First, if we all claim to interpret “Scripture” then we descend into chaos which each of us “authoritatively” claiming to interpret scripture. In fact this is evident by the exchange of posts on this thread.
You must admit that Christ taught one truth. This is another way of saying, one interpretation. Precisely, for this reason, we have the scriptural support for one Church extended exclusively to Peter and his successors. Well, the NT canon was established by the early Church fathers.
Now of course there are volumes of books on this subject enough to fill shelves of university libraries. But simply referring you to them would be not be enough.
Every theologian will agree that the compilation of the New Testament was an inspired and highly complex process.
It can, however, by summarized relatively simply as follows.
Various Christians wrote books explaining the history of the Christian Church (including Gospels about the life of Christ and more general histories such as the Acts of the Apostles) and letters addressed to specific communities and persons (such as the letters of Saint Paul) and also what are best considered to be “open letters” (such as Hebrews). There were hundreds of different documents circulating around, all of them purporting to the authentic Christian teaching and accurate history and doctrine.
However, many of these documents were not what they claimed to be – they were forgeries not written by the people whose names they bore, or were heretical documents advancing novel notions about Christ. Some of these documents have survived today – examples are the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas. Neither of these documents were written by their alleged authors – they are late forgeries designed to cash in on the success and popularity of Christianity.
Out of all these hundreds of documents – many of them forgeries – the current 27 book New Testament appeared. This process took a long time – roughly 300 years went by from the writing of the last book of the New Testament (Revelation) until the list was finalized.
The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Initially, local canons were assembled by individual bishops. These canons were lists of books which could be read aloud in Churches at Mass. Despite the fact that these canons were independently assembled they bore a great deal of similarity to each other – because the Catholic bishops were all using the same criteria to determine which books should be included.
They looked to see if the books were written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle. They checked to see how much the book was being used by other bishops and priests in their Masses, and also looked at how often the book was quoted by the Church Fathers in their writings. Only those books which “scored” favorably on all three of these criteria made it into their canons.
In the early fourth century Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and it became possible for the bishops to meet without being imprisoned or killed by the pagan authorities. Beginning in the late fourth century and continuing until the very early fifth century the Catholic Church met at a number of councils where the canon of the Bible was debated. These councils produced canons which were identical to the current 73 book Roman Catholic canon.
As can clearly be seen the canon of the Bible was produced by the Catholic Church. The Church also existed long before the Bible – it was the early fifth century before the Bible existed as we might recognize it today, and none of the books of the Bible were even written until around 50 AD. But the Catholic Church began 20 years earlier, at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.
The Christians who wrote the New Testament were Catholic – they were Catholic for two reasons. One, they believed everything which the current Catholic Church (and only the Catholic Church) teaches (as is shown by the writings of the Church Fathers). And they were Catholic because there was no other church at the time. Myths such as the “Trail of Blood” simply do not hold water – the Catholic Church was, quite literally, the only game in town.
Accordingly, the Bible can be considered to be two things – it is younger than the Catholic Church and it is the product of the Catholic Church. This means that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith for Christians, but rather “the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” as it says in I Timothy 3:15.
So when you say “inerrant” fundamental truths it take us nowhere because what you and your friends call “inerrant” is an interpretation that others may differ. This becomes a circular reasoning trap.
Thus the same Petrine authority responsible for assembling the NT canons did not have an expiry date in AD 300, or AD 500.
Matthew 28:20:
“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
It is this teaching authority, that predated the compilation of the Bible, to assemble the NT that carries on to this day and has been the source of eternal life through the Mass and Eucharist (see earlier post) for Catholics: saints, martyrs and sinners.
I can however refer you to Tim Staples. He is a convert to Catholicism from Jimmy Swaggart’s Bible College, a former Assemblies of God Pentecostalist –preacher who truly sought to disprove Catholic doctrine especially Marian theology and indeed made it his explicit mission to show it was dead wrong. This was a 20-year effort of his. He not only converted at the end his mission, he wrote a best seller called “Mary, Mother of God” defending all of Church Marian doctrine. It is an eye-opener!
Here’s him being interviewed on EWTN Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWe10ypkvw
Good night!
That's all rather besides the point(s), and this "chaos" which you invoked could be compared to the chaos on this nation's freeways.
Some individuals do run themselves off the road and into the ditches, or else smash-up against some immovable object, when not more simply, upon occasion colliding with one another. For reason that some do, does not equate with all will do so --- like --- whenever it is they take the wheel in their own hands. Not everyone in the USA eventually dies in automobile accidents, due to their own negligence, though this comparison is the way in which Romanists would make it out to be, for any and all whom utilize Scripture in refutation of certain and particular aspects of Roman Catholic theology.
Again I will remind you that you yourself have disqualified yourself from being a capable judge of comparable theologies ---- having also apparently just recently missed some slight, but significant in it's implication, brief touching upon comparable Eucharistic theologies, which agree with one another as for Spirit (rather than 'carnal flesh' viewpoint) leaving Roman Catholicism somewhat out in the cold, for those whom take an earthly, corporeal flesh type of approach to "Real Presence" as the Reformers spoke of, and the invitation of the Spirit to be the bread ---- as I provided link for an Orthodox view towards. I do suggest that if you think you are qualified to evaluate such things, to go to the link which I provided for that, and read carefully to see if you can see just what it is I'm talking about, rather than myself having to drag it all out ---- and explain to you each and every aspect which should be fairly enough taken into consideration.
If yourself not personally qualified to interpret Scripture --- how then could you interpret the theology of others, other than only on the most shallow levels wherein reliance must be placed not upon comparison of what conceptualizations are being spoken of -- but rather what is being said more woodenly, as in word-for-word comparison, engaged in while ignoring (willfully? I do wonder) what it is which is being conceptual conveyed by the words themselves...
Additionally, as I have previously noted, there is more widespread agreement among many, even here on FR -- than serious disagreements from a few, this thread also serving as evident of what levels of agreement which there are -- which is significant regardless of anyone's denial of such, and as yourself having done, declared the opposite.
For there is not the "chaos" of individual interpretations running around -- all of them in entire disagreement with one another, as you seem to be claiming that there is, even as there is also differing levels of understanding also --- even among Roman Catholic individuals --- including theologians whom align themselves with the RCC.
Yes, but then you must also admit that in the early patristic witness, those individuals didn't not always agree on each and every thing, and in fact there is much which can be seen to have "developed" during later centuries, rather than to have been taught clearly as this "one truth" which you speak of. What could be important would be to sift through what it is which they did indeed most widely agree upon, which itself is also best supported by the Scripture itself also.
Have I not been over that with yourself -- perhaps even numerous times?
I see that you went to some effort to outline how the NT canon came to be. Though I perhaps would not agree with each assertion, in each and every sentence, I will say that you do much exaggerate the process, in the sense that what it is that is being ignored by yourself (even as you are also explaining it, curiously enough) is that that the Apostles imposed upon the Church, the very writings which came to be known as the NT, and these were widely enough known for the vastly greater measure, from quite early on.
In fact, it was this very widespread acceptance itself which ultimately was the truest measure of what was Apostolic --and what was not. But as seeming usual, you do seem to go to great lengths to turn things around rather backwards, I suppose in order to better make way for later Church Council's discussion of the issue to then be projected to have been reliant upon the bishop of Rome. Look -- I know the drill. I know it backwards and forwards. But it's made up of far too much (unprintable on this forum) mixed in with the actual underlying truths of the matter(s).
As for the texts themselves, albeit there were indeed many pretenders, and spurious writings of various sort, what was eventually settled upon was nothing more (and nothing less) than what had come to the various and widespread ekklesia from actual Apostolic sources.
If there was something less ----- which did indeed come from these same authors from whom the contents of the NT came, then show what those writings are. Guess what? There are none that are known of, or of which there can be found trace mention of (that is not mention of some *other* spurious pseudo-graph), or else the Christian world would have likely known of them, all along. Even one writing (not recognized as NT by anyone) which is attributed to Peter himself arguing with some interlocutor, has been well enough established to not be the writings of the Apostle Peter, but are among early pseudographical writings. Or--- feel free to show me some known-to-be actual Apostolic writing which didn't make the cut.
It was much more a matter of these various ekklesia -- none of them in the least being unilaterally under the authority of the Bishop of Rome (other than the Church of Rome itself), whom together were able to establish, and yet again re-establish what it truly was which came from Apostolic source, and what did not. None of this process was funneled singularly through the bishopric of Rome -- which means that your prior assertions concerning this issue were nothing but a bunch of hot air.
I do find your masses of collective assertion, all of them seeming to lead squarely back to your own mistaken & distorted views of this alleged "Petrine authority" which is alluded to belong singularly to 'Rome' as it were, to be entirely tedious.
No matter how many times and ways it can be demonstrated that such concepts as Supremacy for the bishop of Rome absolutely did not exist in the forms which after later "development" within the Church of Rome alone became distorted and inflated into becoming, all the ceaseless rhetoric in the world cannot make truth out of collections of distortion and outright untruth.