Again, how did 1st c. Jews know John the Baptist was a prophet indeed?
Or...you also asked before ...
Tell me, upon what basis did souls have assurance than an insect-eating man in the desert was a holy prophet of God, and an itinerant Prophet was the Divine Son of God/Messiah? Was the basis for their assurance the premise of their own infallibility, or that these men manifested they were of God in accordance with what Scripture teaches.
The portion in bold is a false dichotomy of your own construction. The point is, that I've been trying to make with you, and obviously failing miserably, is that the early church didn't form around a bible group.
People weren't converted to Christianity by reading the Scriptures.
The early Christians didn't find Jesus interesting and compelling JUST because he argued from the Scriptures in a new way.
People knew him to be unique, were drawn to him, either out of hatred for him (the Pharases) or out of a love for him they didn't even know they had BECAUSE of his HUMANITY, and so, were "convinced," an "insect-eating man in the desert was a holy prophet of God, and an itinerant Prophet was the Divine Son of God/Messiah", because of their own human heart, made by God, recognizes things (and people) OF God when it, the heart is poor in spirit.
His unique gaze upon everyone, his way of teaching, his way of living and his proposals for life. These things people found attractive or repulsive, based on how they approached their OWN humanity. How honest they were with THEMSELVES (their poverty of spirit), if they were so poor in spirit they could recognize how he is for them. How their destiny was and is HIM.
THIS is how Christianity is verified. This is how it is spread. This is how it endures while the pagan gods of Greece and Rome have turned to dust. By the unique HUMANITY that is generated by one who has encountered Christ today. Through this method, we TODAY can have the same experience as the apostles and early disciples. We can encounter Christ, encounter that original humanity that GAZE we all seek and desperately crave. Because it's what we are made for.
And we don't get that by studying a book. We get that through human interaction. The Body of Christ. The Church.
Otherwise the Scriptures are just a collection of dead letters. With no meaning, no CONNECTION, in a REAL sense, to today.
So you can have your Scripture study and historical analyses. I'm too busy for that. Too busy looking for Christ today.
The portion in bold is a false dichotomy of your own construction.
It is not false, as per your reasoning applied to me, if one makes a Truth claim, then they are claiming personal infallibility, versus a basis on evidence.
The point is, that I've been trying to make with you, and obviously failing miserably, is that the early church didn't form around a bible group.
That is what is false, as my argument was not that they all had Bible study groups, though they Jews were tutored under it, thus Timothy knew the Scriptures as a child, (2Tim. 3:15) but that their judgement that men were of God or not, if valid, was not without a basis for Truth, which was whether it was in accordance with what Scripture teaches. Even if it was according to the innate essence of the law, as with God-fearing Gentiles. (Rm. 2:14)
People weren't converted to Christianity by reading the Scriptures.
Really? "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15) A
nd your exclusion must also include hearing: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures ," (Acts 17:2)
And substantiation: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," (Luke 24:44-45 )
But you must be right and the NT church was wrong in doing what Peter, Paul and Apollos did. And the Gentiles judgement must have been right without any wholly Divinely, inspired writings that confirmed this.
The early Christians didn't find Jesus interesting and compelling JUST because he argued from the Scriptures in a new way. People knew him to be unique, were drawn to him..because of their own human heart, made by God, recognizes things (and people) OF God when it, the heart is poor in spirit. His unique gaze upon everyone, his way of teaching, his way of living and his proposals for life. These things people found attractive or repulsive, based on how they approached their OWN humanity.
So now its "just." But overall in essence what you are promoting is the very thing RCs protest against, that of personal judgment, but which for you is not that of judging things in the light of the assured word of God, but apart from it. You are indeed been quite different from other RCs here.
And indeed, , in your extreme militancy against being convinced based upon Scriptural judgment, your basis upon with they judged whether a man of God does so without any objective standard by which to test it. You say "their own human heart, made by God, recognizes things (and people) OF God when it, the heart is poor in spirit," and "How honest they were with THEMSELVES," but what defines God, or being "poor in spirit " and honest with themselves? Based upon your subjective, objectively baseless judgment, an atheist can claim his heart is right, or i could claim my heart must be right based upon purely subjective feelings.
Thus what i said was that "these men manifested they were of God in accordance with what Scripture teaches," for not only did men as Apollos "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ," (Acts 18:28) but even the Gentiles could see they were of God insofar as "when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law.." (Romans 2:14) Yet it is the written word that was the standard for judging Truth. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)
Thus in contrast your subjective objectively baseless judgment, most RCs would concur than an objective standard for Truth is necessary even for a a properly formed conscience to judge what is right. The difference is that i hold that supreme source is the wholly inspired Scriptures (which became established due what their heavenly qualities and attestation), and by which the church is judged, as both the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are not superior to it. But which superiority is what Rome effectively claims, asserting she alone assuredly defines both what Scripture is and means, and thus that she is infallible.
By the unique HUMANITY that is generated by one who has encountered Christ today. Through this method, we TODAY can have the same experience as the apostles and early disciples.
This baseless appeal to subjective esotericism sounds more Gnostic as your get deeper into it.
We can encounter Christ, And we don't get that by studying a book..."
Really? So contrary to what the Holy Spirit says about His wholly inspired word of God, "The law of the Lord is perfect, NOT converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." (Psalms 19:7)
You ignorance and marginalization of the assured word of God is an insult to Him.
We get that through human interaction. The Body of Christ. The Church.
I see. So the church has no transcendent Divine source upon which its Truth claims were tested and established, but one encounters Christ in body of souls whose basis for veracity is that their own poor in spirit. human heart is made by God and recognizes things (and people) OF God. Which sounds just like what i am being falsely accused of claiming.
Otherwise the Scriptures are just a collection of dead letters. With no meaning, no CONNECTION, in a REAL sense, to today.
In-credible! While the Holy Spirit says (in inspiring Scripture) of His word, "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," (Hebrews 4:12) and "the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ," and souls were convinced that Jesus was the Christ by it, and apostles "found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," (John 1:45) and that "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13) yet they are just dead letters with no meaning to you without the church, but which is a result of believing the then-established Scriptures.
You have the cart before the horse. The church began by souls believing the Scriptures, not by becoming part of a body apart from them. Abraham likewise believed before He saw his promised son. One can hear or read a gospel message today such as Acts 10:36-43 and become born again, and thus become part of the body of Christ, (1Cor. 12:13) and while Christ is manifest thru His body, the church, yet it is because "the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul," and "the word of God is quick, and powerful" (and being wholly inspired of God and existing in an tangible form, Scripture is the assured word of God), that that souls were saved and that there is a body of Christ!
So you can have your Scripture study and historical analyses. I'm too busy for that. Too busy looking for Christ today.
Then with your demeaning and marginalization of His living assured Word and contrast btwn this and knowing Christ, then you have a different Christ than the one whom the the apostles found as being Him "of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write ," and of Him it is "written , that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name," (John 20:31) and by which souls were convinced that Jesus was the Christ.
You can come to Christ without reading Scripture, but not without the Scriptural gospel, and as even Jerome insists, "ignorance of Scripture means ignorance of Christ." Take time for eternity and hear and believe the Scriptures written that ye might have life through his name, lest you awake in Hell to your eternal horror.