Counter arguments that Catholics didn't bring the world the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter souldiver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

souldiver

Guest
carm.org/did-roman-catholic-church-give-us-our-bible

I can’t explain them all, so please read for more info.

But one that strike me is that it says: Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is–in effect–to usurp the natural power and authority of God Himself that worked through the Apostles.

I always thought that the reason that the Catholic can recognize what’s the authentic Apostolic scripture is that it’s the same as the one they are teaching orally because there was a lot of texts presented as scripture to choose from and has to recognize which of them are authentic to be sure.

They sometimes mention that Catholics came in around 300 years later after Jesus, but I always thought that Catholics are the direct same time period continuation of Christianity that had not yet claim the name Catholic before.

How to defend the Catholics in this?
 
“There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they [the various books of the Bible] were authentic.” Then why, Mr. Slick, does your Protestant canon differ from the traditional canon of Scripture?

A good dose of the Church Fathers is the perfect remedy for these old errors.
 
This article cannot be backed up by one single historical fact. Mr. Slick does not explain, if the Catholic Church did not give us the bible, WHERE IN THE HECK DID IT COME FROM?
 
Alright, but calm yourself. If I were a Protestant, I would say, the Bible came directly from the Apostles. They seem to consider that the Christian church is different from the Catholic church which they teach that they came later around in 300AD.
 
There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic.
Click to expand...
Of course there was. First of all, there were other early writings that weren’t considered canonical - e.g. the Acts of Paul. Second, there was disagreement on certain books that are considered canonical - e.g. Revelation, and a few of the epistles. We have writings from the Church Fathers saying as much.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena
 
souldiver said:
Alright, but calm yourself. If I were a Protestant, I would say, the Bible came **directly from the Apostles. **They seem to consider that the Christian church is different from the Catholic church which they teach that they came later around in 300AD.
Click to expand...
1.) James was not an apostle.
2.) Jude was not an apostle.

3.)The term ‘Catholic’, used to refer to the Catholic Church, is documented as early as 107, in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch to the Catholic Christians of Smyrna.

It is often said that there are two groups who oppose the Church via such attacks: those who have animosity toward the Church and those who are ignorant…a third group would be a combination of the two…read the article again, and see where the author fits in the spectrum.
 
The OT did not come from either the Apostles or the Church because it was written before either existed. As someone else pointed out, some of the authors of the New Testament were not Apostles. Mark, Luke, James and Jude were not Apostles and the letter to the Hebrews was likely not written by an Apostles. The best we can say is that portions of the New Testament were written by Apostles under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And the Catholic Church did not “give” us the Bible. The Church is not the source of scripture. The Bible is not a gift from the Church but a gift from God. The Church herself admits that she has received the sacred texts and is its guardian and servant. ← These are the Church’s words, not mine.

Non-Catholics can say whatever they want about anything they want and it doesn’t change my life in the slightest. The attitude among Catholics however, that the Bible is somehow a gift to mankind from the Church does bother me. The best we can say is that the canon of Scripture comes from the Church. Even that would not be possible without God the Holy Spirit.

-Tim-
 
James and Jude were apostles.

I learned the names of the 12 apostles using the word baptism

Bartholomew
Andrew
Peter and philip
Thomas
(I) James and John, James, jude, Judas Iscariot
Simon
Matthew

And the Catholic church compiled the new testament canon at a council…in the 300s. The bible was the first item printed on the printing press when it was invented. Before that, it was hand copied page by page by monks.
 
jediliz said:
And the Catholic church compiled the new testament canon at a council…in the 300s. The bible was the first item printed on the printing press when it was invented. Before that, it was hand copied page by page by monks.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That is how the Catholic Church gave us the Bible…by deciding what Scripture was in the first place.
 
TimothyH said:
The OT did not come from either the Apostles or the Church because it was written before either existed. As someone else pointed out, some of the authors of the New Testament were not Apostles. Mark, Luke, James and Jude were not Apostles and the letter to the Hebrews was likely not written by an Apostles. The best we can say is that portions of the New Testament were written by Apostles under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And the Catholic Church did not “give” us the Bible. The Church is not the source of scripture. The Bible is not a gift from the Church but a gift from God. The Church herself admits that she has received the sacred texts and is its guardian and servant. ← These are the Church’s words, not mine.

Non-Catholics can say whatever they want about anything they want and it doesn’t change my life in the slightest. The attitude among Catholics however, that the Bible is somehow a gift to mankind from the Church does bother me. The best we can say is that the canon of Scripture comes from the Church. Even that would not be possible without God the Holy Spirit.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church was founded before the New Testament. Indeed, the Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
 
souldiver said:
carm.org/did-roman-catholic-church-give-us-our-bible

I can’t explain them all, so please read for more info.

But one that strike me is that it says: Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is–in effect–to usurp the natural power and authority of God Himself that worked through the Apostles.

I always thought that the reason that the Catholic can recognize what’s the authentic Apostolic scripture is that it’s the same as the one they are teaching orally because there was a lot of texts presented as scripture to choose from and has to recognize which of them are authentic to be sure.

They sometimes mention that Catholics came in around 300 years later after Jesus, but I always thought that Catholics are the direct same time period continuation of Christianity that had not yet claim the name Catholic before.

How to defend the Catholics in this?
Click to expand...
When some Catholics in the 16th century, decided to separate themselves from their church, and became protesters, they took the catholic bible with them. So when anyone who is not Catholic uses the bible today, they are using their heritage from the catholic faith of which their ancestors were once a part.

A good reference to show how this unfolded is:

Bible History by Henry G Graham Where we got the Bible, available in a book, and also on line:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

98.139.21.31/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=Henry+Graham+and+where+we+got+the+bible&type=iplay_en&fr=ober&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Henry+Graham+and+where+we+got+the+bible&d=4663511137649586&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=D0ezmoMnETtIuE6EXKZ2XqYiqxUaXEdE&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=_8amAg.GB4WyPeXUZRjU_A–
 
Church fathers. Easy enough to demonstrate from them that the first Christians were Catholic doctrinally. 300AD isn’t when the Church was founded-that’s when it was legalized in the Roman Empire. Lots of a-c like to point to that as the founding of the Catholic church, which is why the Church Fathers and their writings are important-they demonstrate the presence of the uniquely Catholic doctrines and the absence of uniquely Protestant doctrines, from the beginning.
 
jediliz said:
James and Jude were apostles.

I learned the names of the 12 apostles using the word baptism

Bartholomew
Andrew
Peter and philip
Thomas
(I) James and John, James, jude, Judas Iscariot
Simon
Matthew

And the Catholic church compiled the new testament canon at a council…in the 300s. The bible was the first item printed on the printing press when it was invented. Before that, it was hand copied page by page by monks.
Click to expand...
James and Jude were the names of two of the Apostles but there are many Judes and James’ in the Bible. It is unclear whether the authors of the Epistles which bear their names were the Apostles of the same name. Most historians and biblical scholars don’t think so.

Compiling the Canon of Scripture is not the same as “giving the world the Bible.” The Church certainly had a hand in preserving it.

Keep in mind that most of the Bible is the Old Testament and parts of that preexisted the Church by 1500 years.

-Tim-
 
In the late 300’s, there was some confusion over what books could be read in the Mass and what could not. To have uniformity in the Mass throughout the whole Church, Catholic bishops gathered in Carthage to determine what books could be read. They argued and discussed, and then under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave the list of what books were allowed to be read at Mass. They then sent this list to the Pope (Boniface) who confirmed it.

The list contains the 46 books now known as the Old Testament, and the 27 books of the New Testament. These 73 books began to be collected together and referred to simply as “the books”, or bible in Latin. This became what we know as the Bible.

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.
 
The clergy at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo set the criteria to determine which books were inspired and which were not. Many Protestants are unaware of the other writings - and for good reason!

Many Christians revered the writings of Saint Ignatius of Antioch from the first century, and still do, but they did not meet the criteria.

This reflects one of the many attempts to downplay the Church.

Note that Martin Luther, one of the founders of Protestantism, removed seven books from his Lutgeran bible (1,200 years after the fact) and was also suspicious of Hebrews, James, and Revelations. Which “authority” over canon would you rather recognize?
 
jediliz said:
James and Jude were apostles.

I learned the names of the 12 apostles using the word baptism

Bartholomew
Andrew
Peter and philip
Thomas
(I) James and John, James, jude, Judas Iscariot
Simon
Matthew

And the Catholic church compiled the new testament canon at a council…in the 300s. The bible was the first item printed on the printing press when it was invented. Before that, it was hand copied page by page by monks.
Click to expand...
At the risk of thread drift, Jude was listed as an apostle in Luke, but not in Matthew or Mark, which list Thaddeus instead. John also mentions Jude, but does not actually list out the twelve apostles.
 
TMC said:
At the risk of thread drift, Jude was listed as an apostle in Luke, but not in Matthew or Mark, which list Thaddeus instead. John also mentions Jude, but does not actually list out the twelve apostles.
Click to expand...
Jude the Apostle in Luke is the same person as Thaddeus the Apostle elsewhere in the Bible. St Jude Thaddeus is one person. He was an Apostle and cousin of Jesus.

Whether the authors Jude and James were also the Apostles Jude Thaddeus and James however, is highly questionable.

-Tim-
 
souldiver said:
They sometimes mention that Catholics came in around 300 years later after Jesus, but I always thought that Catholics are the direct same time period continuation of Christianity that had not yet claim the name Catholic before.

How to defend the Catholics in this?
Click to expand...
List of Popes from Peter to present.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Apostolic Succession
defendingthebride.com/ch/hand.html

Papacy
Caesarea Philippi and the Rock of Peter
Pictures of Caesarea Philippi and an explanation of the theological significance of the huge rock there that Christ compared to Peter, the real rock.
souldiver said:
But one that strike me is that it says: Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is–in effect–to usurp the natural power and authority of God Himself that worked through the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Since we truly recognize all of the New Testament writers as Catholic the New Testament did come from the Church, obviously with God’s help. Jesus is both Divine and Human. And so, the Church, the body of Christ, also has elements that are both human and divine. Since Protestants falsely divide God and His grace from the natural they do not see this as we do.

Another problem with the Protestant reasoning above is that the Apostles did not leave us a list of which books that were inspired. There is no complete and accurate list of which books belonging in the New Testament before AD 367. So while, yes, “New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit” the questioned remained as to which books belong in the category of “New Testament documents.” Only the Holy Spirit working through the divinely instituted Church, the Catholic Church, can give us an infallible answer to this question. How do we know for certain which books Paul wrote ?, for example.

.
 
Luke, who wrote a good part of the New Testament, wasn’t an apostle. St. Paul, who wrote A lot of what Luke didn’t write, wasn’t one of the 12 apostles. The canon of Scripture didn’t fall out of the sky. It was determined at Church (Catholic Church) councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No matter what others say to muddy the waters, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top