Bible As Authority

[churchcamefirst]

God gave us the Bible. Your arrogance is offensive. There was 2/3 of the Bible before Catholics were around. Its time to believe that God is in control.

Do you think God dropped it down from heaven? come on, there wasn’t even a printing press until years later. Jesus taught ORALLY which is Sacred Tradition. Tell me, how did you get the bible WRITTEN DOWN AND COMPILED AND APPROVED TO BE PUT IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE? TELL ME? Who wrote it with pen in hand? The bible is inspired by God but WHO WROTE IT DOWN??

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

My church was formed from the Bible and we have never split. Nice try. You do not have Peter. We do. It is in the Bible. He wrote his church two letters, we read them and follow them. He never said anything about following some bishop in Rome. I believe Peter. I wish you would too.

The problem with your theory is that there was a Chruch-as recorded in Acts-before there was a New Testament. And according to historical record what constitutes The Bible-Old and New Testaments-wasn’t assembles together as a whole until the late 4th and early 5th century. And this was done by the ONLY Church which existed-the Catholic Church.

1 Tim 3:[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, **the pillar and bulwark of the truth. **

Why is it that the Bible-the inerrent Word of God-points to the Church, not the Bible, but the Church, as the pillar and bulwark-or upholer and defender-of the truth?

And if the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth aren’t we as Catholics correct when listening to the church in matters of faith and morals?

As far as Peter goes:

2 Peter 1:[12] Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15] And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

What did Peter do in order to “always remind” them of the things he had given them?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I noticed that too. The Bible says nothing that it is the SOLE authority. It does say the Church have authority given to her by Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

He even gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18. Clearly, Jesus gave us an authoritiative Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Here is the info on the LXX.

The Septuagint (IPA: /ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/), or simply “LXX”, is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.

The earliest copies of the LXX contain different books. None of them had all seven. Why? They were in flux. Name one scholar who disagrees. One.

This has been a part of the Christian Canon since the 3rd Century. In those days, there were many Gospels and by the third Century, two well know African Synods made a list of which books of the Bible are inspired. It was Council of Hippo and Council of Carthage. Another Synod was in the Council of Rome in 382 AD set forth by Pope Damascus I. The list he included included the Deutrocanonical Books.

You believe everything you read on the internet I see. The so called Damasine list is a fraud. If you would go outside of your google searches you would know that.
The LXX at the time of Jesus cannot be proven to contain the deuterocanonical books. It cannot. Common accepted view. Protestant and Catholic alike.

The Council of Jamnia took place in 90 AD. Some Protestant scholars use this council as the reasons to deny the Deutrocanonical Books. They rejected Scripture that was not written in Hebrew.

I know you rely on the internet for your research but the deuterocanonical books were not discussed in 90 AD. Every seminary in the country Catholic and Protestant would laugh you out the front door for that statement. You believe the internet Manny.

Some scholars today speculate this Council actually took place. Regardless of the fact. It was not until the 1700s or later date the Protestant Bible remove the 7 Deutrocanonical Books.

The council did not take place.

Oh there was. The Pope then was St. Peter, whom Jesus Christ build his Church upon. You reject this, you reject the Word of God

I believe Peter. YOu believe someone 300 times removed from him. I believe Peter. There is no pope or Peter would have told us about it. Even the Orthodox who rely on the same so called sacred tradition cannot agree.

 

[churchcamefirst]

The earliest copies of the LXX contain different books. None of them had all seven. Why? They were in flux. Name one scholar who disagrees. One.

You believe everything you read on the internet I see. The so called Damasine list is a fraud. If you would go outside of your google searches you would know that.
The LXX at the time of Jesus cannot be proven to contain the deuterocanonical books. It cannot. Common accepted view. Protestant and Catholic alike.

I know you rely on the internet for your research but the deuterocanonical books were not discussed in 90 AD. Every seminary in the country Catholic and Protestant would laugh you out the front door for that statement. You believe the internet Manny.

The council did not take place.

I believe Peter. YOu believe someone 300 times removed from him. I believe Peter. There is no pope or Peter would have told us about it. Even the Orthodox who rely on the same so called sacred tradition cannot agree.

Your information is so wrong, I wonder who tells you these things.
TO BE DEEP IN HISTORY, IS TO CEASE TO BE PROTESTANT.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The problem with your theory is that there was a Chruch-as recorded in Acts-before there was a New Testament. And according to historical record what constitutes The Bible-Old and New Testaments-wasn’t assembles together as a whole until the late 4th and early 5th century. And this was done by the ONLY Church which existed-the Catholic Church.

1 Tim 3:[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, **the pillar and bulwark of the truth. **

Why is it that the Bible-the inerrent Word of God-points to the Church, not the Bible, but the Church, as the pillar and bulwark-or upholer and defender-of the truth?

And if the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth aren’t we as Catholics correct when listening to the church in matters of faith and morals?

As far as Peter goes:

2 Peter 1:[12] Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15] And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

What did Peter do in order to “always remind” them of the things he had given them?

There was scripture before Jesus. By what authority?
He gave us his letter. I read it. It is the letter where he says nothing about some so called bishop in Rome being the head of the church. You should believe him. I know I do.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Your information is so wrong, I wonder who tells you these things.
TO BE DEEP IN HISTORY, IS TO CEASE TO BE PROTESTANT.

That the LXX was in flux??? Even Catholic scholars say that. Name one that does not. One please.

 

[churchcamefirst]

I bet you don’t even believe that Peter was even in Rome…

 

[churchcamefirst]

I must log off now…see you tomorrow…be ready…

 

[Rightlydivide]

I bet you don’t even believe that Peter was even in Rome…

Scripture does not record that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I must log off now…see you tomorrow…be ready…

Good. Lay off the google searches and visit the library.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The earliest copies of the LXX contain different books. None of them had all seven. Why? They were in flux. Name one scholar who disagrees. One.

They did. They include the 3 Books of Maccabbees and the Prayer of Man… Even the Eastern Catholic Church have more books than the Western Catholics.

You believe everything you read on the internet I see. The so called Damasine list is a fraud. If you would go outside of your google searches you would know that.

Not everything I read on the net is true. The Damasine list I believe to not true. However, the Council of Hippo and Carthage have a more reliable information when it comes to the issue of Canon of Scripture.

The LXX at the time of Jesus cannot be proven to contain the deuterocanonical books. It cannot. Common accepted view. Protestant and Catholic alike.

Yes it did.
ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp

I know you rely on the internet for your research but the deuterocanonical books were not discussed in 90 AD. Every seminary in the country Catholic and Protestant would laugh you out the front door for that statement. You believe the internet Manny.

The text of Scripture was discuss and it claimed that Non-Hebrew Text cannot be consider inspired Scripture.

The council did not take place.

I believe Peter. YOu believe someone 300 times removed from him. I believe Peter. There is no pope or Peter would have told us about it. Even the Orthodox who rely on the same so called sacred tradition cannot agree.

They believe that Peter held the first place in Primacy. They do not believe in Papal Supremacy but they acknowledge that Peter had authority in the Early Church.

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons.” Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret’s EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).

“We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry…Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church…I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body…And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons.” Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Scripture does not record that.

The Bible did.

Catholic Answers tract states the following:

What the Bible Says,

**Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

Peter was in Rome.

But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from “Babylon” (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There was scripture before Jesus. By what authority?

During the time of Christ, there was only the OT. There was no NT text. The NT was preached orally.

He gave us his letter. I read it. It is the letter where he says nothing about some so called bishop in Rome being the head of the church. You should believe him. I know I do.

Not everything Jesus said and done is written. That is in the last Chapter and verse in the Gospel of John.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Mannyfit75;4256599]They did. They include the 3 Books of Maccabbees and the Prayer of Man… Even the Eastern Catholic Church have more books than the Western Catholics.

Proof?

Not everything I read on the net is true. The Damasine list I believe to not true. However, the Council of Hippo and Carthage have a more reliable information when it comes to the issue of Canon of Scripture.

I have never said that those two councils did not include the deuterocanonical books

Yes it did.
ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp

You appear to have no idea what I am talking about. The LXX at the time of Jesus Manny. Not right now!!!1

The text of Scripture was discuss and it claimed that Non-Hebrew Text cannot be consider inspired Scripture.

Jesus, Paul, all say there was scripture prior to any council in Africa. BY WHAT AUTHORITY WAS THERE SCRIPTURE PRIOR TO CHRIST??
Or do you believe the Bible?

They believe that Peter held the first place in Primacy. They do not believe in Papal Supremacy but they acknowledge that Peter had authority in the Early Church.

just pointing out that so called sacred tradition started the first split. We have never split. I am not responsible for anyone outside of my church. How could I be?
"

 

[Rightlydivide]

Peter was in Rome.

But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from “Babylon” (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

If you convince me of that, I will have no choice but to believe that Rome is the Whore of Babylon. Are you sure you want to go that route? I do not believe that right now but if that is indeed what it means you will have converted me to believing the Roman Church is the Whore of Babylon. So go right ahead if that is what you want. Rome is not a code word for Babylon IN SCRIPTURE.
Outside of scripture. I do not care

 

[Rightlydivide]

During the time of Christ, there was only the OT. There was no NT text. The NT was preached orally.

Not everything Jesus said and done is written. That is in the last Chapter and verse in the Gospel of John.

Please answer my question. By what authority??? Answer it.

 

[tGette]

Old Kinderhook! I gotta go!

God willing, I will be back!

I am still seeking an answer to my original post.

May the Father bless you all with the Peace of His Son and the Love of His Spirit!

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Bible did.

Catholic Answers tract states the following:

What the Bible Says,

**Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.**

This is a Preterist understanding. I am a dispensationalist. You are way off.