Some of the writings are heavily "synchronized" (Synoptic Gospels) or heavily interpolated (the Gospel of John), for example. Luke himself admits admits to compiling what he heard from others and form research, rather than by the "divine inspiration." So, although no formal committee took place as far as we know, the writings are evidently the result of multiple sources and multiple contributors.
And if such were the case, the Church of the fourth century is that of Rome today, that they certainly were amiss in failing to put at even one example of believers praying to the departed, or instructions thereto, or for the church to submit to feature as it's supreme head, etc. But besides your expected imaginative conspiratorial overtones and inferences of collusion, you seem to insist that divine inspiration can only be some sort of dictation of entirely new knowledge, rather than discerning and expressing truth when writing a historical record.
Thank you. Maybe the Protestant crowd will now stop mocking the Church for claiming author of the Christian Bible. Not only does the Church have the copyright on the New Testament, but is the exclusive publisher of the compiled books of Both Testaments, otherwise known as the Christian Bible, as well.
The issue is what this avails, as my statement was not in isolation from the last paragraphs in my response to your post. In brief, the very scriptures which are authorized attest that the authority of a true believer or church is not established by formal historical lineage, but by scriptural faith by which it exists. And that being the body through whom divine revelation flowed and was discerned does not render them assuredly infallible autocratic interpreters of it. The reality is that God could raise up a true visible church tomorrow, which is part of the Church Universal, which only consist of born-again believers, which is the church from out of which the scriptures flowed. Both Catholics and Protestants must (and most do) agree that this body transcends their divisions, though the number of evident believers corresponds to the degree to which their faith is manifestly Biblical.
We've had this discussion before I am not going into another marathon race again on it. The canon was set in the west by the end of the 4th century and approved by the pope at the onset of the 5th.
Yes and we certainly do not need to go into another marathon session on it, though I have more data that establishes my statement that the Roman Catholic canon was not fully decisively settled for RC's until Trent, after which the degree of continuing internal disagreement and discussion among a notable minority ceased.
.and (can you make it brief)? And what most essentially gave Holy Tradition its authority? What was its basis?
Supernatural qualities and attestation, which was given to such men as Moses, Jesus, and the apostles, and which contrite, repentant, be believing souls in the Lord Jesus Christ find today today and due measure.
I thin that is an excellent description of it.
As you must. I think we all understand that despite your affirmation of the Orthodox Church has concerns historical warrant, you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically. And for that I think both sides here are grieved and saddened.
Christian faith is a faith based on alleged revelation, which is a fancy way of saying uncovering of new knowledge, be it a "prophesy," or a new meaning.
I take inspiration to mean what it means in English: to be inspired means to be moved or motivated by something, i.e. a 12-year old boy sees a doctor save someone's life and is inspired by this doctor's example to devote his own life to medicine.
In that framework, I see the biblical authors "inspired" by their faith, as they experienced it, and wanting to write about it.
the very scriptures which are authorized attest that the authority of a true believer or church is not established by formal historical lineage, but by scriptural faith by which it exists
You seem to lack neither verbosity nor empty suppositions. Whatever your sentence was supposed to prove, I will reword it to reveal to you how it sounds to me: the pink unicorns which are real prove that the authority of those who believe they exist is not established by formal historical lineage, but by the faith that they exist.
Supernatural qualities and attestation, which was given to such men as Moses, Jesus, and the apostles, and which contrite, repentant, be believing souls in the Lord Jesus Christ find today today and due measure.
The problem with this is that biblical God used "miracles" and "signs" to convince people that Moses was right or that Jesus was right, and then had to go on "fixing" things, regardless, because very few people believed them. And when the miracles and signs had stopped, people believed, and still do, the stories more than they believed alleged miracles and signs.
I think we all understand that despite your affirmation of the Orthodox Church has concerns historical warrant, you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically. And for that I think both sides here are grieved and saddened.
The Orthodox Church deserves due consideration because it is the Church that still uses the same language in which the New Testament and the Septuagint were written, and in the spirit of the languge and culture of the times. The EOC provides an invalueable perspectvie on the phronema and the interpretation of the faith by early Christians.
I have no antagonism towards God, whatever God may be. Nor do I hate the Church as some former Catholic seem to. As for condemning biblical collusion and extensive doctrinal "harmonization" of biblical authors and copyists by using manipulative techniques to get people to believe them I believe it is as unbecoming to preach morality while behaving immorally, but I also believe that many may had honest iof mistaken beliefs and no ill intent or hidden agenda.
However, given the preponderance of corurption evident in biblical manuscirpts, I understand many sought to do whater it takes, no different than political activists who engage in manipulative techniques, to get their agenda to win. Both groups seem to have a certain view they believe is true, along with the idea that ends justify the means.