A question for Catholics

[Subrosa]

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

Hi Jokerz -

Your question is multifacetted, so I’ll answer it in parts.

1. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession,

These passages indeed do point to the apostolic succession of Timothy.

1. when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople?

This is also true.

1. If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

Yes, these passages also prove that the Roman Catholic Church is not a part of the succession that exists in Ephesis. The Church of Rome is a part of a different succession started by Peter.

We can look at early christian documents to see this. Here are a few passages from Irenaeus and Tertullian…

Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Perscription Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Other churches of Apostolic Succession are: The Coptic Church whose bishops are successors of Mark; The Armenian Apostolic Church whose bishops are successors of Thaddeus and Bartholemew; The Assyrian Church of the East whose bishops are successors of Thomas; The Church of Jerusalem whose bishops are successors of James who is called “The Lord’s Brother”; The Church of Antioch whose bishops are the successors of Peter.

The point, Jokerz, is that not all bishops are succeeded by Peter. Rome is not the only Apostolic Church.

Tertullian in the second century challenges those churches that have no Apostolic succession.

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3555_1210801

So, Jokerz, does your church have Apostolic Succession?

Subrosa

 

[zerinus]

If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, . . .

Yes, the Catholics love their myths, don’t they! Unfortunately for them, that is nothing more than a myth. “Wishful thinking” is another way to describe it. The Catholic Church gave us no such thing. The Bible itself tells us who gave us the Bible. It is God who gave us the Bible; and He did so by inspiring His chosen prophets and Apostles to write them:

2 Peter 1:

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Elsewhere Peter testifies that the writings of St Paul are inspired scripture:

2 Peter 3:

16 As also in all his {Paul’s} epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Catholics would like us to think that before they appeared on the scene, nobody knew what was scripture and what was not, until they were so kind as to do us the favour and tell us! That of course is nonsense. Everybody knew what was scripture long before that time, otherwise Paul could not have spoken in there terms to Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

At the time that the scriptures were “given” to the church, the Christian church was a small, motley, persecuted group of people which was neither “Catholic” nor “Roman”. After the Apostasy, the apostates managed to remove many important parts from the sacred (NT) texts; but enough of it survived to form the basis of the NT canon that we have today. In subsequent centuries, faithful Christians had a sufficient recollection of what constitutes scripture to be able to compile a reasonably valid canon. But that does not mean that the Catholic Church “gave us the Bible”. Those who make such ridiculous claims must be living in Cloud cuckoo land.

Another logical fallacy that the Catholics commit is that they mix up the modern denominational meaning of the word “Catholic” with its etymological meaning. Today the word “Catholic” is used in a denominational sense. It is used to identify a particular Christian denomination, among many. Anciently and originally, the word simply meant “universal”. Nobody was called a “Catholic” in those days. To call Paul a “Catholic” is like calling him “universal” or a “universalist,” which wouldn’t have made any sense to anybody. Paul was a Jew converted to Christianity, he was not a “Catholic”. Thus, when the author of post #5 says that “Everyone was Catholic . . .”, that is a nonsensical assertion. It is like saying that “everyone was universal,” which is a ridiculous comment.

To sum it up, it was God who gave us the Bible, by inspiring His chosen prophets and Apostles to write them; and those chosen prophets and Apostles were invariably Jews! So if any particular nation, race, or group of people were responsible for giving us the Bible, it was the Jews, not the Catholics. Indeed, Jesus Himself acknowledges that “salvation is of the Jews”:

John 4:

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

(I am not a Jew by the way; I am not trying to push a “Jewish agenda” here.) And how was “salvation of the Jews”? Because they were the ones who gave us the Bible, as Paul further adds:

Romans 1:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

And the Book of Mormon completes the picture by adding:

2 Nephi 29:

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

You folks are sadly mistaken. You didn’t “give us the Bible”. God gave us the Bible through the Jews!—the very same Jews that the Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) have been persecuting during the past 2000 years.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

Yes, the Catholics love their myths, don’t they! Unfortunately for them, that is nothing more than a myth. “Wishful thinking” is another way to describe it. The Catholic Church gave us no such thing. The Bible itself tells us who gave us the Bible. It is God who gave us the Bible; and He did so by inspiring His chosen prophets and Apostles to write them:

Elsewhere Peter testifies that the writings of St Paul are inspired scripture:

Catholics would like us to think that before they appeared on the scene, nobody knew what was scripture and what was not, until they were so kind as to do us the favour and tell us! That of course is nonsense. Everybody knew what was scripture long before that time, otherwise Paul could not have spoken in there terms to Timothy:

So “everyone” knew that Paul’s letters to Timothy were scripture even before Paul wrote them? Please provide the records which show that “everyone” knew what letters Paul would write, and that Paul’s writings were scripture, even before Paul himself wrote them.

At the time that the scriptures were “given” to the church, the Christian church was a small, motley, persecuted group of people which was neither “Catholic” nor “Roman”. After the Apostasy, the apostates managed to remove many important parts from the sacred (NT) texts; but enough of it survived to form the basis of the NT canon that we have today.

Please provide the external trace evidence of the missing NT documents. An argument solely of inference from within the document is insufficient to prove the existince of these documents.

In subsequent centuries, faithful Christians had a sufficient recollection of what constitutes scripture to be able to compile a reasonably valid canon. But that does not mean that the Catholic Church “gave us the Bible”.

Please provide the names of the post-Apostacy “faithful Christians” and their writings which show them compiling the reasonably valid canon.

Those who make such ridiculous claims must be living in Cloud cuckoo land.

Everyone else, take note. Z has decided to be our resident troll tonight.

To sum it up, it was God who gave us the Bible, by inspiring His chosen prophets and Apostles to write them; and those chosen prophets and Apostles were invariably Jews! So if any particular nation, race, or group of people were responsible for giving us the Bible, it was the Jews, not the Catholics. Indeed, Jesus Himself acknowledges that “salvation is of the Jews”:

(I am not a Jew by the way; I am not trying to push a “Jewish agenda” here.) And how was “salvation of the Jews”? Because they were the ones who gave us the Bible, as Paul further adds:
Please inform us which Jewish council(s) determined which of the existing letters of Peter, Paul, etc., were authentic and belonged in the NT, and which were not. We’re all eager to know what the Holy Ghost revealed to your prophet about this.

And the Book of Mormon completes the picture by adding:

2 Nephi 29:

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
Please provide the names and writings of the non-Christian Jews who brought salvation to the Gentiles, especially as the Jews were continually admonished by God to avoid mixing with the Gentiles. Surely the Mormon standard works provide enough detail to back up this claim?

You folks are sadly mistaken. You didn’t “give us the Bible”. God gave us the Bible through the Jews!—the very same Jews that the Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) have been persecuting during the past 2000 years.

zerinus


Nan

 

[zerinus]

So “everyone” knew that Paul’s letters to Timothy were scripture even before Paul wrote them? Please provide the records which show that “everyone” knew what letters Paul would write, and that Paul’s writings were scripture, even before Paul himself wrote them.

Peter knew, and he told us! You know very well what I am talking about. The Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible”. Those who composed them (at the inspiration of God) gave us the Bible—and they were all Jews!

Please provide the external trace evidence of the missing NT documents. An argument solely of inference from within the document is insufficient to prove the existince of these documents.

Internal evidence, if sufficiently strong, is sufficient; and it is very strong. It is also confirmed by modern LDS scripture!

Please provide the names of the post-Apostacy “faithful Christians” and their writings which show them compiling the reasonably valid canon.

You are kidding right? After the Apostasy, many heretical writings appeared in the church which caused some confusion and dispute among the Christians as to what constituted inspired scripture. But there was always a general consensus in the back of the minds of the majority of Christians as to what was truly inspired and scriptural and what was not; and that general consensus eventually found expression in the decisions of several disparate church councils held at various times and in different locations. So you are asking me to give you the names of all the faithful Christians that lived in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries AD? Is that some kind of a joke or what?

Everyone else, take note. Z has decided to be our resident troll tonight.

LOL! :whacky:

Please inform us which Jewish council(s) determined which of the existing letters of Peter, Paul, etc., were authentic and belonged in the NT, and which were not. We’re all eager to know what the Holy Ghost revealed to your prophet about this.

They didn’t need to. They wrote them in the first place!

Please provide the names and writings of the non-Christian Jews who brought salvation to the Gentiles, . . .

Paul has already answered that question for you:

Romans 3:

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

They did that by being the vehicle through whom the “oracles of God” were revealed to the Gentiles.

. . . especially as the Jews were continually admonished by God to avoid mixing with the Gentiles.

The Jews were admonished in the OT to avoid mixing with the Gentiles because the Gentiles at that time were pagans, and God did not want them to mix with and believe in their false traditions; but that did not mean that the God did not want them preach to, convert, or save the Gentiles either. God promised Abraham that through him and his seed “all the kindreds of the earth should be blessed”. The OT prophets often address the Gentiles in their prophecies as well as the Jews. Jonah was commanded to preach repentance to Nineveh, a Gentile city; and when they had repented God forgave them. Jeremiah was commanded to address commandments and prophecies to the Gentile nations and send it to them by the hand of special messengers. Daniel lived among the Gentiles, and blessed them with his God given prophetic gifts. Isaiah spoke of the Jewish Temple being the “house of prayer for all people” (Isaiah 56:7); and Jesus quoted that passage as His justification for driving the moneychangers out of the temple (Luke 19:46). God had foreordained the Jews from the beginning to be the means through whom salvation would come to the Gentiles. This was accomplished partly through their being the conduit through whom the “oracles of God” were given; and partly through whom the Son of God (the ultimate “Word” of God) came.

Surely the Mormon standard works provide enough detail to back up this claim?

You bet it does! Here, read this chapter; it tells you all about it:

scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/29

zerinus

 

[Jokerz]

If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

Jokerz

 

[TheGarg]

The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

then why did the Holy Spirit have to decend on them so they could “fully understand the Scriptures”? …couldn’t have been that clear i guess.

 

[Eschato]

I have no agenda, I am merely trying to learn more about the Catholic faith, however if someone calls me a “heretic” am I not permitted to respond. As I do not consider myself or the Protestant Churches heretics. All I am seeking is intelligent answers to my questions, if you care not to respond than don’t.

Jokerz

You aren’t even asking questions, you are just posting statements from an anti catholic website.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Peter knew, and he told us! You know very well what I am talking about. The Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible”. Those who composed them (at the inspiration of God) gave us the Bible—and they were all Jews!

Those who composed sacred scripture did indeed give us the bible but their writings were intermixed with writings which were not considered to be inspired by God. It was the Catholic Church, in the late 4th century, that determined which was which and then placed those inspired writings into one canonized form that we know today.

You are kidding right? After the Apostasy, many heretical writings appeared in the church which caused some confusion and dispute among the Christians as to what constituted inspired scripture. But there was always a general consensus in the back of the minds of the majority of Christians as to what was truly inspired and scriptural and what was not; and that general consensus eventually found expression in the decisions of several disparate church councils held at various times and in different locations. So you are asking me to give you the names of all the faithful Christians that lived in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries AD? Is that some kind of a joke or what?

The joke is to think that a “general consensus” of some unofficial “majority of Christians” would yeild us that bible that would later be universally accepted. Not only does this fail to make sense but it goes against recorded history that the bible was given to us by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century.

 

[Allweather]

If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

Jokerz

Hey, Jokerz… I see the Mormon Zerinus has jumped in with his anti-Christian drivel.

Isn’t it interesting how you, Jokerz, whom I assume to be a fundamentalist, and the Mormons, can read the same Bible and come to such dramatically various interpretations?

How does a Protestant sola scriptura mover and shaker explain this?

 

[Allweather]

If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

Jokerz

I don’t know about any “essential pre-condition(s) of sola scriptura”.

Sola scriptura is a fantasy. Pre-conditions for fantasy must be the taking of drugs, or excessive use of alcohol, perhaps insanity, something like that.

As for how “Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers” know the message of the Pope… hmmmm. What is the message of the Pope?

Jokerz, are you having a fantasy?

 

[jmcrae]

If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura

That’s kind of the point, yes? That Scripture alone is the authority, and not the speaking of any man or woman, even if they are reading off the very page of Scripture, since they might miss a word here or there, or they might inflect their voices in the wrong way. We can’t trust any human being; we must read and interpret the Scriptures for ourselves.

then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

Uh, because he sent letters to the particular churches (Dioceses) and the Bishops of these churches read them out to the people, and had them copied so that the priests could read them out to any of the people who didn’t hear it the first time.

How is that in any way related to the doctrine of sola scriptura?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

The Catholic Church gave us no such thing. The Bible itself tells us who gave us the Bible.

 

[Jokerz]

I don’t know about any “essential pre-condition(s) of sola scriptura”.

Sola scriptura is a fantasy. Pre-conditions for fantasy must be the taking of drugs, or excessive use of alcohol, perhaps insanity, something like that.

As for how “Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers” know the message of the Pope… hmmmm. What is the message of the Pope?

Jokerz, are you having a fantasy?

This is getting to weird for me, I am outta here.

 

[Nan_S]

You are kidding right? After the Apostasy, many heretical writings appeared in the church which caused some confusion and dispute among the Christians as to what constituted inspired scripture. But there was always a general consensus in the back of the minds of the majority of Christians as to what was truly inspired and scriptural and what was not; and that general consensus eventually found expression in the decisions of several disparate church councils held at various times and in different locations. So you are asking me to give you the names of all the faithful Christians that lived in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries AD? Is that some kind of a joke or what?

So what we have here is a lot of circular logic and a very significant admission.

The circular logic is that Paul’s letters are in the Bible because Peter’s biblical letters said so, and everyone else’s letters are in the Bible because Paul’s biblical letters said so… What’s missing from this circular reasoning is that neither Peter nor Paul gave ANYONE a list of precisely which letters belonged in the Bible, and which did not. Nice try Z, but completely inadequate.

Oh, and by the way, both Peter and Paul were executed by Emperor Nero between 64 and 67 AD, but Jude was written about 80 AD, John’s Gospel was written around 86 AD, and the Book of Revelation was written by John in the 90s. I don’t suppose you can explain how Peter and Paul could have testified to those…

Zerinus’ VERY significant admission is that “several disparate church councils held at various times and in different locations” made the final decision as to which books and letters really belonged in the Bible. What, pray tell, would those councils be? Since Z needs a little help coming up with the names, dates, and locations, let’s check the records…

Council of Nicea, AD 325, Council of Laodicea, AD 360. Council of Rome, AD 382. Pope Damasus, AD 366-384. Council of Hippo, AD 393. Council of Carthage, AD 397.

And who was in charge of these councils? Who rendered this final decision that even Zerinus acknowledges? Why it was those very self-same post-Apostolic period Catholic bishops whom Z is so fond of labeling “apostate.” (Names available on request.) Thank you, thank you.

You bet it does! Here, read this chapter; it tells you all about it:
scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/29
zerinus

2nd Nephi 29. Mm-hmm. More platitudes and generalities. No details.
Sorry, that’s completely insufficient.

Nan

 

[Texan_in_DC]

1. Again: – “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”

Martin Luther (excerpt from his 95 thesis)

When some people think of Vatican City, what they immediately picture is something like a wealthy kingdom, complete with palatial living accommodations for the pope and chests of gold tucked away in every corner, not to mention the fabulous collection of priceless art and artifacts. Looking at it that way, it’s easy to see how some people would become indignant at what they think is an ostentatious and wasteful show of wealth.

But the truth is something quite different. While the main buildings are called the “Vatican Palace,” it wasn’t built to be the lavish living quarters of the pope. In fact, the residential part of the Vatican is relatively small. The greater portion of the Vatican is given over to purposes of art and science, administration of the Church’s official business, and management of the Palace in general. Quite a number of Church and administrative officials live in the Vatican with the pope, making it more like the Church’s main headquarters.

As for the impressive art collection, truly one of the finest in the world, the Vatican views it as **“an irreplaceable treasure,” **but not in monetary terms. The pope doesn’t “own” these works of art and couldn’t sell them if he wanted to; they’re merely in the care of the Holy See. The art doesn’t even provide the Church with wealth; actually, it’s just the opposite. The Holy See invests quite a bit of its resources into the upkeep of the collection.

The truth of the matter is that the See has a fairly tight financial budget. So why keep the art? It goes back to a belief in the Church’s mission (one of many) as a civilizing force in the world. Just like the medieval monks who carefully transcribed ancient texts so they would be available to future generations — texts that otherwise would have been lost forever — the Church continues to care for the arts so they will not be forgotten over time. In today’s culture of death where the term “civilization” can only be used loosely, the Church’s civilizing mission is as important today as it ever was.

 

[zerinus]

So what we have here is a lot of circular logic and a very significant admission.

The circular logic is that Paul’s letters are in the Bible because Peter’s biblical letters said so, and everyone else’s letters are in the Bible because Paul’s biblical letters said so… What’s missing from this circular reasoning is that neither Peter nor Paul gave ANYONE a list of precisely which letters belonged in the Bible, and which did not. Nice try Z, but completely inadequate.

Oh, and by the way, both Peter and Paul were executed by Emperor Nero between 64 and 67 AD, but Jude was written about 80 AD, John’s Gospel was written around 86 AD, and the Book of Revelation was written by John in the 90s. I don’t suppose you can explain how Peter and Paul could have testified to those…

Zerinus’ VERY significant admission is that “several disparate church councils held at various times and in different locations” made the final decision as to which books and letters really belonged in the Bible. What, pray tell, would those councils be? Since Z needs a little help coming up with the names, dates, and locations, let’s check the records…

Council of Nicea, AD 325, Council of Laodicea, AD 360. Council of Rome, AD 382. Pope Damasus, AD 366-384. Council of Hippo, AD 393. Council of Carthage, AD 397.

And who was in charge of these councils? Who rendered this final decision that even Zerinus acknowledges? Why it was those very self-same post-Apostolic period Catholic bishops whom Z is so fond of labeling “apostate.” (Names available on request.) Thank you, thank you.

The Catholic Church neither “wrote” the Bible nor “gave us” the Bible. The Bible was written by the prophets and Apostles of God under the inspiration of heaven. And guess what—they were all Jews! It is ludicrous and absurd to claim otherwise.

zerinus

 

[kellie]

Yes, the Catholics love their myths, don’t they! Unfortunately for them, that is nothing more than a myth. “Wishful thinking” is another way to describe it. The Catholic Church gave us no such thing. The Bible itself tells us who gave us the Bible. It is God who gave us the Bible; and He did so by inspiring His chosen prophets and Apostles to write them:

2 Peter 1:

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but ***holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.***Elsewhere Peter testifies that the writings of St Paul are inspired scripture:

2 Peter 3:

16 As also in all his {Paul’s} epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.Catholics would like us to think that before they appeared on the scene, nobody knew what was scripture and what was not, until they were so kind as to do us the favour and tell us! That of course is nonsense. Everybody knew what was scripture long before that time, otherwise Paul could not have spoken in there terms to Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.At the time that the scriptures were “given” to the church, the Christian church was a small, motley, persecuted group of people which was neither “Catholic” nor “Roman”. After the Apostasy, the apostates managed to remove many important parts from the sacred (NT) texts; but enough of it survived to form the basis of the NT canon that we have today. In subsequent centuries, faithful Christians had a sufficient recollection of what constitutes scripture to be able to compile a reasonably valid canon. But that does not mean that the Catholic Church “gave us the Bible”. Those who make such ridiculous claims must be living in Cloud cuckoo land.

Another logical fallacy that the Catholics commit is that they mix up the modern denominational meaning of the word “Catholic” with its etymological meaning. Today the word “Catholic” is used in a denominational sense. It is used to identify a particular Christian denomination, among many. Anciently and originally, the word simply meant “universal”. Nobody was called a “Catholic” in those days. To call Paul a “Catholic” is like calling him “universal” or a “universalist,” which wouldn’t have made any sense to anybody. Paul was a Jew converted to Christianity, he was not a “Catholic”. Thus, when the author of post #5 says that “Everyone was Catholic . . .”, that is a nonsensical assertion. It is like saying that “everyone was universal,” which is a ridiculous comment.

You folks are sadly mistaken. You didn’t “give us the Bible”. God gave us the Bible through the Jews!—the very same Jews that the Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) have been persecuting during the past 2000 years.

zerinus

Why do I see the same debates pop up on different threads? We have been over this so many times.

Yes, God gave us Scripture, written by men, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Paul knew of Scripture to tell Timothy because it had been passed down for centuries by the Jews. But it wasn’t the “Bible” Paul was quoting. It was what is now known as the Torah.

Then the Holy Spirit worked again through men such as Paul to give us the New Testament.

Except when it was written, Paul wasn’t thinking “I am writing the New Testament”.
He was writing Scripture.

So then when Peter was left on earth to preach the Word, after Jesus had left us, he passed down the Scripture that him being Jewish had always known (Torah) and the new stuff (NT).

Then when Peter died, and was succeeded by the next Pope, this Scripture was passed on again.

It wasn’t until we now know at one of the Councils (I am sorry I don’t know this history off by heart) that the Books of the Bible were put together, collected from all these pieces of Scripture.
They were declared the official Books of the Bible, but as we all know the Protestants did not agree with 7 Books, hence our different versions.

But yes, the Catholic Church did give the world the Bible, that is, the set of Books that are God given Scripture.

We weren’t called Catholics right away when Peter was in charge, as there was no need to name us, as there were no other Christians around.

We started calling ourselves Catholic to distinguish us from the other Christian groups that started popping up after the Reformation.

Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

 

[zerinus]

Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

Because it is like some scholar of English literature compiling and publishing a standard edition of Shakespear’s plays, and then claiming that he “worte Shakespear” or “gave us Shakespear” (and therefore no one else has any right or claim to it unless authorized and sacntioned by him).

zerinus

 

[Sir_Knight]

Because it is like some scholar of English literature compiling and publishing a standard edition of Shakespear’s plays, and then claiming that he “worte Shakespear” or “gave us Shakespear” (and therefore no one else has any right or claim to it unless authorized and sacntioned by him).

zerinus

It they decided what went into the plays and what stayed out, and if that is what is accepted, then they DO have authority over the plays. In the same fashion, the Catholic Church has authority over the bible.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The Catholic Church neither “wrote” the Bible nor “gave us” the Bible. The Bible was written by the prophets and Apostles of God under the inspiration of heaven. And guess what—they were all Jews! It is ludicrous and absurd to claim otherwise.

Your statements are historically incorrect. History teaches that the Catholic Church gave us the bible in the late 4th century. Prior to THEIR action, there was no bible. There was a whole bunch of scripture but there was no universal agreement which of those scriptures were the true inspired word of God and which ones weren’t.

And if you disagree, then show me where the bible existed PRIOR to it being canonized by the Catholic Church.