I’m not quite sure I follow your objections since I specified that if one believes the Bible to be essentially fraudulent to any extent, then what I said was irrelevant. However, the theological objection to the authority to Scripture is baseless. The idea that there was no Bible until the Roman Church made it is false, not to mention self-defeating even if it were true. Rome cannot claim to base her authority on an arbitrary interpretation of a single verse in Matthew, but then turn around and claim that dogmatic authority comes from her, not the Bible, and she’s therefore free to reinterpret/contradict/disregard the Bible at will. I’m not simply stating a personal opinion either - Luther’s 95 Theses and the Augsburg Confession of faith are just some of the theological writings that reference the authority of Scripture to critique Church doctrine.
As far as the more recent context is concerned, I already pointed out where the premise of the inferiority of Scripture leads. If Adam was just a literary metaphor, maybe Jesus was too? If Paul was just making general allusions to popular myth and not to history, where does it end? Or is having cake and eating it too considered doctrine? Jesus referenced not only stories from Genesis but the Biblical writings of Moses in general as evidence for his claims. If Jesus felt compelled to cite Scripture, how dare any mere mortal claim to supersede it?
If the Church does not believe the words of Moses to be true and accurate, how can they believe Jesus?Originally Posted by John 5
This verse is considered Messianic by any Christian denomination I know of. Just a myth?Originally Posted by Genesis 3