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.
Actually, we prefer new (Divinized) Hellenes! As you know, Kosta mou, I myself was once an example of such a Greek God; now, of course, I'm just a G.D. Greek!:)
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).
According to.. This is a major issue, and I submit that it does not, and the attempt of Rome make its say so militates against the idea that she is the infallible interpreter of it. The text states, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. {21} For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. " (2 Peter 1:20-21)
The context is that of how the inspired prophecy about Christ was written, (2Pt. 1:16) with a corresponding text being, "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. " (1 Peter 1:11)
That is, those who wrote the prophecies were mystified as to what it all meant, rather than being something contrived by their minds, and is not about spiritual truth-loving souls who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
The objection by Rome to souls interpreting Scripture in order to ascertain truth is that human reasoning is fallible and only her assuredly infallible magisterium is protected from that defect, when it defines something that fulfills her criteria for infallibility. Thus the only way for men to be certain of spiritual truth is by assent of faith to her magisterium. And by which “the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture.” And having assented to her, Catholics are discouraged from searching the Scriptures in order to verify her truths by examining both sides of the issue.
However, it can be well substantiated that in the Scriptures human reasoning is often appealed to judge things in the light of evidence, including by scriptural substantiation, (Is. 34:16; Lk.. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:2; 18:23) Rome even states that “St. Paul alone appeals expressly more than eighty times to those Divine oracles of which Israel was made the guardian” of, yet his means of persuasion was by “manifestation of the truth” commending themselves “to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2) And as stated before, common folk who examined the very apostle's teaching by such were commended. (Acts 17:11) 1Jn. 5:13 even appeals to men to judge their own lives in the light of the truth concerning what constitutes Christian faith, and out of two to have assurance that they have eternal life. And again, rather than fostering implicit faith in an infallible magisterium, those who seemed to suppose they were such were reproved by the Scriptures. (Mk. 7:6-13)
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.
So you say. Naturally, those seeking for a way to deny the authority of the Scriptures invoke this as a convenient hypothesis.
“Naturally, the Jews will try to deny this (no different than anyone else denying something undesirable), by blaming the scribes, etc...”
Certainly they would, and I affirmed Jesus correctness in reproving their forerunners, as both denied the Scriptures which manifest the devil as a real entity, and the New Testament treats such stories as historical events. Meanwhile, to hold the Scripture as infallible and supreme judge does not deny that other religions have some truth, and in fact Rm. 1+2 affirms that men have a basic revelation of truth, but which can become radically corrupted.
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.
Warranted faith based on evidence which supplies a degree of warrant, which results in more evidence if real.
By this we understand that for something to be divine it must preclude using human recollection
Really? What is divine?
I was referring to your restriction. As for Divine, I realize it can used for something less than God so let me clarify I was speaking is something being from God. In this case, Luke was guided by God in collecting the research and inspired in writing it.
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.
Its conformity with the Scriptures which it holds it authoritative and its essential basis for authority is the issue, and as for the second, it tries (see next post).
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.
No, we present our case, seeking to persuade men, while the issue was that “The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible.” And it is her who asserts the veracity of things evangelicals most universally agree on with her, while she also recognizes , that those “separated Churches and Communities” as such such as “who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal,.. in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood,” also stating. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”