Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[RaisedCatholic]

You’re avoiding an inconvenient question. Let me repost it:

I did answer it. While John admitted that there was so much more Jesus did that was not written down, because it would be impossible to write it all down, what John - and by extension, the rest of the NT writers (see Jude v.3) - wrote down WAS & IS Christianity. What John et al did not write down was not pertinent for the church to know “what” Christianity was in those first twenty or so years before the first Pauline epistle.

Plus, Paul wrote that what he was communicating was the same thing he was communicating, whether it was by letter or by word (2 Thessalonians 2:15), which was that Christ gave us eternal life (v.16). Also, in one of his earliest epistles, Paul wrote an early Christian Creed that dates back to within 24 MONTHS after the Resurrection, which is the same theme (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), which he stated was based “on the Scriptures” - meaning a fulfillment of the OLD Testament Scriptures. This same Creed is repeated throughout the NT. So, to ask “What was Christianity in those pre-NT years?” - that is the answer.

You refer me to some guy who wrote an article, based on something someone else said, based on someone’s interpretations of Scripture, and at the same time you have no trust in the Catholic Church 'cause it’s not scripture.

First, it’s not some “guy.” It’s a Christian ministry, which cites Scripture that supports all of the five solas. Second, if you don’t want to know, then don’t ask.

 

[goout]

You are avoiding the question. (And you are also admitting that a man named John cooperated in the writing of scripture…A MAN!!! horrors)

John helped write the Gospel. Ok agreed.

What was Christianity before the first Pauline letter was written?

Can you simply answer this question? There are about 50+ years in question if you start at the birth of Christ.
What was Christianity in this time?

 

[goout]

goout:

You’re avoiding an inconvenient question. Let me repost it:

I did answer it. While John admitted that there was so much more Jesus did that was not written down, because it would be impossible to write it all down, what John - and by extension, the rest of the NT writers (see Jude v.3) - wrote down WAS & IS Christianity. What John et al did not write down was not pertinent for the church to know “what” Christianity was in those first twenty or so years before the first Pauline epistle.

Plus, Paul wrote that what he was communicating was the same thing he was communicating, whether it was by letter or by word (2 Thessalonians 2:15), which was that Christ gave us eternal life (v.16). Also, in one of his earliest epistles, Paul wrote an early Christian Creed that dates back to within 24 MONTHS after the Resurrection, which is the same theme (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), which he stated was based “on the Scriptures” - meaning a fulfillment of the OLD Testament Scriptures. This same Creed is repeated throughout the NT. So, to ask “What was Christianity in those pre-NT years?” - that is the answer.

You refer me to some guy who wrote an article, based on something someone else said, based on someone’s interpretations of Scripture, and at the same time you have no trust in the Catholic Church 'cause it’s not scripture.

First, it’s not some “guy.” It’s a Christian ministry, which cites Scripture that supports all of the five solas. Second, if you don’t want to know, then don’t ask.

I do want to know.
Please answer the question I’d like to also know the answer to it.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You are avoiding the question. (And you are also admitting that a man named John cooperated in the writing of scripture…A MAN!!! horrors)

No, I am. I’m afraid you just aren’t understanding what I wrote. And regarding John, just like the other “men” who wrote inspired Scripture, God worked through him to perform miracles to validate his writings as being God-breathed, and not the “traditions of men.”

I do want to know.
Please answer the question I’d like to also know the answer to it.

If you are sincere, simply click the link, read the Scripture verses cited that supports all five solas. I cannot do it for you.

 

[goout]

Just to bring this to a close for time constraints, I will assume you do not wish to face the reality that no written Scriptures existed for decades after Christ was born, yet Christianity was fully revealed in his person ( I sure hope you believe that!) and only came to inspired letter through the community he founded. (AKA Tradition, gasp!!)

What was Christianity before the first Pauline letter was written?

Can you simply answer this question? There are about 50+ years in question if you start at the birth of Christ.
What was Christianity in this time?

 

[Gorgias]

Notice how Paul lists the individual Commandments that specifically apply to “your neighbor” as opposed to those that apply to God: adultery, murder, stealing, & coveting . Again, notice how he doesn’t list “wife” & “belongings” as separate commandments. He covers them together under “you shall not covet .”

Except that, at this point in time, Jesus has already defined coveting a woman in one’s heart – that is, lusting after her – as “adultery”. We say that Jesus fulfills the meaning of the Law. If “coveting your neighbor’s wife” also is adultery, then it’s fundamentally different than wanting his Corvette. Therefore, separating the two is more in line with Jesus and His fulfillment of the Law! So, even on this front, your argument fails to hold!

This is where Catholics & non-Catholics have a different understanding of “early” church.

Immaterial. Your claim was that the apostles gave us the Bible. The apostles were the leadership of the Church. Therefore, the Church gave us the Bible. Isn’t it getting tiring for you, continuing to kick against the goads? Just admit it, and set yourself free. The truth has that effect on a person…

Again, affirming godly criteria is not the same thing as it originating from the church.

Except when that criteria was the criteria originally used by the Church. Which, in fact, it was.

God not being capable of lying isn’t something the church “originated,” just affirmed it.

On the other hand, the Church first asserted the canon of the Scripture. Why can’t you affirm that?

So, Jesus gave them authority to validate writings

Yep. “Whatever you hold bound on earth, will be bound in heaven.” (“In heaven” here is a circumlocution: since they wouldn’t pronounce the name of God, they used “in heaven” instead. So, in answer to your question: yes – Jesus is telling the apostles that their decisions will be upheld by God. Thanks for asking!

 

[Gorgias]

Therefore, baptizing into one name, indicates one immersion, not three, because the God-head is one God, not three.

Nope. I mean, nice eisegesis, but “one baptism” =/= “one immersion”. If you have Scriptural warrant for “one immersion”, and not just “the traditions of men”, please show it. Otherwise, please admit that you’re following a human tradition.

He affirmed it was supported by Scripture

Yay! Please show me where Scripture asserts that it is the “sole rule of faith”! If that’s what sola scriptura means, then surely you can quote where it makes this claim!

Plus, most Protestants - including many Lutherans - don’t agree with everything Luther taught. So, that blows the “Luther is your authority” claim.

Nah… it just shows that Protestants, like all other people, are bad at following authority.

Who said Protestants agree with “all Protestant doctrines”?

Not what I’m claiming. You said that we have to throw out Trent, because of its late date. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if we have to throw out ‘late’ doctrine, we must throw out Protestant doctrine, too.

All Protestantism is based on is the five solas, which “true” Protestants believe in, because they are all supported by inspired Scripture.

Ahh, there we go! I knew we’d find our way to a logical fallacy sooner or later! The “no true Scotsman” approach, eh?

 

[JimG]

What I know is this: Jesus didn’t write anything. He established a Church with a magisterium and gave it authority to teach spread the gospel to the whole world. The Church set about doing this, before one word of the New Testament was written. As time went on, the Church produced the writings of the New Testament. Even if the New Testament had never been written, the Church would have continued to hand down the teaches of Jesus through the ages, as it has done and continues to do. But we do have the New Testament because the Church wrote it and handed it down to subsequent ages.

Literacy is not a pre-requesite for salvation. Even those who can’t read are saved by being incorporaed into the body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church on earth.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Nope. I mean, nice eisegesis, but “one baptism” =/= “one immersion”.

I did - in the “name” not “names.” If you have Scriptural evidence from the NT that baptismal candidates were either poured water on or immersed three separate times, please show this from Scripture. I don’t have to prove a negative (that the NT does “not” demonstrate getting baptized three separate times). Otherwise, the Didache stating this is the traditions of men. Plus, that is not the only problem with the Didache (see above).

Nah… it just shows that Protestants, like all other people, are bad at following authority.

No, it destroys your assumptions & claims that all Protestants should agree with all Protestant views. And their “authority” was God-breathed Scripture, not extra-biblical man-made traditions that conflicted with it at the time (ie: the abuses of indulgences, the man-made books in the OT of their day, etc.)

You said that we have to throw out Trent, because of its late date. if we have to throw out ‘late’ doctrine, we must throw out Protestant doctrine, too.

Not the same thing. Trent’s “list” can be found NOWHERE prior to the Council of Florence, while the five solas are supported by the very NT Scriptures Catholics & Protestants espouse to, which was written in the first century, not written by the Reformers themselves. The fact you don’t “believe” this doesn’t change the fact this is where they originated from, not from the 16th Century, who rediscovered them.

I knew we’d find our way to a logical fallacy sooner or later! The “no true Scotsman” approach, eh?

Again, no, not the same. From the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants have ALWAYS affirmed to the five solas, because they were supported by Scripture. That is what the Reformers were “protesting” against the Catholic Church - more specifically, sola scriptura, sola fide, & sola gratia - which the Council of Trent rejected. So, a “Protestant” today who rejects any of these Protestant - and Scriptural - “solas,” by definition cannot call themselves faithful to what defined the Reformation & the original Protestants (ie: adhering to the five solas based on Scripture). It’s like someone calling themselves a “Christian,” by denying Christ as the only way to Heaven, or that He is the Son of God, etc. They are no-more a Christian, than a Protestant who denies any of the five solas. Both of these claims would be contradictory to the definition of “Protestant” or “Christian.” So, no, it’s not the same as a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Jesus said to proclaim the Gospel. The Good news.
Not write it. Good thing they did decide to write some letters and record stuff. Your entire faith is grounded on your Bible. Your interpretation is based on heretics 1500 years after the fact that is contrary to the ancient Churches( Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox).
At no point did Christ say to write stuff. If he had we probably would have a lot more. Do you believe then since you say everything Paul wrote is scripture, does that then mean we have missing doctrine since we know for a fact Paul wrote a previous letter to the Corinthians than the one called 1 Corinthians? That is horrifying that we may not even have the entire message.
Not for me though. I don’t rely on the Bible alone. And noone did for 1500 years. You’re welcome the Catholic Church preserved those incredibly expensive books as well.

 

[Gorgias]

I did - in the “name” not “names.”

That’s an explanation for ritual prayer, not for immersion technique.

If you have Scriptural evidence from the NT that baptismal candidates were either poured water on or immersed three separate times, please show this from Scripture.

Nope. I’m not the one saying that (1) it’s unacceptable and (2) it’s without authority. Those are your claims. If you want to substantiate them, please do. However, what you don’t get to do is make the claim on your own personal authority and expect us to obey. (Unless, of course, you can quote Scripture where Jesus says, “RaisedCatholic, you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my church.” )

I don’t have to prove a negative (that the NT does “not” demonstrate getting baptized three separate times).

You certainly do, when you make the assertion that it’s unauthoritative. I’ve already shown you that “all authority on heaven and earth” was given to the Church and the apostles who were given the authority to lead it. If you want to assert that there’s a different authority, then you have to prove it.

And their “authority” was God-breathed Scripture

Again: please show me where “God-breathed Scripture” was given the authority of a rule of faith. From Scripture, please, since that’s the standard you’re espousing.

(It’s ok if you can’t. We all know it’s not there. )

The fact you don’t “believe” this doesn’t change the fact this is where they originated from, not from the 16th Century, who rediscovered them.

How convenient. The Church lost its authority, so you usurped it from her? Nice try.

From the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants have ALWAYS affirmed to the five solas, because they were supported by Scripture.

The problem is that they asserted them in a novel way that had always been unsupported by the Church – from the very beginning! So, yeah: it was a novel innovation, made up wholecloth by men who wanted to find support for leaving the Church.

It’s like someone calling themselves a “Christian,” by denying Christ as the only way to Heaven, or that He is the Son of God, etc.

…or by denying the Church that Christ founded upon the apostles. Yep. Got it.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Protestants have ALWAYS affirmed to the five solas

I still don’t know how you know what the canon of scripture is.
You don’t believe the Church made it. You believe the Church Fathers didn’t know what the hell was going on.
The way you speak of the early Church they had to have gotten it wrong. So you might as well go make your own Canon. Seriously.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Jesus said to proclaim the Gospel. The Good news.
Not write it. Good thing they did decide to write some letters and record stuff. Your entire faith is grounded on your Bible. Your interpretation is based on heretics 1500 years after the fact that is contrary to the ancient Churches( Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox).

No offense, but your accusations are sounding like a broken record, which has been addressed over & over again. And you still have not addressed the fact that:

1. The Biblical “list” at the Council of Trent (1546) is not found prior to the Council of Florence (1441).
2. The various Christian traditions ( Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) do NOT all have the same books, even though they ALL claim to base it on the Septuagint, which also did NOT have the same “lists” as Florence & Trent.
3. The ECFs (even in the West), early church councils, early translations of the OT, & even those by Popes & Cardinals (including during the Reformation) did NOT have the same OT canon as Trent.

At no point did Christ say to write stuff.

"Jesus saying, “Write in a book what you see” (Revelation 1:11). See also Revelation 1:19; 2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5.

Do you believe then since you say everything Paul wrote is scripture, does that then mean we have missing doctrine since we know for a fact Paul wrote a previous letter to the Corinthians than the one called 1 Corinthians?

No, and I addressed this with you already. So, I am not going to repeat myself again.

I don’t rely on the Bible alone.

Sola scriptura doesn’t have anything to do with the formation of the Bible itself. Again, you are conflating two different & unrelated issues.

You’re welcome the Catholic Church preserved those incredibly expensive books as well.

Then why is the “list” at Trent different from the “lists” at earlier ecumenical & non-ecumenical councils in the early church, as well as those from ECFs, Cardinals, & Popes? (see above). You still haven’t answered this.

I still don’t know how you know what the canon of scripture is.

Again, this has been explained in depth to you - numerous times - from the authority of Jesus and from Catholic resources. Please refer to those posts. I am not going to repeat myself.

 

[Prodigal1984]

"Jesus saying, “ Write in a book what you see” (Revelation 1:11). See also Revelation 1:19; 2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5.

How do you know?
That was a disputed book. The eastern churches hated it. Since you say the Church Fathers didn’t know what was going on why even accept it? It could be just a man made book for all you know.

 

[Prodigal1984]

The table of contents in a Bible is not divinely inspired. The authors of the New Testament didn’t write a list of the scriptures and hand it down to us. If they had, it would be a biblical book, and there never would have been questions about the canon. So how—on the principle of sola scriptura—could a Protestant determine what belongs in the Bible? Some Protestants argue that the books of the Bible are “self-attesting” as Scripture, but what does this mean? The individual books of the Bible don’t say things like, “I am a book of Scripture” or “I am divinely inspired.” Even if they did, that wouldn’t prove it, for many false scriptures do say things of that sort. Others have supposed that although the books of the Bible don’t all claim they are Scripture, they exhibit qualities such as being emotionally inspiring reading that attest to their being Scripture. But what a person finds emotionally inspiring is subjective and varies not only from person to person but even for the same person from time to time. Many find reading the Bible difficult, especially when they first encounter it and aren’t used to the biblical authors’ styles. Also, they may find other nonbiblical books much more subjectively moving. It is not possible to name a set of objective literary qualities that show a work is divinely inspired. It also isn’t possible to show that the books of the Bible—and these alone—display such qualities. As soon as such qualities are proposed, it would be possible to write new books to fit that model, resulting in new divinely inspired works. Sometimes, Protestants note that the biblical books occasionally quote each other as Scripture, either using the word Scripture itself or with equivalent formulas like “it is written,” or “David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said . . . ” Does this mean the scriptures attest to themselves? It does show one book can attest to another book, but this won’t let you determine the canon as a whole. For that, you’d need every book of the Bible to be referred to as Scripture in another book, and that doesn’t happen. Many books in the Protestant Bible aren’t quoted as Scripture (or at all) by other books. You specifically couldn’t prove the New Testament canon. There are only two times a New Testament book refers to another as Scripture. The first is in 1 Timothy, where Paul quotes a passage that is apparently from Luke as Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7), but you’d have to first know that 1 Timothy is Scripture for it to validate Luke. The second case is when Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16), but here you’d not only have to know that 2 Peter is Scripture, you’d also have to know the list of Paul’s letters, for Peter doesn’t name them. Even if you knew these things, that would leave you with a canon consisting of Luke and Paul’s letters (ironically, the canon proposed by the heretic Marcion). But fundamentally, you’d need to show—apart from such quotations—that at least one book was Scripture.

 

[Prodigal1984]

It doesn’t prove anything if a non-scriptural book refers to another book as Scripture. Neither does a loop of mutual quotations. You’d need to prove the inspiration of at least one book by something outside of Scripture, which means you’re not relying on Scripture alone. Some have argued that historical evidence shows that the books of the New Testament are accurate. This is true, but historical accuracy isn’t divine inspiration. Lots of books are historically accurate, but that doesn’t make them Scripture. Also, this argument appeals to historical evidence, meaning the books of the Bible aren’t self-attesting.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I did - in the “name” not “names.”

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) - baptism (ie: immersion, not merely ritual prayer)

please show me where “God-breathed Scripture” was given the authority of a rule of faith.

It is taught & warned from the very beginning of the Bible, all the way through it, to the very end:

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.’ (Deuteronomy 4:2)

“Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.” (Deuteronomy 12:32)

“Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.” (Proverbs 30:6)

“I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.” (Ecclesiastes 3:14)

“Woe to the rebellious children,” declares the LORD, “Who execute a plan, but not Mine, And make an alliance, but not of My Spirit, In order to add sin to sin” (Isaiah 30:1)

“Thus says the LORD, 'Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship in the LORD’S house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!’” (Jeremiah 26:2)

“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” (1 Corinthians 4:6)

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)

That is why the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as their Messiah - they had “added” man-made characteristics to who the Messiah was going to be (ie: a military leader who going to free them from the oppression of Rome - NOT found in the Old Testament Scriptures). Had they stuck “solely” to the Scriptures, they would have accepted Him, like the disciples did when they went “solely” by the Scriptures (John 1:45).

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

The Church lost its authority, so you usurped it from her

Never claimed that. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said “me.” You did. I said Scripture if what the Reformers rediscovered the five solas from. Pay attention.

made up wholecloth by men who wanted to find support for leaving the Church.

Nice theory. The problem is that history of the Reformation era doesn’t support any of it.

…or by denying the Church that Christ founded upon the apostles

Which the Reformers did not do, since they based the five solas on the NT, which the apostles wrote.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

How do you know?
That was a disputed book.

Again, I addressed this with you before. Refer to that reply.

The table of contents in a Bible is not divinely inspired. The authors of the New Testament didn’t write a list of the scriptures and hand it down to us.

Again, I have addressed this with you - numerous times. You are starting to repeat yourself. Again, refer to those specific posts. And, again, you have not addressed my questions I asked you.

You’d need to prove the inspiration of at least one book by something outside of Scripture, which means you’re not relying on Scripture alone.

Don’t know how many times I have to say “sola scriptura” has NOTHING to do with the formation of the Biblical canon. Nor is that an argument made by Protestants - ever! And I have given you objective godly criteria that qualify every single book in the Bible as being inspired. Again, refer to those replies.

Some have argued that historical evidence shows that the books of the New Testament are accurate. This is true, but historical accuracy isn’t divine inspiration.

Never said that was the ONLY qualification, only that if a book is historically inaccurate, like Judith, then it cannot be God-breathed, because that would be like saying GOD is historically inaccurate which is impossible, and one - among many other - reasons why Protestants don’t accept the Deuterocanon & other books Catholics consider “Apocrypha.”

In the future, could you PLEASE not ask me the same questions over & over again, particularly ones I have addressed numerous times? If you do, I will keep saying “refer to that reply.” Thank you.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Some scholars have thought that Judith is a stylized account of real events and that this explains the supposed “historical inaccuracies” in the book–they are due to the form of stylization the author employs. You might compare the book of Judith to the book of Job, which Fundamentalists view as a stylized account of a real historical event. They believe the basic story in Job is real, since Job is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Ez 14:14, 20), but because chapter after chapter of the book is dialogue written in the form of Hebrew poetry, Fundamentalists concede it is a stylized account.

Other scholars have thought Judith is not a historical book but a “theological novel”–basically an extended parable–and that this could be recognized by any Jew reading the work. In this view, the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is declared to be the king of the Assyrians in the very first verse of the book is regarded as one of the cues that would tell the reader he is reading an allegory rather than history. Nebuchadnezzar was then the single most famous persecutor of the Jews, and every Jew knew he was king of the Babylonians.

Scholars who adopt this view point out that Judith’s name means “Lady Jew” and that she is placed against the two greatest enemies of the Hebrew people, Nebuchadnezzar, the king most famous for fighting them, and the Assyrians, the second most famous enemy of Israel. To give a modern equivalent of this, suppose you picked up a book that pitted Miss America against Adolf Hitler, king of the Russians. Would you identify the work as a piece of literal history or as an allegory intended to teach a point?

The idea that Scripture contains parables, allegories, and figurative language is something even Fundamentalists will admit. So long as the original audience recognized that what it was reading was a literary device, there could be no objection to including the work in Scripture–it would not have deceived the intended readers into thinking it was making factual claims when it was not. The parables of Jesus are a perfect example of this.

The status of the book of Judith is thus similar to that of the Song of Solomon. We are not sure whether this latter work is a stylized account of real events (was the wife of Solomon mentioned in the book a real person?) or whether it is a straight parable about ideal love. If the Song of Solomon can go into the Bible, so can Judith.