In order to be speaking truthfully, you would have had to study, on your own (and, as someone else asserted correctly, in its original languages) ALL 400 of the ancient Christian texts, as well as the 27 theopneustos books, and discerned, on your own, which ones are inspired.
I don’t think it takes a detective to figure that you have not done this.
Ah, now PR, you are not only adding to my words, but moving the goalpost outward, that’s unbecoming. If you are going to study something, how do you do it? If I set you a task of studying “cognitive dissonance” how would you do it? If I set you a task of studying the book of Genesis from a Jewish, Christian, and Islamic perspective, how would you do it?
You are making something mystical and unknowable that is actually extremely accessible and has been accessed by me and others, including Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan. It was studied and promulgated in the early church. You have to make the claim that the modern RCC is responsible for giving the rest of Christendom the Bible because you think it proves something. I’m sorry, but we owe the Bible to God, not to the modern RCC.
And, further, if you study what your own church teaches, they recognize that fact fully, why don’t you?
What you have done, Kliska, is accept the word of someone else that these books are inspired and these other books are not inspired.
PR, you make claims on something that you have no idea about. You don’t know what I have or have not studied. The only information you have on what I have studied comes from me, and me alone. Do you know there are whole collections of books focused on one little scrap of old manuscript, the dating and meaning?
Again, you can do the same thing; you are capable, you can read. Give it a go if it is something that interests you.
I am 100% certain that you do not reserve for yourself the right to declare, “I have studied the Epistles of Paul and have determined that they are NOT inspired.”
I most certainly do reserve that right for myself. Have you ever seen a church leader rip a book out of a Bible? I have. That pastor reserved that right for himself and boy did he ever do what he said, literally. What book was it? James. **Further, there is still no one accepted canon in all of Christendom. Not one. The different Orthodox churches have theirs, the RCC/ECC have theirs, the Protestants have theirs. That IS a comment on which books the different churches find are inspired and which are not.
**
I’ve studied Jame, why it was eventually included, and why it was disputed, have you? If not, that’s fine, but just because you haven’t doesn’t mean others haven’t.
If you utilize any of these scholarly works, then you have not done the discernment process on your own.
PR, you aren’t making any practical sense. If you applied your logic to life, you could never discern anything on your own, ever.
Rather, you defer to these experts.
Do you know how to research something and come to a conclusion? If you are studying history, how do you study it? If you read a biography on Lincoln how do you know it’s true?
But you also say that you don’t need anyone else to tell you what to believe.
I don’t. Again, I think you are trying to make a swipe at SS that makes no sense. You do understand that when you research something you are expected to study the perspectives of others. Just because you study them doesn’t mean you agree with them. So, for example, if I’m studying the RCC, should I only study Protestant sources, or Catholic sources, or secular sources, should I not study them all and then form my own opinion?
When we are looking at things like doctrine, it is on our shoulders to make sure we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, search scripture daily, read other opinions, pray about it, etc… Again, you move your authority one back; my authority, who I answer to, and who I believe teaches all men Truth is God. Your authority, the one who you believe teaches all men truth is the magisterium of the RCC. We have different starting points PR. I can accept that, can you?
So when one accepts the 27 book canon of the NT, one is giving tacit approval to Sacred Tradition.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying to you since Day 1.
PR, you aren’t making sense. I’ve said from the beginning, you can do exactly what they did. Look at the criteria. Read the records. See what you think. I know why I believe the books are inspired, do you know why you do? The magisterium told you. How did they know they were inspired? How did the earliest churches know they were inspired without a council? Have you studied the canon and how it was actually formed? I have.
Once more, SS doesn’t discount tradition UNLESS it conflicts with scripture. You do understand that all of Christendom studies and looks at the earliest churches and the ECF’s, and the earliest documents and manuscripts, or do you think that is only something that the modern Roman Catholic Church has the capacity to do?
Let me answer that for you; yes, you believe that is only something the magisterium of the Catholic Church can do; the rest of Christendom disagrees with you. You have your opinion and the rest of Christendom has theirs. And that’s the bottom line.
or is it that you do not have an answer and a throw away line was the best you could do?
You again ignore the difference between mediation and intercession. I’m not sure how to help you understand the difference.
