Why is the bible authoritative?

[Ishraqiyun]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say. If it proves useful for spiritual growth than it is authoritative. You know writings by their fruits just like people. It has been proven useful for millions of people throughout history.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say. If it proves useful for spiritual growth than it is authoritative. You know writings by their fruits just like people. It has been proven useful for millions of people throughout history.

But millions of people who are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, even Atheists display love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Some people find yoga, crystals, marijuana, LSD or tantric meditation, useful for spiritual growth.

That's a subjective and unreliable way to measure.

 

[ebia]

Why is the bible considered a "divinely inspired" and "authoritative" text? I certainly do believe that there is wisdom to be had and in my personal walk with Christ many things from the bible have been affirmed (such as the divinity of Christ and the love of god etc). However can we take the whole book (with or without the Apocrypha) as divinely inspired and infallible? When many things can be seen as cultural influences from the time of Jesus (for example the role of women in the church etc)?

A better question might be "what sort of authority does the bible have"?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

But millions of people who are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, even Atheists display love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

How would you go about Judging the authoritativeness of a book? Personal Divine revelation, appeal to authority accepted on faith, etc... ? Ultimately any criteria boils down to experience in one way or another.

If someone was filled with love, forbearance,and all those other virtues to a high degree there is probably little good I could do for them. They have already surpassed me. I would consider them greater Christians than myself regardless of the label they use for themselves - Muslims, Hindu, etc.. True peace and love can only come from divine illumination.

Some people find yoga, crystals, marijuana, LSD or tantric meditation, useful for spiritual growth.

That may be true of some people.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

 

[razeontherock]

ETA: Walter, was that a public service announcement?

The Bible did not exist at that time.

You would have to accept that the Church at the time which consisted of humans, not a book, humans decided on doctrine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then taught the congregation.

What they taught the congregation is what came to be recorded as the Bible we have today, so it is fallacious to say the Bible did not exist at that time.

Today the CC is the only church which still functions that way.

You do need to get out more, but you also describe yourself as a Church militant True to your profession, here

 

[LOCO]

ETA: Walter, was that a public service announcement?



What they taught the congregation is what came to be recorded as the Bible we have today, so it is fallacious to say the Bible did not exist at that time.



You do need to get out more, but you also describe yourself as a Church militant True to your profession, here

I'll say it again, the Bible (the book) did not exist at the time.

It did not exist until 400 years after Jesus ressurrection. For you to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest and revisionist.

Not everything that was said or taught by Jesus or the disciples is recorded in the Bible and there were many more Gospels and letters than what was decided upon to put in the first Bible.

I would wager, you have no idea what Church Militant in Catholic terms mean?

You're telling me I need to get out more, this says more about you as a person than the statement itself. You don't know me.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Actually, the Scriptures existed in a loose canon for a long time before there were formally canonized.

 

[LOCO]

Actually, the Scriptures existed in a loose canon for a long time before there were formally canonized.

Maybe they had limited access to the Jewish scriptures, but there was no Bible.

It was only canonised by the authority of the CC. If you don't agree with the authority of the CC then you don't agree with the authority of the Bible.

If the OP is willing to admit that the Teachiing authority of the Apostles alone is enough then he concurs with Catholic belief that what the Pope and the Magisterium teaches on faith and morals is also infallible.

It was never used for personal intepretation until recently when every other man and/or woman decided they could interpret Scripture for themselves which has resulted in the confusion and chaos we see now.

Is the Holy Spirit guiding all of them in their intepretation of doctrine?

The Holy Spirit can NEVER be the author of confusion.

 

[LinuxUser]

Everything we need for Instruction, rebuking, and training is in the Bible noting else that man can add is needed.

 

[LOCO]

Everything we need for Instruction, rebuking, and training is in the Bible noting else that man can add is needed.

What about people who converted and existed in the 400 years after the Ressurrection when there was no Bible? Are they Christians?

They did not have access to the Bible and most did not have access to the Apostles. They had limited access to Jewish Scriptures. In most cases outside Israel converts had no access to Scriptures.

Where did the infallibility of the Teachings lie with?

The Bible did not exist during this 400 year period of time.

 

[razeontherock]

I'll say it again, the Bible (the book) did not exist at the time.

It did not exist until 400 years after Jesus ressurrection. For you to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest and revisionist.

Oy vey! Never did I say the book itself existed at that time.

I would wager, you have no idea what Church Militant in Catholic terms mean?

Honestly, I have NO IDEA what ANY RC terminology means, and from what I have seen I'd much prefer to keep it that way. You are demonstrating a recognizable type of militancy though.

You're telling me I need to get out more, this says more about you as a person than the statement itself. You don't know me.

No, it says exactly what it means. You think only your Church operates as described, only because you've never seen that MO anywhere else. I will admit there have been times I could not find a good Church, but I have also been part of many. There is no good reason for you to make the claim that no other Church operates the way you described. (Which is a sensible way to operate, btw) In any event, what matters is that Christ is the head. You would do well to think in your heart that your fellow believers also have Christ as their head ...

 

[LOCO]

Oy vey! Never did I say the book itself existed at that time.



Honestly, I have NO IDEA what ANY RC terminology means, and from what I have seen I'd much prefer to keep it that way. You are demonstrating a recognizable type of militancy though.



No, it says exactly what it means. You think only your Church operates as described, only because you've never seen that MO anywhere else. I will admit there have been times I could not find a good Church, but I have also been part of many. There is no good reason for you to make the claim that no other Church operates the way you described. (Which is a sensible way to operate, btw) In any event, what matters is that Christ is the head. You would do well to think in your heart that your fellow believers also have Christ as their head ...

Then we agree, humans can be 'infallible' under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Being militant about my faith is not something I am embarrassed about or apologetic for, others may be. We encounter spiritual warfare from the moment our eyes open, I put on the armour of God every day.

Name one other 'ecclesial community' that has made a verifiable and documented claim to be started by Jesus AND has existed for over 2000 years.

Anywhooo getting back to the topic...can you answer this for me, you accept that the Bible receives its authority from the CC, why don't you accept its authority now?

 

[LinuxUser]

What about people who converted and existed in the 400 years after the Ressurrection when there was no Bible? Are they Christians?

They did not have access to the Bible and most did not have access to the Apostles. They had limited access to Jewish Scriptures. In most cases outside Israel converts had no access to Scriptures.

Where did the infallibility of the Teachings lie with?

The Bible did not exist during this 400 year period of time.

Okay, I'll add now. There has always been a loose outline of what was accepted and I reject the claim of the RCC. The RCC is just one church among many

 

[LOCO]

Okay, I'll add now. There has always been a loose outline of what was accepted and I reject the claim of the RCC. The RCC is just one church among many

Hello Linuxuser,

What claim are you rejecting?

There was only one Church in existence at the time of canonisation of the first Bible and that was the CC.

The Bible was proclaimed as the inspired 'word of God' by the authority of the Catholic Church. That is an historical fact.

Name an 'ecclesial community' that has a documented and unbroken 2000 year history linking it back to Christ himself.

 

[LinuxUser]

Hello Linuxuser,

What claim are you rejecting?

There was only one Church in existence at the time of canonization of the first Bible and that was the CC.

The Bible was proclaimed as the inspired 'word of God' by the authority of the Catholic Church. That is an historical fact.

Name an 'ecclesial community' that has a documented and unbroken 2000 year history linking it back to Christ himself.

I disagree being a former Catholic (for a few weeks now) I know the full indoctrination of the CC was always around, etc, etc. It's not about linking back to Christ but following Christ here and now, not about a silly institution but a person that of Christ. Christ spoke against the pharisees in Scripture and they just now call themselves Catholic hierarchy, still binding the faithful just like they did in ancient times.

The good news is they don't matter any more. Christ and Him crucified is what matters now in the new Covenant

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I disagree being a former Catholic (for a few weeks now) I know the full indoctrination of the CC was always around, etc, etc. It's not about linking back to Christ but following Christ here and now, not about a silly institution but a person that of Christ. Christ spoke against the pharisees in Scripture and they just now call themselves Catholic hierarchy, still binding the faithful just like they did in ancient times.

The good news is they don't matter any more. Christ and Him crucified is what matters now in the new Covenant

Wow. Congrats on "coming out Her"? How long were you a RC?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5445935/
For the Last Time, Roman Catholics Aren't the Pharisees!

 

[razeontherock]

There was only one Church in existence at the time of canonisation of the first Bible and that was the CC.

You can call it what you like, but it was not the RCC we have today. It was the Body of believers the Lord led, and only infallible as far as truth is separated from error.

The Bible was proclaimed as the inspired 'word of God' by the authority of the Catholic Church. That is an historical fact.

Name an 'ecclesial community' that has a documented and unbroken 2000 year history linking it back to Christ himself.

Try the Church of Jerusalem, older than the Church of Rome, never submitted to any Pope, and left the RCC over that and many other issues. (Ouch, you really didn't want to go there, did you?) I have no need to denigrate your Faith, but these are acceptable reasons for me not to submit to the Church of Rome, since you asked. I can hope you are called by G-d to your local Church, and are Faithful in that.

A couple issues I need to raise, since I understand Spiritual warfare rather well:

flesh and blood is not your enemy. Nothing wrong with cheering for the home team I suppose, but why intentionally pit yourself against fellow believers? Throwing down the challenge of "2000 year unbroken history," certainly you are aware that lineages of Bishops do not corroborate one another back to Peter? And that qualifications for Bishop included "teach the same?"

It would seem that sound Doctrine is what matters. Clearly it is the Doctrine of the Apostles that is relevant here, as nothing else can truly be established. And what is sound doctrine? I know RC's aren't much for simplicity, but Peter was much simpler than Paul, and even Paul boiled things down to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Those are your battle lines, Sister!

 

[LinuxUser]

Wow. Congrats on "coming out Her"? How long were you a RC?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5445935/
For the Last Time, Roman Catholics Aren't the Pharisees!

About 17 years

 

[His Sheep]

I do have faith in God and trust him absolutely but i do not have faith in the bible

But without the Bible, we would not know Jesus or His great love for us! The scribes were so careful to write the Scriptures down for future generations that some of them went blind! As a book I once read had said, the Bible is God's love letter to us. We should all have faith in it.

God bless you.