Please consider re-reading your own earlier posts where you question the authority of Scripture as you continue to do in this post.
Hi nl. I wish that if I converse with you, it could be civil. I've been thinking about this thread in the past day, and I feel I need to make an apology about accusing others of ad hominem. The truth is, I'm guilty of that in other threads, maybe even this one. So I'm sorry, but that's the problem with text - something that's not meant to be mean can come off that way, and then the person reading the post pushes back with something rude, and the whole thing escalates. Soon, you have a thread with pages and pages of people just repeating themselves. We are all a work in progress, as Pie stated in one of her posts, we all need to work on civil debate (doing a Google search on debate manners and terms probably wouldn't hurt either.)
Ok... how do I explain this... believing that something has errors is not equal to denying it authority. My Mommy made mistakes - but as I was a little girl, she had authority over me. Mommy is the bible writer if you will, communicating the wisdom that I need. We are talking about Scripture - not God. These things are separate, and the reason they are, is because no one can definitively say what the Word of God is - which is my WHOLE point.
Just because I'm in a state of inquiry as to what Scripture is, doesn't mean I don't find it authoritative. I know that I am commanded to forgive others, for example. But I believe that with faith that Matthew communicated that with 100% accuracy. So, yes, like I said, taking this approach does come down to a "pick and choose" thing. It comes down to what's reasonable and morally correct, and my conscious is a guide as well. However, that's the beauty of it. For centuries, the church had a sole, canon that she deemed inerrant and inspired, and what did she do - she used it to control people. She burned opposing texts because if anyone reads a different idea (i.e. are free of brainwashing) then the chances of rebellion are higher. Kings and religious leaders who want to keep people in line enforce only one way of looking at things. Why do you think the king banned Tartuffe? (French comedy, absolutely hilarious, and if you want to watch a rendition of it on YouTube, you may like it.) Why do you think books and plays (that offer criticism to the predominate view) get banned through the centuries? Because if the common folk sees that, it will make a revolution or rebellion much more likely. I'm sorry, but in light of this knowledge of history and humanity, I want to decide for myself what is inspired and what isn't - I don't want the Pope telling me, or any religious leader, because clearly the motive (historically speaking) behind the efforts to push inerrant is a means of control - which in turns make the concept look questionable. "If reading ONLY THESE TEXTS is a way of controlling people, then obviously the way to be free-thinking is to read opposing views, in addition."
It looks like you are questioning the authority of the Biblical canon because you are.
The specific canon, yes. Authority of religious texts - with discernment in reading them, no.
You are also claiming full factual knowledge of how the four gospels were placed in the New Testament canon and knowledge of the thoughts and motives of Irenaeus.
Well, I watched it on a documentary of scholars who are far more well read than I am, they have an extensive knowledge of Christian history. Maybe they were liberal scholars? Most likely. However, an argument should be based on it's merit, not on who is giving it. Of course we can't know for certain his motives, but in comparing him against the rest of history, we can take a guess. It seemed he looked around him and saw these Christians dying - but for "different Christs" and different beliefs about Him. He thought that if we're going to die, we better know what we're dying for. I'm sorry, but I have distrust for someone who selects four gospels (out of 30+, I believe it was) and tells his readers that the others are heretical - and these others are read by his contemporaries, and basically what he did was tell them that they were dying in vain. From my understanding, even though a lot of these gospels are dated early 2nd century, they were derived from oral traditions that started in Paul's day, or maybe before. People had different thoughts about Jesus FROM THE BEGINNING, the VERY beginning. Heck, even in the Gospels in the NT, there was dispute over who Jesus was.
If you want to take by faith that the four Gospels come to the canon guided by the hand of God, (watch this)
that's fine. I respect that. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, it is something that has to be taken by faith. It can not be proven historically to be "the [only] Gospel truth."
The Word of God is a reliable discerner of the thoughts and intents (motives) of others (Hebrews 4:12).
Yes, and I believe that, and I endorse that when I defend others. However, again, not ALL Christians through all time has had the book of Hebrews as a book that they read. Some may have never read it, in the early centuries. So, was it that they lacked a piece of God's word?
This is the problem I have with Sola Scriptura. Sometimes, the Bible isn't there. Sometimes, you're a Christian in a Muslim country who just had your bible burned. Are they then without God's word? Is the Holy Spirit then unable to move? NO! God is far more powerful and influential in our lives and hearts, way beyond the limits of religious texts (whatever they are.) If God's word is confined to a single book, and He can't communicate ANY OTHER WAY, well I'm sorry, but that's just not a very powerful (or caring) God to me.
Are you claiming the same ability?
No. But there are certain human characteristics and types of motives that repeats itself through history, so we can take a guess.
It looks like you think that this is a bad thing and that personal beliefs were an over-ride to anything being inspired by God's Holy Spirit. Again, it looks like you are making a generalized insinuation or aspersion against every ancient writer and again questioning the authority of the Bible.
I don't quite understand. I never said errors cancel out inspiration. Every ancient writer huh? You know you include Mohammad when you say that.
Do you want to add more to your generalization about all other nations?
I mean it doesn't sit well with me that ONLY the Jews had God's word and truth (supposedly). If God desires all to be saved, how come He hasn't been speaking to ALL nations, from the beginning?
There are different types of slavery. Slavery can be initiated by events that include kidnapping and unpaid debt. There are voluntary forms of being a bond-servant. The Apostle Paul described himself as a bond-servant of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:1). What's your specific point and position?
In the modern mind, it is immoral to own ANYONE, for ANY reason. That is not equality. That is why it doesn't sit well with a lot of people.
Jamie26301, thank you for your participation. I hope to see good things in the future.
You're welcome. And if by good things you mean unadulterated agreement with what you say, I'm sorry but that is an unreasonable expectation. We are all different, with different experiences and backgrounds, and it is therefore inevitable that we will come to different conclusions. I'm not trying to offend, but to expect someone to think like you is ego-centric, and an indirect assertion that you have had direct access to God (I don't mean doctrinally or by faith, I mean you have a knowledge high above everyone else's), in which you can say without doubt, that the [insert religious text here] is the Word of God. There is no one who can say that, and prove it. I'm sorry.
