jesus knows no bible

[Seeker1066]

jesus is a prophet of god. thus he could have prophisied the NT. futhermore some people call the NT the gospel of jesus as if he sanctioned the writings.

by devine authority i mean sanctioned by god. if you found a book that told the future and led you to do only good things you still could not claim that it is inspired by god. perhaps an angel inspired it. perhaps the devil. perhaps a smart fortune teller. perhaps anybody.

so why is it okay for a group of catholic men to select specific writings and then say, "this is from god" without god's authority. is there even the slightest evidence that these men had god's authority to make such a claim. or else is there evidence that jesus made such a claim. on what authority do you make the claim.

The Authority belongs to the Church instituted by Christ with St Peter at its head holding the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven. It is this Church in union with the Pope who decided the Cannon of the New Testament. This decision is infallible due to the Authority of the Church and Sacred Tradtion. The Church predated a completed new testament by hundreds of years.

 

[mkh4JC]

the NT does not get its authority from the OT because as far as we know the OT does not reference the NT anywhere. not one single mention. there are prophecies about jesus and other events in the OT but it does not reference the NT writings.

Well, if there are prophecies concerning Jesus in the Old Testament, then how exactly does it not get it's fulfillment in the New Testament writings? The point is, the Old Testament points to Christ. Consider passages like these:

'The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.'

Dueteronomy 18: 15-19

Consider what Jesus said in the New Testament:

'I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.' St John 12: 46-50

What about Isaiah 53?

Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors

A clear cut demonstration of what the Messiah would have to do. And all this is in the Old Testament.

Here's what we find in the book of Daniel:

'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.' Daniel 7: 13-14.

How many times in the Gospels did Jesus refer to himself as the Son of Man?

there are prophecies in the NT that are found in the OT. Just because a collection of writings, in some places, mention OT prophecies does not mean that the collection of writings are inspired or that they are somehow linked to the OT.

Well, you can't separate the Old and New Testaments. Jesus fulfilled countless prophecies in the Old Testament, prophecies in the Psalms, books of Moses, and the books of the prophets. As I said, and as I have shown, the New Testament gets its authority from the Old.

And just to add, the church already was on a consensus of what was inspired scripture before any council took place, meaning, the texts that were known to be inspired were already circulated among the churches.

 

[kidcanman]

The Authority belongs to the Church instituted by Christ with St Peter at its head holding the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven. It is this Church in union with the Pope who decided the Cannon of the New Testament. This decision is infallible due to the Authority of the Church and Sacred Tradtion. The Church predated a completed new testament by hundreds of years.

deciding the cannon means deciding which books are to be included.

where did peter, or the pope, or the church claim to have the devine authority to make this decision.

i take it that you are saying that st peter prophecied this decision seeing as how he too died hundreds of years before the new testament was completed.

were did peter claim to be a prophet.

you say that the pope and peter, the head of the church ( i.e. a group of men), made the decision.
were does jesus say (implicitly or explicitly) that his followers, "the church", have the authority to write scripture or to say that certain writings are from god. where does god give the church this authority.

 

[kidcanman]

fedos
people wrote about how jesus fulfilled many OT prophecies. so what was prophecied in the OT was fullfilled by jesus. and people recorded this.

im not asking about weather or not these recordings are TRUE. im asking who decided that these recordings are inspired by god.
jesus fulfilling OT prophecies has nothing to do with weather or not the people who wrote about how jesus fullfilled the prophecies were inspired by god.

ive heard that many text were circulating at the time. supposedly some text were left out of the bible because the witness' stories did not collaborate. apparently christians DECIDED what to potray as god's words based upon witness collaboration. thats not god's authority.

 

[mkh4JC]

fedos
people wrote about how jesus fulfilled many OT prophecies. so what was prophecied in the OT was fullfilled by jesus. and people recorded this.

im not asking about weather or not these recordings are TRUE. im asking who decided that these recordings are inspired by god.
jesus fulfilling OT prophecies has nothing to do with weather or not the people who wrote about how jesus fullfilled the prophecies were inspired by god.

ive heard that many text were circulating at the time. supposedly some text were left out of the bible because the witness' stories did not collaborate. apparently christians DECIDED what to potray as god's words based upon witness collaboration. thats not god's authority.

It's true that many texts were available at the time. But the things is, God confirmed within his Church which texts were inspired and not inspired. For the true Church back then (ie the real Church, the blood bought, sanctified, Holy Ghost filled, fire baptized) there was never any doubt as to which texts were inspired or which ones had apostolic authority.

 

[Supreme]

fedos
people wrote about how jesus fulfilled many OT prophecies. so what was prophecied in the OT was fullfilled by jesus. and people recorded this.

im not asking about weather or not these recordings are TRUE. im asking who decided that these recordings are inspired by god.
jesus fulfilling OT prophecies has nothing to do with weather or not the people who wrote about how jesus fullfilled the prophecies were inspired by god.

ive heard that many text were circulating at the time. supposedly some text were left out of the bible because the witness' stories did not collaborate. apparently christians DECIDED what to potray as god's words based upon witness collaboration. thats not god's authority.

The numerous Gospels circulating around proposed simply heretical ideas, not in common with the Messiah prophesised and not in line with the all loving nature of Jesus. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas suggests that Jesus was a mass murderer as a child; the Gospel of Judas, the earliest manuscripts of which were written in the late 2nd century and without using any known earlier sources, suggested that Judas was the closest disciple of Jesus and His greatest friend.

Now, the church fathers needed to devise a canon that matched this criteria:

1) Portrayed Jesus in a good, traditional and holy light
2) Portrayed Jesus in both a divine and human nature. Any book that focused too much on His divine or human aspect was rejected out of hand.
3) Had credibility amongst Christians of the time, many of whom may not have read any books in the New Testament canon at the time.
4) Had the right structure- eg, a Gospel was required to follow a structure of Jesus' miracles, works, teachings, crucifixion and eventually resurrection. The Epistles had to give advice to Christians on faith and good works.
5) Preferably did not contradict each other. The Christmas stories found in Matthew and Luke seem to contradict each other, however, these differences were not seen as a contradiction as such, just different perspectives and details of the same story.

 

[Al-manar]

Someone here seems not aware how questionable wikipedia is as an academic source. .

Once the encyclopedia goes in favor for the christian concepts,ignoring other criticism,you would find so much praise among the christians of how accurate wonderful the content is....
and that is the way the fanatics wish the sources to be...

All of this from the link that you provided to prove the counterpoint.

Thought that have taught you what wiki's objectivity is.....

What Wiki fails to mention is that just a Irenaeus (who "states unequivocally that the apostle is the author of the Gospel") was a student of Polycarp, so too Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle.

Polycarp never quotes from the Gospel of John in his own writings, which indicates very strongly that whichever John he knew was not the author of that Gospel.

Thus, I believe we have what, if we were talking about a student of a companion of the Prophet, would be known in Islamic circles as very strong support for the Haddith.

And talking about hadith ,there are thousands of hadiths claimed to be narrated by the companions of the prophet,yet classified as weak...
and can't be trusted to be the words of the companions...
cause they have similar defects to that of the Bible...

There is much more that I could write in regard to both internal and external evidences regarding Johanine authorship.

And There is much more in regard to both internal and external evidences against Johanine authorship

The authorship of John

Who was the author of John? Tradition has it that it was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee who is identified with "the beloved disciple" mentioned on at least four occasions in the gospel (John 13:23-25; 19:26f, 20:2-8 and 21:7f). This would make the gospel an eyewitness account. However several consideration shows that this is extremely improbable.
Firstly it is important to note that nowhere in the twenty chapters of the gospel is the author identified with anyone named John.
Secondly the identity of John, son of Zebedee with the person referred to as "the beloved disciple" is based primarily on parallel passages in the synoptics. For instance it is argued that John is depicted as Peter's companion in Acts (Acts 1:13; 3:1-4; 3:11; 4:13; 4:19; 8:14), the beloved disciple also appears with Peter in the fourth gospel (John 13:23-25; 20:2-8, 21:21-23 and, possibly, 18:15f [a] ).
Yet appealing to parallel passages in the synoptics cuts both ways. For there are many parallel scenes in the synoptics in which the beloved disciple is not mentioned when we would have expected him to, given the importance of his role depicted in the fourth gospel. These episodes are the last supper, the crucifixion and the empty tomb.
In the last supper Peter is made to ask the "beloved disciple" to inquire from Jesus who the traitor was after Jesus reveled that it will be one of the twelve (John 13:18-26). The incident, as described in the other gospels had the disciples inquiring among themselves who the betrayer is (Mark 14:19; Matthew 26:22; Luke 22:23).
In the episode of Jesus' crucifixion Jesus is said to have handed his mother to the care of the "beloved disciple" (John 19:25-27). This episode is nowhere to be found in any of the synoptics' account of the crucifixion. Indeed we are explicitly told by Mark that "all of them [Jesus' disciple] deserted him and fled" (Mark 14:50).
In the episode of the empty tomb, the "beloved disciple" is made to race Peter to the empty tomb and even outran him (John 20:3-5). Again nowhere in the synoptics do we find the "beloved disciple" or anybody apart from the women (and Peter in Luke 24:12) to have seen the empty tomb. This episode provides a clue as to how the stories concerning the beloved disciple is constructed. In the episode on the resurrection, John's account is very similar to Luke where Peter, alone, ran to the tomb after hearing the news from Mary Magdalene (Luke 24:12). The expression in John 20:3 was "Peter went forth". The verb here is singular in Greek and seems to show that John's traditional material only has Peter alone running to the tomb. But the evangelist clumsily adds "and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb." Far from being an eyewitness account this shows that the character of the "beloved disciple" is merely a inept insertion by the author into his traditional source material. [10]
There is a passage in the fourth gospel that would also seem to exclude John, the son of Zebedee as the "beloved disciple". Recall that sometimes the "beloved disciple" is also referred to as "the other disciple" and is never named (e.g. 21:21-23 and, possibly, 18:15f ). If this indeed is an alternate designation, then the disciples who were present during the resurrection appearance at the Sea of Tiberias were given in John 21:2 as Peter, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee and two "other disciples". Given the premise of not naming the beloved disciple, it is more probable that he was among the "two other disciples" than one of the sons of Zebedee.
We should also note, for what it is worth, that Acts 4:13 mentioned John (with Peter) to be "uneducated and ordinary", which according to Bart Ehrman in his textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, means that he was illiterate. It is unlikely that such a theological work could be the result of such a person.
Thirdly the gospel is anonymous for the first twenty chapters. It also seems probable that chapter was the end of the original gospel, as the following verse will testify:
John 20:30-31
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
This sounds very much like a concluding paragraph of the gospel. Prior to this point no claim is made that the beloved disciple himself wrote the gospel. Indeed one passage seems to explicitly ruled him out as the direct author of the gospel:
John 19:35
He who saw it has borne witness -- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth -- that you also may believe.
The "beloved disciple" was described in earlier (John 19:26) as being the only disciple present at the crucifixion (besides the women), so it is reasonable to assume that "he" here refers to him. However the third person construction of the sentence more naturally means that, whoever this disciple is, his witness is being claimed for the gospel not his authorship.
However chapter 21 restarts rather abruptly with: "Afterwards Jesus appeared again...". It is only here that the author is explicitly identified as the mysterious "beloved disciple."
John 21:24
This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
The first person plural "we" in the above verse , as well as the abrupt beginning mentioned earlier, show that chapter 21 is definitely a later addition to the gospel. And it is also clear that the beloved disciple had died when this chapter was written, as we can surmise from this passage:
John 21:21-23
When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"
The explanation provided in John 21:23 above only makes sense if the beloved disciple had already died when the last chapter was penned. Thus the claim that the "beloved disciple" wrote the gospel was made in a chapter that was definitely not written by him! [11]
Even if we have shown that the author was not John the son of Zebedee, what about the claim that it was written by an albeit anonymous eyewitness? This is unlikely in the extreme, as Udo Schnelle, Professor of New Testament at Halle, Germany noted:
The different way in which the life of Jesus is portrayed, the independent theology, the numerous special traditions and the thought world explicitly oriented to the post-Easter perspective point to the conclusion that the Fourth Gospel was not composed by an eyewitness of the life of Jesus. He was a theologian of the later period who, on the basis of comprehensive tradtions, rethought the meaning of Jesus' life, and interpreted and presented it in his own way. [12]

We can summarized the evidence against identifying the author of the fourth gospel as John, the son of Zebedee:
• Nowhere in the gospel is the author's name given as John
• The identification of the "beloved disciple" with "John, the son of Zebedee" is false. The very method used for this - parallel passages in the synoptics - can be used to exclude the identification.
• There is no explicit claim, in the first twenty chapters, of any authorship by the "beloved disciple" whoever he was.
• The claim was made in chapter 21 was that of another hand and was penned after the death of the "beloved disciple".
• The content of the fourth gospel explicitly excludes it as an eye-witness account.
The tradition of identifying the author with John the son of Zebedee is very late. It was first stated by Ireneaus around 180 CE who reported that the author of this gospel was John the son of Zebedee. This utterance by Ireneaus was most likely based on his confusion of the two Johns mentioned by Papias:
Quoted in Eusebius'History of the Church 3:39:3-4
And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying.
There were thus two Johns referred to above. One is John, one of original circle of disciples, which as can be inferred from the passage, was already dead. The other is the presbyter John who was still alive at the time of Papias writing around AD125. Now we know that Ireneaus, in his work Against Heresies, maintained that Papias was the follower of the apostle John (Against Heresies 5:33:4). We can see from the above passage that Papias gave no hint of knowing the apostle John but that he knew the presbyter John. It could very well be this same presbyter who wrote the Johanine epistles. In the second and third epistles of John, the writer introduces himself as John the Presbyter (or elder). [13]
Furthermore there is no evidence of any tradition attributing the authorship of the gospel to John the apostle before Ireneaus' assertion. Even some of Ireneaus' contemporaries do not share his opinion. The Roman presbyter, Cauis, writing a few years after Ireneaus, attributed the book to the Gnostic Cerinthus. We have evidence that this gospel was not universally accepted in Rome during the end of the second or beginning of the third century because the presbyter Hippolytus (c170-c236) had to defend the Johanine authorship. [14] After Ireneaus however the attribution apostolic authorship started to gain ground among the Christians. This probably happened via a circular process: the claims of apostolic authorship strengthen its claims to canonicity while the strengthening of its canonicity further boosted the claims of apostolic authorship.
The authorship of John, like that of the three gospels, is therefore anonymous. We can be reasonably certain, though, that it was not John the apostle. .

In sum . The issue of Authorship of the Johannine works is at best controversal,and only such fanatics who would claim that John the disciple(if there was a disciple called john) is the one who wrote the gospel according to john....


and to be honest such issue (who wrote the work) I consider to be waste of time and effort.........

the serious searcher is the one who busy his mind more with (what the work itself tells).....

The New Testament has enough material to refute the assertion that it is from cover to cover the truly inspired word of God..

and that is why ,my posts would be primarily concerned with the text itself,and that is why that was my last post in that thread..


peace for all

 

[Grace Seeker]

That is what muslims hold as the standard: that Allah SWT unambiguously states that it is the scripture.

Just in case you didn't notice, while all Muslims would agree with you that Allah does make that statement in the Qur'an, it is NOT the reason that all Muslims give for understanding the Qur'an as inspired -- just read Skye's post again and you will see what I mean.

BTW, I don't know what your motive in saying that muslims believe the Qur'an is a book created by inspired prophet Muhammad SAW,

I never said that. You need to read more carefully.

This is VERY different to the christians claim that the bible is written by "inspired" writers (among them are unknown)

It is indeed. Only a very few Christians claim that the Bible is a recitation from God. I am not one of them.

 

[Grace Seeker]

futhermore some people call the NT the gospel of jesus as if he sanctioned the writings.

NO!!!



You are completely misinformed as to the meaning of the word Gospel. To call something a gospel does NOT mean that it is a sanctioned writing. That is where Muslim err so terribly in suggesting that Jesus came with a specifically sanctioned message from God and that this pre-sanctioned message is the Gospel. IT IS NOT!!

Even if Jesus had come and we had witnessed God write a message that Jesus would give to us on stone tablets with lightening bolts, while that message would most definitely be a word from God, it would still not be the Gospel of Jesus Christ for that is simply not what the word Gospel means.

Just is it is improper to speak of the Qur'an as Muhammad's message when it is Allah's, so it is wrong to speak of the Gospel as something which it is not. The Gospel is the announcement of the Good News of what God did with regard to the relationship between God and humanity as a result of Jesus' life. It is neither Jesus' teaching about God, nor a biography of Jesus' life. It is a reporting of what God does because of what Jesus did.

 

[Grace Seeker]

by devine authority i mean sanctioned by god. if you found a book that told the future and led you to do only good things you still could not claim that it is inspired by god. perhaps an angel inspired it. perhaps the devil. perhaps a smart fortune teller. perhaps anybody.

so why is it okay for a group of catholic men to select specific writings and then say, "this is from god" without god's authority. is there even the slightest evidence that these men had god's authority to make such a claim. or else is there evidence that jesus made such a claim. on what authority do you make the claim.

I already told you, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit which Jesus promised. It was shared with more than just the apostles, but with the entire Church.


Further, if I were writing as a Catholic, I would tell you that Jesus himself still speaks through the Church. That he gave that authority to Peter as the Vicar of Christ, that authority is passed from one Pope to the next, and in this role Christ continues to speak authoritatively through his Church.

While as I protestant I don't quite buy all of that, there is truth in understanding that Christ did invest authority in his body, the Church. Under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit it has authority to act in God's name. In my opinion, we must be careful with that authority because as humans we are not perfect and do make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that we cannot or should not act. In declaring the canon of scriptures the Church is not saying that every other person outside of the Church as to accept them as the inspired verbal words of God. What we are saying is to the Church, that contained in this grouping of books is all that is necessary for edification regarding salvation and faithful living, and that nothing is needed outside of them for they are completely sufficient for that purpose.

 

[Grace Seeker]

i take it that you are saying that st peter prophecied this decision seeing as how he too died hundreds of years before the new testament was completed.

That's simply untrue. I don't know where you get your history from, but you need to get another source. It was several hundred years before the canon of scripture was set, but (despite some "supposed" scholars who would argue for later dates) I don't believe that there were any NT writings that were composed later than 100 AD.

 

[Grace Seeker]

In sum . The issue of Authorship of the Johannine works is at best controversal,and only such fanatics who would claim that John the disciple(if there was a disciple called john) is the one who wrote the gospel according to john....


and to be honest such issue (who wrote the work) I consider to be waste of time and effort.........

the serious searcher is the one who busy his mind more with (what the work itself tells).....

The New Testament has enough material to refute the assertion that it is from cover to cover the truly inspired word of God..

and that is why ,my posts would be primarily concerned with the text itself,and that is why that was my last post in that thread..


peace for all

That's fine. I can respect that you disagree with Johanine authorship. I can respect that you don't care who the author was. I can respect that you don't consider it inspired and that you do consider me a fanatic. All of that is fine. But I think you better take back the inference that I am unaware of these issues. I believe I have proved that I am not only aware, but also conversant in them and simply come down in a different place than you do. Hopefully you can respect that.

 

[kidcanman]

God confirmed within his Church which texts were inspired and not inspired.

do you have even 1 example of how god confirmed any of these text within the church. for example a historical statement from a history book were somebody claims that god confirmed these text within the church, or a quote from the bible that implies that god confirmed the text within the church. no you do not have any facts behind your statement. show me any evidence of how god confirmed the text within the church. if you have none then it is obvious that you are simply endoctrinated.

i need 1 example to consider this a true occurance.

For the true Church back then there was never any doubt as to which texts were inspired or which ones had apostolic authority.

do you have ANY historical or scriptual evidence that there was no doubt or did you just write this because somebody told you that?

 

[kidcanman]

Now, the church fathers needed to devise a canon that matched this criteria:

The fathers were men not gods; nor prophets. Therefore the criteria they followed is a result of mortal reasoning. there is no basis to consider this criteria or the product of it devine so far as you said.

jesus did not suggest this criteria nor do you find this suggestion in any scripture. men (the church)chose (they used their criteria), without any devine authority, what to consider the word of god; which books to consider the NT.

so on what basis do you consider the NT devine.

 

[kidcanman]

You are completely misinformed as to the meaning of the word Gospel. To call something a gospel does NOT mean that it is a sanctioned writing.

when some christians say "gospel" they mean the sanctioned words of god.

It is neither Jesus' teaching about God, nor a biography of Jesus' life. It is a reporting of what God does because of what Jesus did.

im not taking issue with this definition. are the writings inspired by god. or are they god's words? and by what authority.

 

[kidcanman]

I already told you, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit which Jesus promised. It was shared with more than just the apostles, but with the entire Church.

you quoted that jesus said "the holy spirit will guide...". is this the only statement that grants authority to the apostles and the church? if not then list 1 more.

does this statement mean that all the words that the church leaders utter will be sanctioned by god? does it mean that all the actions of the church leaders or the apostles are sanctioned by god? every single one?

do you have historical or biblical evidence that the church leaders or the apostles stated that the holy spirit guided them to include the writings.

Further, if I were writing as a Catholic, I would tell you that Jesus himself still speaks through the Church. That he gave that authority to Peter as the Vicar of Christ, that authority is passed from one Pope to the next

where did he give peter this authority

What we are saying is to the Church, that contained in this grouping of books is all that is necessary for edification regarding salvation and faithful living, and that nothing is needed outside of them for they are completely sufficient for that purpose.

If the writings are not inspired then this is a presumptious statement.

 

[kidcanman]

That's simply untrue. I don't know where you get your history from, but you need to get another source. It was several hundred years before the canon of scripture was set, but (despite some "supposed" scholars who would argue for later dates) I don't believe that there were any NT writings that were composed later than 100 AD.

st peter did not determine the current cannon unless he did so by prophecy.
regardless of when the scriptures were written, it was later church leaders that decided which ones are devine and should be included.

 

[Supreme]

The fathers were men not gods; nor prophets. Therefore the criteria they followed is a result of mortal reasoning. there is no basis to consider this criteria or the product of it devine so far as you said.

jesus did not suggest this criteria nor do you find this suggestion in any scripture. men (the church)chose (they used their criteria), without any devine authority, what to consider the word of god; which books to consider the NT.

so on what basis do you consider the NT devine.

I'm not sure how you want me to reply to this. I've given you an answer, and as usual when somebody is given an answer, they start to ask more questions. But you fail to see the most obvious point here. Jesus didn't say which books to include because Jesus was no longer around, and the books were written after His time.

 

[kidcanman]

I'm not sure how you want me to reply to this. I've given you an answer, and as usual when somebody is given an answer, they start to ask more questions. But you fail to see the most obvious point here. Jesus didn't say which books to include because Jesus was no longer around, and the books were written after His time.

i pose the same question that i posed from the beginning. give 1 single scriptual or historical evidence of the church or the bible claiming to have devine insperation. if there is none then simply state that.

so far you have purposefully, or inadvertantly, stated examples that are not historical or scriptual evidence of devine authority. and i had to show you how you have not addressed the question.

bring 1 concrete example and that will not lead to further questioning.

 

[Supreme]

i pose the same question that i posed from the beginning. give 1 single scriptual or historical evidence of the church or the bible claiming to have devine insperation. if there is none then simply state that.

so far you have purposefully, or inadvertantly, stated examples that are not historical or scriptual evidence of devine authority. and i had to show you how you have not addressed the question.

bring 1 concrete example and that will not lead to further questioning.

There is none. That is the answer. I apologise, I believed people has already addressed this.