So much for the Orthodox church.
If the presumed divine author of the scriptures gave stewardship to the Catholic Church, he also delegated the authority to be the guardian of what is in it and how it is interpreted,
If the authenticity of the church is based upon historical lineage and which confers an autocratic infallible magisterium which defines itself as being scriptural. And that is the issue as regards her assertions of authority, not simply being the guide, nor being able to teach infallibility, but presuming she assuredly formulaically is, and thus may teach for doctrines things which are contrary to the Scriptures, the latter of which is what Jesus Christ reproved the Jews for so doing. And the Scriptures affirms men testing claims by the Scriptures as available to them. (Acts 17:11)
It was the error of the Pharisees who presumed that their lineage made them sons of Abraham, but which both the Baptist and Lord Jesus reproved. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44)
And what makes Matthew or John the sons of Abraham? Is their faith equal to his? Do you know one Christian whose is willing to sacrifice his own children? As for John's Gospel, that was written at the end of the century with the explicit agenda to demonize the Jews. Matthew's rabid anti-Jewish sentiment is also considered one of the major factor for the rejection of Christianity in Israel.
What makes such the Sons of Abraham is the very scriptures (Lk. 13:16;19:9; Rm. 2:28,29; Gal. 3) which the church of Rome asserts the right to be the supreme unassailable interpreter of, and that is what the aforementioned examples oppose. But as expected, you seek to attack the integrity of the scriptures which is not relevant to that argument, or consistent with what Roman teaches, though many of its scholars are overall liberal.where
And by the way, Jews don't believe in the devil, so Mat 3:9 is obviously not only unfriendly but theologically alien to the Jews.
You have the wrong verse, and we've touched on this belief before, but belief in a personal devil was not the only thing that Jesus taught that they found offensive, and the devil is not only mentioned in one gospel, but all, while John 8:44 is another example on Jesus correcting the fallible Jews. And that is good considering some of the things the Babylonian Talmud says about demons, which sources such as “The Jewish Religion: A Companion” deny were inserted into the Talmud by ignorant copyists or by those influenced by folk-beliefs, which were repudiated by the rabbis themselves. Biblical commentators in classical Judaism differ in what the serpent in Gn. 3 represented, from the evil inclination (Yetzer HaRa), Satan, or the Angel of Death to a phallic symbol. According to the Midrash, before this cunning beast was cursed, it stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication. All of which is really irrelevant to the issue, as the Roman Catholic church affirms Jesus words as being divinely inspired truth.
Luke doesn't give credit to God but to himself (Luke 1:1-3). In Acts he is talking about recounting what Jesus did and taught. That's not "inspiration." It's recollection.
By this we understand that for something to be divine it must preclude using human recollection, and a believer could never describe what he did by the grace of God without explicitly saying such. But again in this, the Catholic Church to whom you ascribe authority of the scriptures disagrees with you in what you determined constitutes inspiration. And as we agree with her in other foundational doctrines that are Scripturally substantiated, so here also.
So much for the Orthodox church.
When I said the "The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible" that includes the Orthodox Church. The pre-Schism Church was the Catholic Church. After the Schism, we have the Latin or Roman Catholic and Greek or Eastern Orthodox Churches, both are catholic and apostolic.
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).
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.
And that is good considering some of the things the Babylonian Talmud says about demons, which sources such as “The Jewish Religion: A Companion” deny were inserted into the Talmud by ignorant copyists or by those influenced by folk-beliefs, which were repudiated by the rabbis themselves.
The very same source says that the Babylonian Talmud was heavily influenced by the Zoroastrian belief which infiltrated some Jewish communities. Naturally, the Jews will try to deny this (no different than anyone else denying something undesirable), by blaming the scribes, etc. The fact is that some Jewish sects developed dualistic beliefs influences by pagan Persian religion because, one, Persians were seen as liberators, and, two, Zoroastrianism is also a "revealed" religion, so it was near and dear to them.
But theft is that mainstream Judaism rejects any idea of a "devil" and acknowledges that some succumbed to Zoroastrian and Christian influence under long periods living in diaspora the way many Alexandrian Jews were more prone to Greek Platonic beliefs (i.e. Philo) then Palestinian Jews were.
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.
By this we understand that for something to be divine it must preclude using human recollection
Really? What is divine?
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.
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.