Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[RaisedCatholic]

Quote me Jesus ever saying which books he accepted and didn’t and I will accept what you say.

First, let me quote Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers:

“Unlike the Sadducees who only acknowledged the first 5 books of the Bible, the so-called Law of Moses, the Pharisees HONORED a much broader canon of Scripture, everything today we would find in the Protestant OT.”

Now, Jesus’ affirmation of the Pharisaic canon:

“Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him.” (Luke 16:14)

"But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ (Luke 16:29)

Jesus had just finished telling a parable about the rich man who died & went to Hades. The rich men & his brothers represented the Pharisees who were “lovers of money” (v.14). When Jesus said “they” this refers to them. When He said “they have,” the Greek word for “have” (echo) translates “have possession of.” When He said “Moses & the Prophets” this is a metonym for the OT canon.

So, when Jesus said “They have Moses & the Prophets,” He was saying, “The Pharisees (lovers of money, like the rich man & his brothers) have possession of the OT canon (Moses & the Prophets.”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I wonder if the author of this book knows you regard it as the hand of God? Do you worship the guy? Is this some new revelation? It is one mans interpretation and there are many. It’s like you read it and drank his kool aid and have no differing thought unless it is in the book.

No, I don’t appreciate the condescending attitude. You are asking me questions, & I am attempting to be Christlike & answer them the best I can. The author relies heavily on 2 things: The NT Catholics share with Protestants, and Catholic resources, like Catholic Answers, the Vatican, EWTN, NewAdvent.org. I respect the fact he chose to utilize mostly Catholic resources, rather than Protestants ones. But this doesn’t mean I “worship” him! That was unnecessary. If I said something like that, I would be suspended. I am attempting to keep this discussion civil. So, instead of insult people, how about listening to the actual arguments to see if they have validity? His book is not inspired, but he quotes from one that is - the Bible.

 

[Prodigal1984]

His book is not inspired, but he quotes from one that is - the Bible.

Which the Catholic Church decided on its contents. End of story.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

hat was a disputed book. 2 Peter. Confer Eusebius of Ceasarea Church History . Even in the 4th century it wasn’t accepted. Your entire argument is because the Church discerned to include that and not the Epistle of Barnabas.

Eusebius’ Church History is fourth century - a bit late. And it’s based on 2 Peter not being cited in the second century - hardly a qualification for rejecting it’s authenticity. Plus, Jude cites it extensively, and states he received it from the apostles. So, there is no theological reason to reject it. Regarding Barnabas, that was second century - not A.D. 80 (WAY too soon), so Barnabas could not have possible written it.

The Didache is possibly from 50 A.D. 1 Clement…probably from the 80s.

That too is WAY to early for the Didache, since it relies heavily on Paul’s later epistles written in the late 60’s. At the VERY earliest “maybe” the mid-to-late first century, but more likely early second century. Same with 1 Clement - A.D. 95 not the 80s. Plus, these three letters - Didache, 1 Clement, & Barnabas ALL contain errors in them, which God-breathed Scripture cannot possess, because it is like saying GOD can be in error, which is impossible. Contrast this with 2 Peter which was written by the apostle, and written in the first century, since it was cited by Jude, which neither contained ANY errors or contradictions with previous Scripture.

Which the Catholic Church decided on its contents. End of story.

Again, not the OT. Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what the OT was when He corrected them USING Scripture (“Have you not READ?”) then quoted an OT book. If the OT canon was not around then, Jesus could not have held the Jews accountable for knowing what the OT was. But He did, which demonstrates that it was around. The NT uses around 300 of these metonyms to describe OT books - 100% are from the Hebrew Bible, ZERO are from the Deuterocanon or the the Orthodox books.

BTW, all this is in the book too. BTW, I responded to your question about “Where did Jesus affirm the canon of the Pharisees?” Did you read it?

 

[Prodigal1984]

ALL contain errors in them, which God-breathed Scripture cannot possess, because it is like saying GOD can be in error,

It only contains errors because they weren’t accepted. If they were and you grew up with them as canon you would not think they are error.

 

[Prodigal1984]

100% are from the Hebrew Bible,

The Pharaisaic tradition did not regard Esther , Song of Songs and Ezekiel with a majority consensus until long after Christ.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Pharaisaic tradition did not regard Esther , Song of Songs and Ezekiel with a majority consensus until long after Christ.

The Pharisaic school of Shammai questioned Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, & Proverbs (not Ezekiel), but not enough to keep the book out of their canon. But the Pharisaic school of Hillel, which Paul & Gamaliel were members of, accepted ALL of these books in their canon, as well as the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Gamalilel was also the grandson of Hillel, whose canon was identical to that of the Pharisees & later Protestants.

Again, you are confusing the “consensus” of Rabbinic Judaism in the late first century, not the Pharisees in the early first century. Again, it was the canon of the Pharisees - specifically from the school of Hillel - that later Rabbinic Judaism adopted.

 

[Prodigal1984]

It doesn’t matter to me in the least. The Church chose what the Bible was out of Tradition. You even having reasons why books weren’t accepted is Tradition.
As far as I’m concerned the Council of Trent could have said the Divine Comedy is scripture and they would have had every right too since the magisterium is the successors to the Apostles Christ gave authority too.

Point is. Church made the Bible. If you don’t believe that you have no basis for even accepting the New Testament. Your arguments about books being written to late are used about some books that were accepted. You have in this case from your argument, no way of knowing the New Testament is correct. What did you get a feeling that it was right? Are we Mormons now?
The historical fact is if you accept the New Testament as the Word of God, you accept the Tradition of the Church which led to the Canon being established. If not there is absolutely no reason why you can’t go make up your own New Testament with like The Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas. You think there was this consensus but may I point out to you that many early Church Fathers went to their graves thinking books were scripture that are not in the Bible today. You only consider the books you do as God breathed because of the discernment.
Here. Tell me why all of these Church Fathers from the second and third century were wrong in citing books not regarded as scripture now. And what of the ones who didn’t regard books which are in the Bible?

http://ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[RaisedCatholic]

It only contains errors because they weren’t accepted. If they were and you grew up with them as canon you would not think they are error.

With all due respect, that doesn’t make any sense. Whether or not I would have “accepted” those uninspired writings back then (which you cannot objectively say I would), doesn’t change the fact they had errors in them, which disqualify them as inspired Scripture, and why the church rejected them as such.

The Church chose what the Bible was out of Tradition. You even having reasons why books weren’t accepted is Tradition.

You keep saying that, but historically this does not apply to the OLD Testament, since Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what it was, and Jesus affirmed what it was in Luke 16. And it wasn’t because of “tradition” books like 1 Clement & others weren’t accepted. Again, it’s because they ALL contained ERRORS & contradictions with previous Scripture, which is not the same as saying “it’s based on ‘tradition.’”

As far as I’m concerned the Council of Trent could have said the Divine Comedy is scripture and they would have had every right too since the magisterium is the successors to the Apostles Christ gave authority too.

Okay…I’m not sure how to even respond to that. Obviously, at least our difference (don’t want to make assumptions about anyone else) has to do with authority & what qualifies as God-breathed Scripture. For me, since God cannot lie & cannot change, then neither can HIS inspired word. So, from your perspective, are you saying that God’s word can have errors & contradict previous inspired Scripture? And did you read the passage & explanation from Luke 16 you asked me to provide for you?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Point is. Church made the Bible. If you don’t believe that you have no basis for even accepting the New Testament.

Instead of assuming this, instead how about forming it in a question, like “What is your basis for not accepting these books?” It is more respectful, more Christlike, & comes across as more inquisitive than accusatory. @Dougbro1 you may appreciate this as well.

For one, since Catholics & Protestants (and other groups like Orthodox) agree on the same 27-book NT canon, it’s a moot point. It would only be relevant if they all disagreed, which they don’t. This question should really be “since they all agree, what does their mutually agreed upon NT canon reveal about the OT canon?” which I demonstrated from Luke 16 & elsewhere.

But to demonstrate Protestants are not “dependent” on the “traditions” of the early church, here are some objective godly criteria:

1. first century authorship - eliminates 2nd century writings, like the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, most-likely the Didache, and most of the other writings from your list that were written in second, third, and later centuries.
2. apostolic authorship - this includes the apostles, like Peter & Paul, as well as their close-contemporaries (like Mark & Luke) who they and/or their writings they affirmed as God-breathed Scripture. The apostle Paul stated the apostles were part of the “foundation” of the church. Once they died in the first century, there were no other “apostles” to write inspired Scripture after the first century. Thus, the NT - and by extension the Biblical canon - was closed (see Jude v.3).

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

1. age of miracles - the miracles the apostles performed validated not only their message of the gospel, but also validated the inspired Scriptures they wrote down, as well as their contemporaries (like Paul calling Luke’s writings “Scripture”). After the apostles died, the age of miracles ceased. If it hadn’t, later “miracle-performing” writers could claim their writings were just as “inspired” as those of the first century apostles.
2. lack of errors & contradictions with previous Scripture - again, unlike the Didache, 1 Clement, the epistle of Barnabas, ALL of the NT writings contain NO errors & NO contradictions with previous Scripture or historical events.
3. consensus with the early church - the reason the fourth century church councils affirmed the 27-book canon, is because they were already recognized as inspired Scripture in the early church. When heretics, like Marcion, attempted to create his own “gospels,” second century Christian writers wrote the there were only FOUR gospels, as though this was already understood in the early church. Same with the epistles of Paul. So, even though you have some ECFs & canonized saints in the West, like Irenaeus, who included some inspired books in their NT - like the Shepherd of Hermas - and even called it “Scripture” - the consensus of the early church - as a whole - recognized ONLY the 27-book canon, such as Cyril of Jerusalem & Athanasius of Alexandria, among several others. This is another reason why we should be cautious about relying on the writings of ECFs, since they were not “universal” on even what books belonged in the canon, and why I listed this criteria LAST & not first, even though it is significant.

Another book - you would agree with - is “Canon Revisited” by Dr. Michael Kruger, who explains why we can be assured the 27-book canon - that Catholics, Protestants, & Orthodox AGREE WITH EACH OTHER - is indeed the complete NT canon, & why we are not missing any inspired books. Again, this is something Catholics would AGREE on.

And not to beat a dead horse, but ALL of this - and much more - is in Chapter 10 of the book I keep bringing up, which focuses on the validity of the NT canon.

 

[Prodigal1984]

lack of errors & contradictions with previous Scripture - again, unlike the Didache, 1 Clement, the epistle of Barnabas, ALL of the NT writings contain NO errors & NO contradictions with previous Scripture or historical events.

Can you please explain the errors present in 1 Clement, The Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter?
I name these because they seem to have been the ones closest to making it into the Canon which ultimately were not, at least in the New Testament.
I think there are issues in all of them besides the Didache. I don’t think that has any errors in it really as far as I can tell. However the only reason there are errors is because the Church decided these were errors and meant they were not divinely inspired.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Can you please explain the errors present in 1 Clement, The Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter ?
I name these because they seem to have been the ones closest to making it into the Canon which ultimately were not, at least in the New Testament.

Sure, and thank you for respectfully asking. It is much appreciated. (Again, from the book, which is mostly CATHOLIC resources. BTW, MacArthur is only cited in areas where Catholicism is in agreement. So others bringing him up here is a moot point.)

The epistle of Barnabas - again SECOND century, so written AFTER the canon was completed. Chapter 10:1,8 states the weasel conceives with his mouth. Chapter 10:7 states the hyena can change sex. There are other errors, but for the sake of space, I am limited.

1 Clement - Chapter 25, Clement believes the Phoenix, was a real live animal that lived for 500 years & rose from the ashes, which is false. While he was using it simply as an analogy to explain the Resurrection of Jesus, nonetheless, he was still professing it was a real live animal, which he was in error.

The Didache - Chapter 7 commands the baptizer & the baptismal candidate to fast 1 or 2 days before baptism, even though the NT has numerous examples of baptizers & the baptized performing baptism that very day, or even immediately (like the Ethiopian eunuch). It also commands believers to not fast on the same day as “they hypocrites” (unbelieving Jews), even though John the Baptist & his followers fasted just like the Pharisees did (Matthew 9:14). This last one is less important, but significant: Chapter 7 also calls to pour water on the head “three times” during baptism. Yet, Jesus commanded baptism in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. This signifies a believer is baptized into the name of God, meaning baptism would be a single “immersion” into the water, not pouring three separate times onto the head.

Like the the Shepherd of Hermas & the epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter is a second century writing. So, like them, too late to have been written by Peter & included in the NT canon. Plus, it is a gnostic “gospel,” which teaches a different (false) “gospel” than that taught in the canonical first century gospels, which Paul declared anathema for teaching. Plus, when in the text, when “Giant Jesus” comes out of the tomb, He is followed by the cross…which is walking…and begins talking! Another thing to consider, the 4 gospel accounts NEVER write about actual Resurrection event itself. The fact that the Apocalypse of Peter, as well as many of the other later gnostic “gospel” writers do, should make us question the authenticity of its authorship, especially since the “alleged” author had been DEAD for decades, or even centuries.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Like the the Shepherd of Hermas & the epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter is a second century writing. So, like them, too late to have been written by Peter & included in the NT canon. Plus, it is a gnostic “gospel,” which teaches a different (false) “gospel” than that taught in the canonical first century gospels, which Paul declared anathema for teaching. Plus, when in the text, when “Giant Jesus” comes out of the tomb, He is followed by the cross…which is walking…and begins talking! Another thing to consider, the 4 gospel accounts NEVER write about actual Resurrection event itself . The fact that the Apocalypse of Peter, as well as many of the other later gnostic “gospel” writers do, should make us question the authenticity of its authorship, especially since the “alleged” author had been DEAD for decades, or even centuries.

You’re thinking of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. The one I am speaking of is the Orthodox one. Also it sounds like you are speaking of the Gospel of Peter. That is a separate work.

Apocalypse of Peter - Wikipedia

 

[Prodigal1984]

This is the one you were describing.

Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter - Wikipedia

 

[Gorgias]

Unlike in civilized societies today, societies in antiquity bought & sold people (ie: slaves). 1/3 of all citizens in the Roman Empire were slaves. Even Christians owned slaves in the first century. So did the Jews in the OT era.

Nice try, especially since I demonstrated that this wasn’t what was happening with Israelite slaves under the Mosaic law. Since the context of this discussion is the Decalogue – that is, the Mosaic law – then what other societies did is irrelevant.

So, yes, people can be possessions, just that Israelites cannot be slaves of other Israelites.

Nice try, again. The Decalogue doesn’t distinguish between Israelite and non-Israelite slaves. Therefore, the commandment applies to both. So, no, you can’t lump them all together and pretend to make up a hermeneutic based on that faulty categorization.

For you to make the comment “Sound extra-biblical to me” once again demonstrates you still don’t quite understand what sola scriptura actually is, even after I gave you an example.

If someone has to explain what it means, then what’s being followed is the explanation, not the Scripture, and therefore… not really sola scriptura.

The book speaks for itself…but that would involve you actually reading it before passing judgment on it.

I think the point is that you’re using the explanations of the book as the rule of faith. Which, I hope you’d recognize, is what sola scriptura is trying to convince us is the role of the Bible alone.

The apostles, not the later church, gave us our NT.

Psst… what organization were the apostles the leaders of?

 

[Gorgias]

But to demonstrate Protestants are not “dependent” on the “traditions” of the early church, here are some objective godly criteria:

Umm… and these just coincidentally are the criteria used by the Church, then? C’mon, brother – you’re assenting to the content of the Tradition, but unwilling to call it by its name!

The Didache - Chapter 7 commands the baptizer & the baptismal candidate to fast 1 or 2 days before baptism, even though the NT has numerous examples of baptizers & the baptized performing baptism that very day, or even immediately (like the Ethiopian eunuch)

It’s setting a rule for liturgical worship and preparation. That’s not an “error”; it’s a legitimate action of the authority of the Church!

It also commands believers to not fast on the same day as “they hypocrites” (unbelieving Jews), even though John the Baptist & his followers fasted just like the Pharisees did (Matthew 9:14).

Umm… John the Baptist was a Jew, not a Christian.

This signifies a believer is baptized into the name of God, meaning baptism would be a single “immersion” into the water, not pouring three separate times onto the head.

That’s a liturgical interpretation, not a Scriptural command. (Who authorized you to make liturgical law on behalf of Jesus’ Church, btw? As far as I remember, Jesus only authorized his apostles to do so…)

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

It is disappointing the modern translators have completely ignored the nuances of certain words in their native tongues. Fortunately many have not.

Here is a question for you,

given the Biblical Hebrew of the word is slave, servant, how do you feel anout the complete rejection of the truth of this word , in preference for only part of it. And do you feel it is important to know the true meanings of these words.

I hardly believe a man with all those qualifications was not taught correctly. Honory doctorates dont include the academics so its nest to look at what was academically gained.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

BOTH are in the plural.

Here is an example. I am not sure where you are finding they are strictly in the plural, when a basic course in Biblical Hebrew will teach there is more then plural and singular, for starters. Words can be singular and written with masculine and feminine plural or dual endings.

Here is a question for you,

Elohim means God, god, gods.

So let us consider the meaning ‘god’ . This obviously does not mean the God of Abraham. So that removes the debate about plurality.
god here is singular.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You’re thinking of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. The one I am speaking of is the Orthodox one. Also it sounds like you are speaking of the Gospel of Peter. That is a separate work.

Nonetheless, they are both written in the second century, so they are written far too late to have been written by the apostle Peter, let alone in the first century during the miracle-performing apostolic age to verify its authenticity. Plus, did you even scan some of the things written in it from the Wikipedia article??? Hardly on par with the inspired NT epistles of Peter.

this wasn’t what was happening with Israelite slaves under the Mosaic law. Since the context of this discussion is the Decalogue – that is, the Mosaic law – then what other societies did is irrelevant.

I wrote much more than that. This was just to show slavery continued into the Roman Empire. It wasn’t meant to imply since one culture did it, so did another.

The Decalogue doesn’t distinguish between Israelite and non-Israelite slaves

Again, the context of Commandment was that anything that belongs to your neighbor, including slaves, should not coveted. This includes possessions like houses, fields, animals, and slaves. Wives were not possessions, but still belonged to the neighbor, which is why all of them fall under the same “do not covet” Commandment, not two single Commandments. Again, this is why Paul simply wrote “You will not covet.” It covered both. Why are people ignoring this explicit & obvious citation by Paul? And, again, compare the Commandments side-by-side in Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5. They are identical, until you get to the “do not covet” Commandment. Suddenly, “wife” is intermingled with the “non-wife” things that also “belong” to the neighbor. Ergo, same Commandment - “you shall not covet.”

If someone has to explain what it means, then what’s being followed is the explanation , not the Scripture , and therefore… not really sola scriptura .

And your comment is another example of not understanding what sola scriptura means.

I think the point is that you’re using the explanations of the book as the rule of faith. Which, I hope you’d recognize, is what sola scriptura is trying to convince us is the role of the Bible alone.

Explanations don’t violate sola scriptura - again, demonstrating you don’t know what it means.

Psst… what organization were the apostles the leaders of?

Psst…I said LATER church - meaning after the apostolic age. Please read in context.