You know, it just occurred to me that the New Testament has no claim to any kind of divine authority apart from a belief that Jesus is God.
First of all, if the writers of the NT “mistakenly” believed that Jesus is God (or were lying), then the NT is fundamentally unreliable.
Secondly, the teachings of Jesus form the basis for there being a second Testament of divinely inspired scripture. (Heb. 1:1-4, Mark 13:31). The NT is never depicted as the infallible words of God the Father – yet even the JWs see it as the foundation of the church itself – the church that Jesus called “My church.”
Catholics believe in Apostolic Succession, which means that Jesus delegated His doctrinal infallibility to His disciples, who then delegated it to their disciples, etc. There’s no evidence anywhere for a continuation of infallible doctrinal authority for anyone besides the writers of the New Testament (at least, not outside the self referencing claim of authority made by the church itself in the basis of its own tradition)… and the only argument for the infallibility of the New Testament is the infallible doctrinal authority of its writers – a claim they make explicitly in Acts 1:8.
If the New Testament is the infallible Word of God, and if it is also no more or less than a faithful transmission of the teachings of Jesus, then the teachings of Jesus are, themselves, no more or less than the infallible Word of God. Let me say that again: the teachings of Jesus are the Word of God.
If Jesus isn’t God, then the New Testament – His Words – aren’t God’s Words – and there’s no reason to believe anything in it, or to ascribe the same level of divine inspiration to it that we ascribe to the Old Testament. But the Mormons and JWs do ascribe divine authority to the New Testament (Mormons think the New Testament we have today is corrupted – but they still believe that the original was divinely inspired – although I don’t see why, since there’s no real value in a transcendent, ultimately authoritative written record that no one can find).
Even if “the Word” was just “a” god, that still identifies the Person of Jesus so closely with the New Testament that we can’t think of it as anything other than His book – while simultaneously equating Him so closely with the Word of God as to make Him not just it’s source, but it’s very embodiment. John doesn’t say that a prophet, messenger or teacher of the Word became flesh and dwelt among us – it says that the Word itself did. Jesus is, in fact, bringing us His OWN Word – is, HIMSELF, the Word, with all of its irresistible divine authority – Something no “mere” Old Testament prophet can claim. (Matt. 12:41-42). (Another way Jesus distinguishes Himself from the prophets is by pointing the way to Himself – by claiming to BE the Way – when all a prophet can do is point the way to Someone greater. See John 5:40, 7:37, and 14:6).
So we can’t claim any authority for the New Testament in excess of the Personal authority of Jesus, Himself (Mark 11:28)… and without the New Testament, there is no church at all (Matt. 16:18, 21:44) – which is why JWs and Mormons do claim infallible, Divine authority for the teachings (and very Person) of Jesus… even though that claim is competely meaningless unless the Person they are attributing divine authority to is intrinsically divinely authoritative – ie, is, Himself, The Divine Authority. It would make more sense for the Mormons to reject the New Testament competely, and to claim that the Book of Mormon was “Another Testament” of God the Father (not Jesus) that supercedes the authority of the New Testament, than to claim that anyone other than God, Himself, is the Source or Embodiment of His Own Words.