Scriptures.
Thus, it is NOT self-authenticating.
I have also said that in the same manner, God inspired the assemblers of the Bible to the point of inerrancy
You ASSUME that! That is based on Tradition. Every individual book does not call itself "inspired" or "scriptural". Do you really think that the Bible fell out of the heavens?
God, as an authenticator, just will not do in your system.
What proof do you have that the Bible, EVERY book, is from God? And why aren't various other books "from God"? What makes a book "from God"? You approach the Bible "knowing" it is from God based on what? "Feel-good" thoughts? Sorry, without the Church, there is NO evidence that the Bible, every book, is from God. He didn't come down and make it clear that it is from HIM.
But it appears that you deny the leadership of the Spirit.
In the Church, He is there. Christ promised this. Not in individual Protestants. Proof is in the pudding. Differences of doctrine makes this clear.
If the Spirit had anything to do with authenticating the Bible then it would be God authenticating His word, an impossibility for you. For you, it seems the credit and glory must go to men.
I haven't said that. I say that we must trust that men are true witnesses of the Resurrection. We either believe their testimony, or we don't. God doesn't point out the Canon's table of contents and its meaning to every person individually. Why do you keep saying that? Isn't it clear that the Holy Spirit operates through His Church? Why is He in competition with the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth"?
I have mentioned this SCRIPTURE over and over - how long do you intend on ignoring that you are arguing against the TRUTH given by the Spirit of God? You claim YOU have the Spirit of Truth - which contradicts what the Bible clearly says. You appear to be saying that the Bible is your sole source of authority - UNLESS - it differs with your Protestant theology.
Here are a couple of examples [Where does the Bible say the non-elect believe the Scriptures are nonsense?]
Neither of your verses mention the Scriptures, but the Spirit of God.
My concern was that there really is more going on than simply asking someone else to pray for us. As far as I can remember, I haven't infallibly declared any of my friends to be "the Queen of Heaven" as Pope Pius XII did on Nov. 1, 1950. In Jeremiah it speaks of burning incense to a pagan goddess called the "Queen of Heaven". Something is wrong with this picture.
All generations will call Mary blessed. Fortunately, Catholics continue to highly venerate God's greatest creation. Sorry if you disapprove of our Lady and Mother of the Body of Christ. As to Jeremiah, similarities does not mean coorelation. You may recall that there were Isis cults that preached similar things about the Resurrection of God. Does that mean Christianity has pagan roots?
Regards
If God does not authenticate His own work, but rather the Church does it instead, then the Church is equal to or greater than God. The Church is supposed to be the bride of Christ. The Church is supposed to be obedient to God's word. This is not the Church you are describing.
If one were to use U.S. Federal Guidelines that we use today, the Bible would not fare very well in Self-Authentication. If you want to know about the specifics, read U.S. Code Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules no. 902. Only a few of the NT books would hold up to court scrutiny, as they mention an author. The Book of component parts cannot be its own criterion for infallibility. Any judge would laugh you out of court with this process and argument.
I disagree. First, we are talking about the Federal Rules of Evidence (Criminal). Rule 902 deals with exceptions to the normal rule that "Extrinsic evidence of authenticity [must be shown] as a condition precedent to admissibility...". 95% of this rule deals with public documents that have already been authenticated by a proper, authoritative governmental entity.
In the case of the Bible, the only proper authoritative governmental entity is God Himself, not the Church. But our secular Federal government does not recognize God or the Church as authorities. So it is no surprise that the Bible probably doesn't apply to Rule 902. If we had an Iranian-style government, then there would be no problem.
I don't think any NT book would survive Rule 902 because it named an author. The point of the Rule is to save time in admitting material into evidence because it has already been authenticated by the government. Our government would not recognize either of our arguments for authenticating the truth of what's in the Bible.
Discussing the whole as inspired is irrelevant until the component parts are proven to be inspired and infallible and I see that done nowhere in Scripture.
I know you don't and it is a matter of scriptural interpretation. The Church couldn't possibly allow God to authenticate His own work, because then we wouldn't have the Church to thank for doing it in place of God.
Do you really think that the Bible fell out of the heavens?
In a certain manner of speaking, perhaps. I just know that the Bible does not say it is Church-breathed, it says something very very different.
Isn't it clear that the Holy Spirit operates through His Church? Why is He in competition with the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth"?
I do believe that the Spirit operates through His Church. It's just that you believe that you own the Church and I don't believe anyone owns God's Church except God. You might say things like that Apostolic succession proves you own the Church because today's bishops can trace their "lineage" all the way back to the Apostles. Why can't every Protestant say the same thing? Many of the original Reformers were Catholic leaders at some point, weren't they?
So, I do not think that proves anything in terms of error or straying from the faith. I don't think God ever promised to protect the RCC, no matter what they did. History proves this is clearly not the case. God doesn't even (totally) protect individual leaders within the RCC, as we have seen. So I cannot believe that whatever the Church does is definitionally correct. God promised to be with His Church, the community of believers. Members of that community, of any denomination, even in groups, can stray away from God's faith. We each believe that has happened to the other side.
Sorry if you disapprove of our Lady and Mother of the Body of Christ. As to Jeremiah, similarities does not mean coorelation. You may recall that there were Isis cults that preached similar things about the Resurrection of God. Does that mean Christianity has pagan roots?
I do not disapprove of Mary, she was truly blessed. I disapprove of elevating her at the expense of God Himself.
Your comparison only works if you are willing to admit that the Pope was not speaking as a Christian. Somehow I doubt you are willing to do that. :) Also, is this a Catholic interpretation, that "exactly word for word" really means "similar"?