If you don’t believe I’m Superman why would you believe I can fly?
Yes, you rephrase what I was saying correctly. If you don't believe the Church in her historical knowledge, why do you believe the Gospel?
Actually that wasn’t my comment but since you sent it to me I’ll respond.
What you term “her historical knowledge is in its aliquot sum a mixture of history and story narrative.
Catholic apostles spoke Catholic teachings and decided, along with Catholic Church “Fathers”, what orally preserved Catholic teachings should be included in THE Catholic Bible.
Since wise and pious Bishops in councils decide what would be accounted as “Scripture” it follows that they can expound on what traditions subsume those Scripture. Is that about it?
That is story telling not history, that is self justification not Gospel.
A fair example is the debate over whether the bread at the last supper really was bread, “this REPRESENTS my body”, or whether “eis”, English “is”, means Christ actual flesh.
Can the Greek “eis”, English “is”, mean represent?
Any lexicon will say yes, as does translations by Barclay, who translates Matt 26:26, as “mean”, Schonfield, “signifies”, Moffatt, “means”, Weymouth, “signifies, represents, symbolizes” in a footnote.
And that is the sense “eis” is used elsewhere in the Gospels, as symbolizes, etc.
But the Catholic narrative is able to ratioalize the exact moment the bread becomes flesh without anyone being to detect it but somehow the Catholic Church knows. How? By “is” of course!
Further on these threads I’ve learned from Catholic responses that God can and was killed, went to one or more of four hells, took a punctured and broken body of flesh to heaven, and even performed his own birth.
Now why would I not believe the “historical knowledge” of the Catholic Church in preference to the Gospels?
Yes, you rephrase what I was saying correctly. If you don't believe the Church in her historical knowledge, why do you believe the Gospel?
If you are asking me rather than the person you quote, i have already answered it this vain argument, only to see it repeated. To reiterate, your premise is that since Rome gave us the Bible and its gospel, then we are bound to believe her interpretation of history However, this assertion is fallacious on different levels, but the short version is that Rome's basis for her formulaic (scope and content-based) assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), -by which she declares her interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture to be infallible - is herself, while the only assuredly infallible objective authority are the Scriptures, which reproves her. We are no more bound to implicitly accept whatever Rome declare must be, than the Lord and disciples had to accept binding teachings of the Jewish magisterium, but should be like the noble Berean and examine it in the light of the assuredly infallible word. And my next to last post to you dealt with the interpretative necessity both Roman Catholics and Protestants must deal with.
Extended:
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith and its fruits which does. (Rm. 2:28,29; Heb. 6:9; 1Thes. 1:4) As God could have raised up from stones children to Abraham, so he can build His church using stones which realize their destitute helpless condition, unable to escape Hell or merit heaven by their work, but have essential Abrahamic faith in the Lord Jesus to save them by His blood and righteousness. (Acts 8:36-39; 1Pet. 2:5,6)
2. Even if Rome could lay claim to being the same church of the 4th century, with her infallible doctrines actually having unanimous consent of the fathers as she alleges they do, this would not make her an assuredly infallible interpreter of Scripture. For unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals. (Mk. 7:6-13; Rm. 10:2,3)
3. The reproof of Jesus of the Jewish magisterium while it yet sat in Moses seat, (Mt. 23:2) by Scripture, and His own statements as to the basis for His authority (see 5729) not only disallows the premise that historical lineage and stewardship of Scripture and the faith confers an AIM (assuredly infallible magisterium), but it evidences Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority, which Scripture affirms it is. (2Tim. 3:16)
4. The Holy Spirit commends lovers of truth who examined the teaching of the very apostles by the Scriptures to ascertain their veracity, (Acts 17:11) and to which Jesus and the apostles and preachers abundantly appealed to, (Mt. 22; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) as well as miracles and their testimony. (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:1-12; Rm. 15:19, etc.)
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible, whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly declared (content and scope-based) formula.
6. While the teaching magisterium was crucial in the O.T. and now still is (and those who hold to SS affirm it is), the faith was not preserved due to an AIM, and writings were correctly recognized as being Scripture without one. As regards the former, God raised up prophets who reproved the magisterium as needed, and a remnant of faithful was preserved, while the authenticity of a prophet was not necessarily established by formal succession, but by conformity to that which was written, and Divine attestation, with speaking falsely in the name of the Lord being a capital offense. (Dt. 18:20; Jer. 20:1-6; 28:1-17)
As concerns Scripture, the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects, and attestation by men who had the same because of faith in them. Making official lists is valid, but such are not responsible for the authority for Scriptural writings, nor for their enduring popularity.
7. Even if formal historical linkage via an unbroken succession of magistrates were an essential basis for the magisterial office, unlike under the Old Testament, then Rome has fallen short, as its line includes immoral, impenitent Popes (including before they were enthroned) who would not qualify as Christians and church members, let alone bishops, and thus spiritually such did not belong to any church, but would be excluded or cast out of a valid N.T. church. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
Compiling the various writings of Scripture into one convenient, easily accessed document, while an admirable endeavor indeed, does not equate to the Roman Catholic church *writing* the Bible.
The entirety of the OT was recognized as Scripture long before the RCC came along. Jesus Himself quoted from it and referred to it as Scripture.
The Catholic church can make NO claim whatsoever of the authorship of the majority of the Bible.
And the argument that the Catholic church uses that it claims that all the writers of the NT were Catholics, therefore the Catholic church *wrote* the Bible is just ludicrous. Maybe Catholics can be duped into believing that line of *reasoning* (for lack of a better term) but not anyone who can think for themselves. Claiming that the writers of Scripture were by default Catholics is only a tactic used to justify the Catholic church's power grab and put its claimed authority in spiritual matters beyond contention.
Since there is precious little in the NT that even begins to resemble what the Catholic church is today and has been for most of history, that claim is empty. The Catholic church needs to massively twist precious few verses of Scripture to support itself, something which should be an immediate red flag to the veracity of their claims.
The writers of the NT made no claim to Catholicism or any allegiance to any denomination. And no one can legitimately claim ownership of them as their own after the fact.