I appreciate and respect your willingness (and the willingness of your church) to so openly and staunchly defend your beliefs to the world. If anyone "has a ready answer," it's the folks at La Vista Church of Christ!

You previously wrote:

> Allow me a moment to answer your last question. I find it amusing that
> you call into question whether Matthew's account of the Jesus's life
> is inspired.

I didn't call into question its inspiration; I called into question whether you could prove its inspiration from Scripture.

> It implies that you see the strength of what Matthew taught in regards
> to marriage, you made arguments to get around it, but the truth is
> that you would prefer that Matthew didn't exist at all.

Not at all! I believe Matthew to be inspired; I just recognize that, using Scripture alone, I can't prove it. I have to resort to extra-biblical tradition for my doctrine (belief) that Matthew is inspired.

> The evidence that Matthew's account belongs in the Scriptures is large
> and abundant. The account matches the other accounts and the four
> accounts do not contradict each other. Early Christians accepted
> Matthew's account and quoted from it. For example, Clement of
> Alexandria makes reference to the star that appears at Jesus' birth, a
> fact only recorded by Matthew. Speaking of Ignatius, C. R. Gregory
> states: "The author clearly knows our New Testament in general. The
> Gospels of Matthew and John appear to have been either his favorites
> or the ones better known to him." The same argument can be made for
> other early Christian writers, such as Polycarp. These writers don't
> prove the inspiration of Matthew, but they give evidence that Matthew
> has a very long history of being accepted as being a part of the
> Bible.

Of course! And I accept all their testimony. But, unfortunately, their testimony isn't biblical, and so has no real evidential value according to your "command, example, or necessary inference" criteria.

> The strongest evidence is the apostle Paul himself. He refers to
> Matthew 19:9 in I Corinthians 7:10-11 as something the Lord said.

That then just pushes the question off onto what command, example, or
necessary inference proves that I Corinthians is Scripture.

> However, let me refer you to "The Canon of the New Testament" for
> further proof.

While certainly a good piece of writing, it still relies on extra-biblical tradition in order to establish who wrote certain letters and when. This is especially evident in your quotation of the Church Fathers to support the canonicity of the Scripture; it's interesting, though, that while you accept the claims of the Church Fathers with respect to the canon of Scripture, you reject much of their other beliefs (for instance, about the "real presence of Christ at the