Some say that the church is the final authority.
Others say that it is the Bible.
Some say that the church produced the Bible, so the church must therefore must have the final authority.
But, the Bible only records that men within the church wrote down what was given to them by God - the Bible.
First of all, the New Testament church did not write the Old Testament, so the church cannot take credit for giving us the Old Testament.
So, based upon the supposition of the church having final authority because it gave us the Bible, if the the Church did not give us the Old Testament, their authority would have to be, at best, limited to only the New Testament scriptures, even when those New Testament scriptures illuminate and elaborate further on the Old Testament, as in Paul's Epistles and letters.
Now, building on that, and basing this on the supposition that the church supposedly has the final authority, since it gave to us the New Testament, if the Bible only records that certain men within the the church wrote down and gave to us the New Testament, then only those who wrote down the actual scriptures within the New Testament would have the final authority.
Now, building on that, if the New Testament records that the church wrote down and gave to us the New Testament, it would necessarily only be a record of them giving us the New Testament, and that only.
Why? Because, for instance, the words of Jesus being spoken by Him in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John predate His words actually being written down. He had to speak them first before they could be written down later. Both are logical and linear certainties. Therefore, God would have the final authority, not the church, since his spoken words would necessarily predate them being written down.
Some object, though, to the argument that God ultimately has the final authority even though He was the one gave His words to men to write down.
Why? Because some say that God did not write the Bible. Men did. But the Bible is only a record of the words that God gave to men, and therefore, the act itself of who wrote down the words would be of little to no consequence. Therefore that act itself of men (within the church) writing down the words (the New Testament) that came to be in our Bibles would be of little consequence. What would matter is that we have the Bible, and that the true ultimate authority must necessarily trace back all the way to God Himself.
Each man must walk and talk with God as Enoch did. And we can. Each must walk in and according to the light that they receive, as the Bible says. To a large degree, walking in this light while communing with God, and Him teaching us, is personal and individual. God wanted it that way. But I digress...
Further, if the Bible is a record of men within the church writing down the words found within the New Testament, some would say that that record is evidence of their authority.
But, since the Bible is the record wouldn't the Bible be the final authority, since without the Bible, we would have no record that the church supposedly has the final authority.
But, some would say that without the men who wrote down what is the New Testament, we would have no Bible.
But, without the Bible, we would have no record that the church supposedly has the final authority, so the Bible must be of greater authority.
This could go on and on forever. But some would say that the Bible only confirms supposedly that the church (or actually certain men within it) have the final authority.
But, they would have to say then that the men who wrote down the words in the New Testament must be greater in authority than the words themselves, because without them the words could not have been written down in the first place.
But, how can mere men (regardless of whether or not they wrote the New Testament) be of greater authority than the words of God Himself? It all, once again, goes back to God (not men) being the final authority that each and every man must look to.
So, the argument may now shift to Tradition.
But, those who adhere to Tradition must conform their arguments to Apostolic Tradition to boltser the claims of Tradition.
But, if some say that those who interpret the word of God now are the final authority (The Church) because their interpretation is supposedly the same as the early church's and therefore the church now must have final authority, they base their argument on a circular one:
That The Church must teach now what the church taught then, because they teach it now, and they without a doubt teach these things now, because they taught them back then, etc, etc, Ad Infinitum. See the circular reasoning that must be employed to suppority Apostolic Tradition? In fact the arguemnts of Bible vs. the church concerning authority can be reduced to circular reasoning. The release valve, and the truth, is God being the final authority.
Some would say that we can trust history. But what about Eusebius's so-called Apostolic lineage written by him?
Before anything, is Eusebius infallible or inerrant? No way, not at all.
When did Eusebius write down what he did? In the fourth century? Quite a ways away from the first century, and therefore not a first hand account, nor a Primary source (not even a Secondary one, in fact) and totally unreliable (when it comes to basing something so important as to whom is the final authority.)
What about the credibility of the people who passed on this information to Eusebius? What is their credibility? How can we trust that they were credible? Would this not be second, third, fourth...fifteenth...thirtieth hand knowledge to go from the first century all the way to the fouth century?
We know what happens when words get passed from mouth to mouth, don't we? Just form a line of fifty people and say a one word sentence and see how badly it gets garbled when it reaches the end of the line. Now, try that for whole books and letters, and see what happens.
What about the New Testament Pseudiegripha and N.T. Apocrypha? Well, then with something so important as final authority make what you want to base things on by making those that you wish to draw from canonical, otherwise we cannot trust them. One should not base something so important as authority on history drawn from New Testament Pseudiegripha and N.T. Apocrypha.
I have heard that the Jesus People (what they are called now) stemmed from 30 A.D. to 70 A.D., based upon archaeologyl, historical findings and examinations of Q1, (and there is strong and ever-growing evidence that the Jesus People wrote Q1) which apparently predate even Paul's writings or anyone else for that matter in the Bible (the earliest in the Bible are at best 50 A.D, and the first books in the Bible to be written.)
The Jesus People were apperently a loose collection of followers in Palestine of Jesus' teachings .
BTW, some may reference the words of Peter at the Jerusalem Council as evidence of the church's authority over the Bible's, and therefore the church has the final authority.
But, the Passion Narrative (30-60 A.D.) and the Q1 gospel (40-80 A.D.), which record many of Jesus word's and teachings found now within Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can easily predate the 1st Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts. Therefore the written word would predate Peter's words at the 1st Jerusalem Council, (49-50 A.D.) as recorded in Acts.
Amazing, Q1, which contains many of Jesus' teachings and words found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, preceeding anything written from Matthew to Revelation, and written by the Jesus People? Amazing.
Additionally, Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, Romans, Phillipians, etc, may be a little before the Jerusalem Council, and, so again, would precede Peter's words in Acts.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
For further inquiry, one might want to check out these links too. Very interesting.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1john.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jude.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2thessalonians.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
Others say that it is the Bible.
Some say that the church produced the Bible, so the church must therefore must have the final authority.
But, the Bible only records that men within the church wrote down what was given to them by God - the Bible.
First of all, the New Testament church did not write the Old Testament, so the church cannot take credit for giving us the Old Testament.
So, based upon the supposition of the church having final authority because it gave us the Bible, if the the Church did not give us the Old Testament, their authority would have to be, at best, limited to only the New Testament scriptures, even when those New Testament scriptures illuminate and elaborate further on the Old Testament, as in Paul's Epistles and letters.
Now, building on that, and basing this on the supposition that the church supposedly has the final authority, since it gave to us the New Testament, if the Bible only records that certain men within the the church wrote down and gave to us the New Testament, then only those who wrote down the actual scriptures within the New Testament would have the final authority.
Now, building on that, if the New Testament records that the church wrote down and gave to us the New Testament, it would necessarily only be a record of them giving us the New Testament, and that only.
Why? Because, for instance, the words of Jesus being spoken by Him in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John predate His words actually being written down. He had to speak them first before they could be written down later. Both are logical and linear certainties. Therefore, God would have the final authority, not the church, since his spoken words would necessarily predate them being written down.
Some object, though, to the argument that God ultimately has the final authority even though He was the one gave His words to men to write down.
Why? Because some say that God did not write the Bible. Men did. But the Bible is only a record of the words that God gave to men, and therefore, the act itself of who wrote down the words would be of little to no consequence. Therefore that act itself of men (within the church) writing down the words (the New Testament) that came to be in our Bibles would be of little consequence. What would matter is that we have the Bible, and that the true ultimate authority must necessarily trace back all the way to God Himself.
Each man must walk and talk with God as Enoch did. And we can. Each must walk in and according to the light that they receive, as the Bible says. To a large degree, walking in this light while communing with God, and Him teaching us, is personal and individual. God wanted it that way. But I digress...
Further, if the Bible is a record of men within the church writing down the words found within the New Testament, some would say that that record is evidence of their authority.
But, since the Bible is the record wouldn't the Bible be the final authority, since without the Bible, we would have no record that the church supposedly has the final authority.
But, some would say that without the men who wrote down what is the New Testament, we would have no Bible.
But, without the Bible, we would have no record that the church supposedly has the final authority, so the Bible must be of greater authority.
This could go on and on forever. But some would say that the Bible only confirms supposedly that the church (or actually certain men within it) have the final authority.
But, they would have to say then that the men who wrote down the words in the New Testament must be greater in authority than the words themselves, because without them the words could not have been written down in the first place.
But, how can mere men (regardless of whether or not they wrote the New Testament) be of greater authority than the words of God Himself? It all, once again, goes back to God (not men) being the final authority that each and every man must look to.
So, the argument may now shift to Tradition.
But, those who adhere to Tradition must conform their arguments to Apostolic Tradition to boltser the claims of Tradition.
But, if some say that those who interpret the word of God now are the final authority (The Church) because their interpretation is supposedly the same as the early church's and therefore the church now must have final authority, they base their argument on a circular one:
That The Church must teach now what the church taught then, because they teach it now, and they without a doubt teach these things now, because they taught them back then, etc, etc, Ad Infinitum. See the circular reasoning that must be employed to suppority Apostolic Tradition? In fact the arguemnts of Bible vs. the church concerning authority can be reduced to circular reasoning. The release valve, and the truth, is God being the final authority.
Some would say that we can trust history. But what about Eusebius's so-called Apostolic lineage written by him?
Before anything, is Eusebius infallible or inerrant? No way, not at all.
When did Eusebius write down what he did? In the fourth century? Quite a ways away from the first century, and therefore not a first hand account, nor a Primary source (not even a Secondary one, in fact) and totally unreliable (when it comes to basing something so important as to whom is the final authority.)
What about the credibility of the people who passed on this information to Eusebius? What is their credibility? How can we trust that they were credible? Would this not be second, third, fourth...fifteenth...thirtieth hand knowledge to go from the first century all the way to the fouth century?
We know what happens when words get passed from mouth to mouth, don't we? Just form a line of fifty people and say a one word sentence and see how badly it gets garbled when it reaches the end of the line. Now, try that for whole books and letters, and see what happens.
What about the New Testament Pseudiegripha and N.T. Apocrypha? Well, then with something so important as final authority make what you want to base things on by making those that you wish to draw from canonical, otherwise we cannot trust them. One should not base something so important as authority on history drawn from New Testament Pseudiegripha and N.T. Apocrypha.
I have heard that the Jesus People (what they are called now) stemmed from 30 A.D. to 70 A.D., based upon archaeologyl, historical findings and examinations of Q1, (and there is strong and ever-growing evidence that the Jesus People wrote Q1) which apparently predate even Paul's writings or anyone else for that matter in the Bible (the earliest in the Bible are at best 50 A.D, and the first books in the Bible to be written.)
The Jesus People were apperently a loose collection of followers in Palestine of Jesus' teachings .
BTW, some may reference the words of Peter at the Jerusalem Council as evidence of the church's authority over the Bible's, and therefore the church has the final authority.
But, the Passion Narrative (30-60 A.D.) and the Q1 gospel (40-80 A.D.), which record many of Jesus word's and teachings found now within Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can easily predate the 1st Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts. Therefore the written word would predate Peter's words at the 1st Jerusalem Council, (49-50 A.D.) as recorded in Acts.
Amazing, Q1, which contains many of Jesus' teachings and words found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, preceeding anything written from Matthew to Revelation, and written by the Jesus People? Amazing.
Additionally, Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, Romans, Phillipians, etc, may be a little before the Jerusalem Council, and, so again, would precede Peter's words in Acts.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
For further inquiry, one might want to check out these links too. Very interesting.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1john.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jude.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2thessalonians.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
