Originally posted by Coletti
Thank you, he did give his views. They are understandable, even it I don't agree with him in some details. I guess I have trouble with why he feels motivated to attack my views. Maybe he is playing devils advocate - but playing it too convincingly.
I find anyone who holds any view which is demonstrable false to be worthy of criticism.
You say the Bible says that all Scripture is inspired. Therefore the Bible is inspired, because it
is Scripture.
I say the Bible doesn't say this, that the letter that stated that all Scripture is inspired was
penned long before people started to put the canon of the Bible together. If you had asked
the author of 1 Timothy what books compose 'Scripture,' he would not have answered the
27 books of the NT -- I doubt that he would even claim that his own letter was Scripture.
Indeed, he did know the 27 books, there never would have been any controversy (as there
was) about whether or not to include the Shepherd of Hermas or the letters of St Clement
in the Canon, or to exclude Revelation (as it almost was).
And, because the claim was made 300 years before the canon was formed and then 1500 years
before the Protestants changed the ratified canon, I fail to see how you could believe that
such a claim resides in any rational world. It's riddled with caveats and illogical explanations
and ultimately rests on the authority it (sort of) claims for itself. Well, guess what: the Koran
and the Book of Mormon make the same claims of authority, but I don't see you calling those
Scripture.
You may feel attacked and I am sorry you do. I don't really care what you believe. But
if you are going to put them on display for people to evaluate, then don't be surprised when
(if they don't make sense) I pop in an criticize them. If you don't want criticism, then don't
post them.
Nemesio