Then one cannot prove it period.
Nor does Scripture try. Its authority is ASSUMED, not offered up for proof
This is probably the most fair and honest answer I have read yet! The scriputres certainty do not try, and I never suggested otherwise. The authority is made as an a priori assumption. Yet most will tell you that they know.
They speak of things scriptural as statements of fact and not of faith, when they should be referring to them as "I believe" or "we believe" they say "I know" or "this is...". If anything, they should preposition any biblical claim as I assume...
The Roman Catholic Church does not make Scripture authoritative
That is true, but it was the Catholic Church that put the canon together by consensus of men. The paradox is that all Protestants accept this canon of the Catholic Church yet dispute her authority!
At least one Christian church accepts only a 22 book canon for the NT
Whoever said that the Christian canon is closed lied. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church holds the Book of Enoch as part of the canon. The Greek Church considered Revelation as "questionable" up to the 9th century and then only accepted it pro-forma. That book is never read liturgically in eastern churches.
However, if you do not accept Scripture as authoritative, then it is hard to discuss this over the Internet - at least, not on this thread
I think you jumped into this discussion without learning more about its context. I have no interest in discussing the scriptures. The discussion started over factual claims based on scriptures. I simply followed up with "how do you know." You pretty much answered it: it's an assumption, not knowledge.
You'd think Christians of all people would have that much humility as a rule never to make statements of faith sound like statements of fact.
After 2700 posts that give at least lip service to Scripture, it is a bit unfair to change the subject.
I had no intention of changing the subject, just solicit an answer. When I see that someone is saying this is how it was because the Bible says so, I ask "how do you know?" That's not changing the subject.
Yes, we are talking about faith and belief. Christianity is not illogical, but it is not logically deducible
Then, I am sure, you'd agree that none should talk about if as if it was something logical, objective or factual. When I ask someone religious if demons cause disease they usually answer in the affirmative because "it's in the Bible." Yet they can't name one disease caused by demons! That says a lot about them.
“...it was the Catholic Church that put the canon together by consensus of men.”
Various churches, including the RCC, have ratified what their churches believe are scripture. Most have a 27 book canon for the NT. Some do not. Protestants generally deny the Apocrypha as Scripture. The RCC didn’t give an authoritative list of Scripture until the Council of Trent, in response to Reformation critics. I can’t think of any important doctrine founded on any disputed books.
“Then, I am sure, you’d agree that none should talk about if as if it was something logical, objective or factual.”
Actually, I don’t entirely agree. It is not contrary to logic, but it is not contained within logic. Call it logic+. And something can certainly be factual without being subject to logic, since no one possesses perfect logic. Certainly, if God exists, He exists in a way our logic won’t be able to comprehend. God may be a fact without being a conclusion.
However, I would certainly agree that Christianity is about revelation, not logic. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict people, not mine.
I 'know' the scriptures are the words of God...I probably can't explain to you how I know to yur satisfaction, but then I don't have to explain to Mr. Rogers since he knows as well...