As a corollary to the sentiments here, I would like to add the following, which, IMO, is a more persuasive argument: (it’s another reason I was drawn back to the Church)
How do we know any Bible we have today is an accurate representation of what was written in the first and second centuries? We have no “original documents” to verify such a claim, independently, apart from the Church. I do believe that the oldest existing document we have from the first century is a fragment of the book of Matthew. (or some Gospel, I can’t remember which one with 100% accuracy).
Doesn’t this fact shock people? Doesn’t the fact that we have, at best, “copies of copies” force people to realize that we need an authoritative body to verify, through continual witness to the fact, that the “bible” we have today is indeed a fair (if not 100% accurate) representation of what was written in the first century? How do we know that what we have today wasn’t corrupted between the first, and early part of the second century, and when it was finally compiled in the 4th century?
To me, this is the ultimate destruction of sola scriptura. If we claim the Church is incapable of teaching authoritatively, then we are left with nagging doubt, “How do we know the english Bible I have in my hand accurately represents what was originally taught back in the 1st and 2nd centuries?” We certainly can’t claim it “verifies itself”, as a general distortion of all Scripture could still “verify itself”; it would be “verifying” error though.
Granted we have the DSS to verify the OT, but of course, this doesn’t verify the NT independently. No, the only verification we have that Scripture is indeed at least a fair representation of what was written back then is through the living witness of the Church. And indeed, that’s really what the Magisterium is: It’s a living witness, guided and protected from error by God the Holy Spirit, to give a living witness to the Good News of Christ. Without this unbroken line of witnesses (apostolic succession), all we have are dead words on pages, with no real connection to today.
Many Biblical scholars bemoan the fact that we don’t have original documents, and indeed, it is sad we don’t from an intellectual standpoint. How wonderful it would be to be able to verify the words we have today with originals from the 1st century! However, I believe everything happens for a reason, God’s reasons, and the fact that the originals were lost (probably due to persecution by the Roman Empire during that period), is, IMO, God’s message to us today to not rely on the “Bible alone”, but rather, to rely on the men and women He has chosen to teach us about the faith, through various charisms, for our PERFECTION (cf Eph 4:1-13).
I’m confused why your post led you to the Catholic church. You yourself mentioned that it was the persecution by the Roman Empire (Roman Catholic Church) that changed and altered the original documents. Doesn’t that make one wonder if God was trying to tell us not to follow the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/dp/087784691X
Bruce is extremely readable, and a true scholar with few axes to grind. He does not give short shrift to the church fathers, such as Origen, the Clements, Papias, Eusebius, etc., although he may not emphasize the councils to your satisfaction. Or maybe he does. In any case, the kind of detective work that assures that the New Testament is very faithful to the original texts is fascinating and reassuring.
Why would God allow his Word to be corrupted to the point that people had to rely on the RCC to interpret it for them?
If God can give the RCC divine direction to interpret his Word correctly, then he certainly can give those copying the NT source documents divine direction to avoid corruption.
If God allowed the NT source documents to be corrupted, how do you know he isn’t allowing the RCC to misinterpret it?
If the NT source was corrupted and the RCC was misinterpreting it unknowingly, how would you know the truth?
If you cannot trust the foundation a tower is built on, you cannot trust the tower.
If God has given the RCC the divine direction necessary to interpret corrupted NT sources, then the RCC has enough divine direction that they don’t need the NT sources.
Hogwash, as I've noted in my last posting to this post of yours. There's a list of verifications as I noted.
And indeed, that’s really what the Magisterium is: It’s a living witness, guided and protected from error by God the Holy Spirit, to give a living witness to the Good News of Christ. Without this unbroken line of witnesses (apostolic succession), all we have are dead words on pages, with no real connection to today.
Hogwash. I can't think of a deader collection of whited sepulcher bureaucratic political power-mongers heading any religion that still claims to be the least bit Trinitarian. Though virtually every RELIGIOUS even Christian club are hard at work trying to catch up on such scores. Sadly.
PROTECTING FROM ERROR???? WHAT OUTRAGEOUS AFFRONTERY TO HOLY SPIRIT! If He thought that such was what God had set up, He'd likely be worried about being fired over such a poor job of keeping such a duplicitous heretical clique of self-righteous elitists from error--serious error, bloody serious error, horrifice power-mongering and sometimes even WAR-MONGERING error.
One would think RC's would postulate something that was not so demonstrably the OPPOSITE of what their history PROVED thousands of times over.
The fact that anyone pretending to be the least bit knowledgeable about the UNRUBBERIZED HISTORY could remotely believe anything of the kind--"kept us free from error" . . . is mind bogglingly . . . words fail me . . . obtuse, clueless, horrifically duplicitous--all such words are far too weak to describe the phenomenon.
is, IMO, God’s message to us today to not rely on the “Bible alone”,
HOGWASH.
I believe that the most plausible explanation is that it's a VIVID OBJECT LESSON IN AVOIDING IDOLATRY OF ANYTHING TANGIBLE; AVOIDING ANYTHING BUT WORSHIPPING, ADORING, VENERATING, . . . THE FATHER, SON AND SPIRIT.
Welllll, I thought maybe there would be some new slant on somthing that would prove an interesting challenge to respond to. Sadly, it was the same old same old brazenly idolotrous, blasphemous, duplicitous hogwash.
Perhaps you'll have a better chance next time. Though, if this bunch of stuff is any clue, I sure wouldn't bet the farm on it.
We do not know, but we can be reasonably assured. See below.
To me, this is the ultimate destruction of sola scriptura. If we claim the Church is incapable of teaching authoritatively [...]
Teaching authoritatively is different than the preservation of the Word. It is to our great convenience, and to the RCC's credit, that they did preserve the Holy Text, confining their 'changes' or elaborations to their traditions and extra-canonical documents.
We certainly can’t claim it “verifies itself”, as a general distortion of all Scripture could still “verify itself”; it would be “verifying” error though.
I would be happy to stand upon that claim. There are two witnesses bound within the Book. The Prophecy and the Word. They are inextricably bound together with such an intricacy that the only way to explain them otherwise is to assume a conspiracy spanning thousands of years, and working in the world, even unto this very day. With such a ludicrous suggestion set aside, the Prophecy proves the Word, and revelation in the Word proves the Prophecy.
One might also suggest that Protestant forces, no friend to the RCC in such matters, have largely served as an external sourceof confirmation- Taking what extant ancient sources as do exist and subjecting them to translation and interpretation outside of the control of the RCC. In doing so, the result was largely the same as that of the RC determination.
We all do agree wrt the Scripture, albeit not perfectly, though sufficiently.
My contention lies in the Traditions of the RCC, their supposed infallibility, and certainly, and most rigorously, in their elevation to the authority of Scripture by the RCC.
Sola scriptura, in the Protestant sense, does not suggest '*only* Scripture', as is often tossed about, but instead demands that nothing can rise to the authority of Scripture. No tradition, Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise, may trump that authority.
Oddly enough, the contention among the Protestant branches lies mainly in how much of the RCC tradition to adhere to- Those things which the various denominations cling to that are extra-Biblical (Sunday Sabbath, baptism by sprinkling, infant baptism, ad etcetera), as well as extra-Biblical Protestant ideas (Calvinism, etc) are the cause of disunity among the Protestants as well as the disunity between the Protestants and the Catholics.