Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[De_Maria]

Instead of assuming this,

That’s no assumption. That is a cold, objective fact which can be proven historicallyt.

instead how about forming it in a question, like “What is your basis for not accepting these books?”

Because it doesn’t make any difference. Can’t you understand that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and gave her the authority to Teach His Word? You are not in that equation.

It is more respectful, more Christlike, & comes across as more inquisitive than accusatory. @Dougbro1 you may appreciate this as well.

Accuse of what? Accuse you of not being Christ and not being the authority which Jesus Christ put on this earth? Is that what you’re upset about? You want to be our pope?

For one, since Catholics & Protestants (and other groups like Orthodox) agree on the same 27-book NT canon, it’s a moot point.

Ok.

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.

These are the assumptions. You are now going to list all your assumptions. Never mind the Councils and records the Catholic Church documented through the centuries, writing about how and why certain books were not entered in the canon. Nooooo. Let’s make up some stuff and twist it to sound plausible.

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.

Most likely the Didache? That’s an objective fact? Most likely. Really?

1. apostolic authorship - this includes the apostles, like Peter & Paul, as well as their close-contemporaries (like Mark & Luke)

But Sts. Mark and Luke aren’t Apostles. So, you just want to kind of sneak them in there.

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).

And you’re kind of just forgetting that the Apostle Paul is a member of the Church which Jesus Christ established and gave authority to bind and loose and Teach His commands.

 

[De_Maria]

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.

The age of miracles has never ceased. Catholic Saints have produced miracles and are still producing miracles to this day. This ought to validate the fact that Jesus Christ is still with the Church, today. But you won’t accept it.

1. lack of errors & contradictions with previous Scripture - again, unlike the Didache, 1 Clement, the epistle of Barnabas,

Because the OT was discerned by the infallible Catholic Church.

ALL of the NT writings contain NO errors & NO contradictions with previous Scripture or historical events.

Because it was written by the infallible Catholic Church based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

1. 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.

The Early Church is the Catholic Church.

When heretics, like Marcion,

Marcion was declared a heretic, by the Catholic Church.

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.

The Catholic Church tests everything and holds on to the good.

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.

But something that Luther, the father of the Protestant Rebellion, did not.

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.

At least he got that right. And we know that he got it right because he is merely copying a fact which was revealed by the Catholic Church. That’s who he got that fact from. He didn’t discover it on his own.

 

[SeraficLeo]

based on later church traditions.

The BVM was assumed body and soul into heaven before the last Apostles died and before Revelations was written.

Further, Saint John’s vision of the woman is most probably the Blessed Virgin, who is clearly interchanged as a type for the Church.

Finally, if not the Church, then who can presume to have the right or authority to number the Commandments? Your arguments all rest entirely on a baseless calumny that the big bad Catholic Church changed the numbering arrangement of the commandments at some unknown time and without anyone protesting this in order to facilitate idolatry of man made things or images. However, the Catholic Church has never have permitted idolatry and images and statues of saints, even if they are venerated, simply is not idolatry. Nor is it even reasonable to imagine a Catholic would pull a stunt like imagine a golden calf or any such thing is actually God or there is any other deity than the Triune God.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

I get what you mean. But that is irrelevant to my cherub(im) / seraph(im) examples. I even gave the example that there are singular forms of “God” in Hebrew. When the plural is explicit - whether the pluralistic nature of God, or false gods - Elohim - is used. And this is the form used to describe the pluralistic God of Genesis, which the NT identifies as a Trinity.

I have not read your other examples. Did you know that Elohim is also used for angels in the Old Testament?
This is going way off topic for a thread on the Bible as a Catholic Book or not.
I could paste in link after link of grammar that lists the singular use of this word but it seems a pointless exercise. If you study Biblical Hebrew for even the shortest time you will learn that It does not follow the rules you can align with English. And it even breaks its own rules at times too. Elohim as a singular being one of those times. WE cannot say because the masculine plural form is suffixed to this word, it is therefore plural. Indeed any Biblical Hebrew word it is a dangerous game to play to say there is the MP suffix therefore it is plural. The plural form is not explicit, nor at times is the gender, or the number.

This is the last I will say of this on this thread.

AS far as is the Bible a Catholic Book, the church came before the New Testament.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

You did write much more. And where you wrote about other cultures, you spun off into irrelevancy, since the context here is the Decalogue.

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.

Says you. Do you sit on the seat of Moses? Have you been given the keys to the kingdom? Be careful, brother, and heed the words of James chapter 3…

Why are people ignoring this explicit & obvious citation by Paul?

And Jesus boiled 10 commandments down to 2. Yet, you’re not arguing that we should change the numbering based on that teaching. It seems like you’re arguing for that division because that’s the tradition of men to which you, personally, ascribe…

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

Enlighten me, then, brother…

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

Again: apostles == Church. Later church == Church. It’s Church → Bible, not the other way around.

I was referring more to the claims “the Catholic church gave us our Bible” criteria, citing select ECFs. Godly criteria, like lack of errors & contradictions, are not the same thing, just because they agree with them.

Except that the “godly criteria” came from the Church. So, when you’re quoting the criteria, you’re quoting the Church. Get it?

 

[Gorgias]

You’re missing the point. This LATER “legitimate action” contradicts previous inspired Scripture that demonstrates baptizers & the baptized getting baptized WITHOUT fasting first.

No… you’re missing the point: you’re attempting to assert actions as illegitimate, pointing to “previous Scripture”, but you’re forgetting that Jesus Himself gave those leaders authority to make those decisions! And guess what? That authority itself was given “in previous inspired Scripture”! So… your point fails to hold up to scrutiny. Sorry.

the NT ONLY immerses a baptismal candidate ONCE into the water.

You never read of pouring water on the head three separate times .

Please show me where the NT explicitly says “one time only” or even explicitly asserts “one time” at all! Your eisegesis skills are strong, brother, but don’t expect that Catholics who know what the Bible says will fall for it…

Why are you bringing up strawman like Luther, since you know Luther is not a Protestant’s authority

And yet, it was Luther himself who personally asserted the novel ‘doctrine’ of sola scriptura. And, unless I’m mistaken, he posited it as a rule of faith. And, since it comes from him personally and not the Bible, and since you adhere to it, well then… Luther is your authority! QED.

That is why Trent was the first council to officially “define” the canon. Rather late, don’t you think?

All of the catechisms of Protestantism were developed in that same century. Rather late, don’t you think? (If you’re gonna throw out Trent because of its timing, you must throw out all Protestant doctrine for the same reason.)

Then I’m afraid you completely missed the purpose of my posts, such as explaining the difference between godly criteria & the “the Church gave us our Bible” claim.

I think we get your purpose: denominational polemics.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Accuse of what? Accuse you of not being Christ and not being the authority which Jesus Christ put on this earth? Is that what you’re upset about? You want to be our pope?

Accusing me of nonsense like accusations I am not saying, like “You want to be our pope?” When you ask me direct questions, and I give them, even if you don’t agree, you don’t need to respond with condescending, immature comments like this that I would expect from a teenager. You can disagree & respond with maturity without engaging in ad hominems. Since it violates forum rules of conduct, and non-Catholics are bound by them & not allowed to engage in that kind of disrespectful behavior, I would hope devout faithful Catholics would have the desire to be just as compliant on their own forum. If your faith is as strong as you profess, then you would have no need to make childish comments like this, but instead simply answer the questions & respond to the comments with nothing but factual responses, not insults.

Never mind the Councils and records the Catholic Church documented through the centuries, writing about how and why certain books were not entered in the canon.

Except not all councils agreed on the same books. Even the fourth & fifth century church councils did not agreed with each other. Neither did all ECFs, including those in the West. Neither did all popes. Neither did all Catholic translations of the Bible. Neither did all ecumenical councils. I’m afraid you aren’t aware of this part of church history. And to say the Catholic Church “gave us our Bible,” even the Catholic Church admits it was not “defined” until 1546 at the Ecumenical Council of Trent. You won’t find an identical list from Trent prior to the Council of Florence in 1441, let alone an identical list back to antiquity.

Most likely the Didache? That’s an objective fact? Most likely. Really?

By saying “most-likely” I was referring to the uncertainty of the date of the Didache, which the range is - at the earliest, after A.D.70 and the latest, A.D. 120. Even if we pushed it to the first century, it still has errors & contradictions in it with previous inspired Scripture…which was the point you missed.

But Sts. Mark and Luke aren’t Apostles. So, you just want to kind of sneak them in there.

I didn’t “sneak them in there.” Apostolic authorship is a term to describe not only the apostles, but also their close contemporaries. Even Catholics use this term to include them. You might want to brush up on your apologetics.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

And you’re kind of just forgetting that the Apostle Paul is a member of the Church which Jesus Christ established and gave authority to bind and loose and Teach His commands.

Yes, he was a member of the church. But that truth has no bearing of the quote you posted I mentioned, which had to do with first century & apostolic authorship, which is why second century works, like the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and most-likely the Didache are not inspired Scripture because they were written too late.

The age of miracles has never ceased.

If this is true, then what is stopping an alleged “miracle-performing Catholic saint” today from saying God revealed to him or her that another inspired writing is God-breathed Scripture, since that is one criteria even Catholics have also used to validate inspired NT writings?

Because the OT was discerned by the infallible Catholic Church. Because it [NT] was written by the infallible Catholic Church based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If this is true, then why does it contain books in the OT that contain errors & contradictions with previous & later inspired Scripture, including contradicting itself? And if it “discerned” the OT, how did a believing Jew know 50 years before Christ what was inspired Scripture, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was, and they would not have accepted the same books “defined” at Trent?

At least he got that right. And we know that he got it right because he is merely copying a fact which was revealed by the Catholic Church.

Once again, a baseless assumption which has no validity outside of your subjective accusation, which if you read it, you would not come to that conclusion.

Accuse you of not being Christ and not being the authority which Jesus Christ put on this earth? Is that what you’re upset about? You want to be our pope?

Since you obviously cannot have a civil discussion here without insulting people for no other reason than they disagree with you, I will not be responding to your comments, since you seem unable to maintain a civil discussion by invoking ad hominems. I am done with you. Good bye! Grace to you.

 

[SeraficLeo]

the “woman” in Revelation 12:1 is ISRAEL

Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

So we’ll just ignore Saint Paul’s interpretation of Sarah as a figure for the Church, the woman, the bride of Christ? You THINK you are “letting scripture interpret scripture” but in fact it is still just your own, private, limited and highly selective version of it.

 

[SeraficLeo]

But, to be fair, we have both seen photos & videos of people kneeling, prostrating themselves involving laying on their stomachs, & praying before “graven images.”

Assuming those are Catholic or Orthodox Christians, do you seriously believe a single one of those worshippers would point to a single one of those objects, or even all of them together, and say as apostate Israel did to the golden calf in the wilderness, “This is my/our God! This is the God of Christians!” I mean it’s completely ridiculous to imagine such a thing ever actually happening because it’s not what they believe and we all know it.

To claim the contrary is simply slanderous and grossly unreasonable. No Catholic ever thought such a thing, which is why veneration of relics and holy art is perfectly innocent for us. We’re Christians, we do not adore graven idols. If anything, our temptations to idolatry tend to be more directly around things like money, pleasure, power, etc. Possibly the State (political power) or something like this. But no Christian ever thought a statue could possibly be the living God.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Says you.

No, says Paul. Again, look how Paul breaks down the Commandments individually:

“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:9)

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.” So, Moses is safe on his “seat.” BTW, when Jesus said this (“they have positioned themselves on the seat of Moses”) He was speaking about the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2). And it was the Pharisaic OT canon that Jesus affirmed (Luke 16:14,29), which Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers said is the same as Protestant OTs today. Food for thought.

And Jesus boiled 10 commandments down to 2.

Jesus summarized the 10 Commandments, which is not the same things as “changing them.” He quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 & Leviticus 19:18, which summarized the 10 Commandments, which were about how we should worship God AND how we should relate to our “neighbor” (ie: other people).

Again: apostles == Church. Later church == Church.

This is where Catholics & non-Catholics have a different understanding of “early” church. By “early” Catholics include the ante-Nicene & post-Nicene Fathers, while non-Catholics consider “early” church, in terms of the formation of the NT, to refer to the apostolic Fathers in the first century. The reason being, when you look at the Biblical “lists” of these “later” ante-Nicene & post-Nicene Fathers, they don’t have the same “lists.” Even canonized Catholic saints in the West, like the second century church father Irenaeus included books in his “canon” that are not found in the Catholic OT, & others in the East AND West - as late as the fourth century - had canon “lists” closer to that of Protestants. Even the fourth & fifth century church councils did not have the same “lists” as later Catholic OTs. These reasons are why non-Catholics look further back to the first century “early” church fathers, particularly the NT to discover what the NT writers affirmed about the OT canon.

[cont]

 

[goout]

[cont]

Gorgias:

If you’re gonna throw out Trent because of its timing, you must throw out all Protestant doctrine for the same reason.

Who said Protestants agree with “all Protestant doctrines”? All Protestantism is based on is the five solas, which “true” Protestants believe in, because they are all supported by inspired Scripture. Anything else, including differences between Protestants, are the result of not adhering to these five solas, including some of the Reformers’ views themselves, which is why Protestantism is based on SCRIPTURE, not the Reformers themselves.

Wait what? Your faith is not based on Jesus Christ? I thought protestants are Christians…

 

[goout]

goout:

Wait what? Your faith is not based on Jesus Christ? I thought protestants are Christians…

Jesus Christ based on the Scriptures, which is the only Jesus Who exists. And it is from the Scriptures where Protestants derive their theology from. You didn’t read everything I wrote.

Yea I did.
You said

Protestantism is based on SCRIPTURE, not the Reformers themselves.

If your faith is really in Christ, then you are faced with a serious disconnect in your thinking.
When Christ lived, died, and rose, there was no written Gospel, and there was no written Gospel for decades.

And so by your measure, your faith is in the empty traditions of men and separated from Christ.
Christ is not a book, Christ is a person living among persons, and the scriptures come from that community.

And so when you say you are going back to restore pure Christianity, you are not really, you are simply going back to a convenient point in time while ignoring the Incarnate Christ, the Son of God.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

And so by your measure , your faith is in the empty traditions of men and separated from Christ.
Christ is not a book, Christ is a person living among persons.

The context of my reply was in response to the specific question to the poster who asked why Protestants don’t agree with all Protestant doctrines. The context was not addressing “Who” Protestants worship, Who is Christ alone. Your comment & question took my specific response to that specific question out of its context. So, to answer yours: Protestants worship Christ alone, based on the Scriptures that command us to, which were written in the first century by the apostles & their close contemporaries. These same inspired Scriptures is what Protestants & the Reformers based their faith on the five solas from also.

So, while Christ is “not a book,” the Holy Spirit did “breathe” a book:

“All Scripture is inspired (God-breathed)” (2 Timothy 3:16). So, while the NT was not written during the time of Christ, we were not around in the first century either. That is why a Protestant’s faith comes from Scripture, since Jesus & the apostles are no longer physically roaming the earth. And it is from the Scriptures that we are to compare doctrine TO (Acts 17:10-11), and are for “reproof, correction, & training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16), which Paul told Timothy “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (v.15)

The “empty traditions of men” Jesus was condemning the Jewish leaders of committing were those that “exceeded” the OT Scriptures (see Matthew 15:1-9), not those based on them.

 

[goout]

Did the Holy Spirit also breathe the 5 solas?
Where are they in scripture, specifically? It ought to say such in scripture according to your measuring stick.
Or were they deduced and formulated by human beings? (yes they were)

So much of protestantism is bibliolatry. It places scripture before God when God alone is God. Scripture reveals God, not the other way around. Revelation points to God.
And we know God through Christ. And Christ is God incarnate. And when Christ lived, died, and rose, there were no written scriptures (or no NT to be more accurate).

And you are still faced with a serious problem: you believe in a book whose substance is Christ himself, and was written by inspired human beings.
Before Scripture, there was (and still is) Christ and the Church.

If you want restorationism, please do fully restore.

 

[goout]

You spend a lot of time here sort of polemicizing.
There is one simple question you might want to answer if you are truly seeking:

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?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Did the Holy Spirit also breathe the 5 solas?

Again, He breathed Scripture, which the five solas are based on.

you believe in a book whose substance is Christ himself, and was written by inspired human beings .

No, SCRIPTURE is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), not the authors who wrote it.

Before Scripture, there was Christ and the Church.

The OLD Testament was written before Christ & the Church, while the NEW Testament was written by the apostles & their close contemporaries in the first century during the apostolic age. And what they wrote down is what we base our faith on about Christ:

" these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)

So, although the NT wasn’t completed until the end of the first century - decades after the time of Christ - what the NT wrote about believing in Christ alone for our salvation was written down.

the 5 solas?
Where are they in scripture, specifically?

The OP is about the canon of Scripture, not the five solas. So, if you really want to know, and since there are a LOT of verses that teach all five on them, I will direct you there:

What are the five solas?

BTW, at a meeting of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999, Catholics & Lutherans affirmed sola gratia, which was the Ecumenical Council of Trent pronounced anathema on, because they only affirmed “prima gratia,” not sola gratia. Something to chew on.

What was Christianity before the first Pauline letter was written?

What was Christianity in this time?

John 20:31 (see above)

 

[goout]

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

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]

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.

Your position is wildly inconsistent.

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]

John 20:31 does not help your case by the way.
It points to Scripture as part of revelation. Ok…