Disputations on the Holy Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Apologist78
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
annem said:
Hi, well, it seems we disagree. Tradition is the only answer to all the problems regarding early CHristianity.
Click to expand...
And what IS Tradition? Where is Tradition? What is in Tradition that is not in the Bible?
“If people don’t respect the bible” you say, then why respect the church? Because the church and tradition were there three hundred years before the bible.
Click to expand...
Straw man- as would say the protestant. When you say the Church was around before the Bible, what you MEAN is that the Church was around BEFORE the NT. The OT was around. seconldy, to say the Church predates the NT is true in the sense that the Church was born before a word was penned of the NT. However by 110 at the latest the entire NT was complete and was in existence. Paul’s letters were circulating and held to be Scripture as early as 50AD.

Hence you are correct that the Church predates the NT, but you are off by about 200 years. The close of the apostolic age was around 100AD with the death of the apostle John.
The bible was only formed by the church and approved by the church. If the church is on shaky ground of any kind, then the bible is on even shakier ground.
Click to expand...
Since the Bible recieves its authority from God, it relies on the Church in no way.

Seconldy for 1500 years the Church did quite well without any infallible proclamation regarding the OT- yet right up until the pronouncement the Church NEVER reached a consensus regarding the status of the Deutero-Canonicals. The Jews also did quite well without an infallible proclamation regarding what Scripture is, yet they knew what Scripture was becasue Jesus bound them to it.

You cannot argue for infalliblity based on necessity. It does not work. The protestant will sucessfully demonstrate why it is NOT necessary EVERYTIME.

Once again you have falied to show why the Church is reliable. In other words you attack Sola Scriptura by saying “Well you can’t know what is in Scripture without the Church telling you.” And I am asking “How do you know the Church can show you what is in Scripture? How do you know you can trust the Church?” Such a statement only pushes the question back.
The problems with only the bible as authority are endless. Take the Holy Spirit. What real evidence is there of the Holy Spirit if only going by the bible?
Click to expand...
.

And I could say the same thing about going by the Church too. Whatever you can argue against Sola Scriptura I can turn right back and argue the same against the Church.
If you study 1 Clement and the letter of Ignatius you find the church operating long before the books of the bible were compiled and canonized.
Click to expand...
Clement was writting around 90AD which by that time the entire NT was penned and completed- 110AD at the latest. So to say that there was no Bible is simply false.
What part of this do you disagree with?
Click to expand...
It is not that I disagree. I am a practicing Catholic and I believe everything I am “arguing against” right now- becasue I am merely playing devils advocate.

I am not aware of reading any good replies to these issues the protestants raise.
 
. However by 110 at the latest the entire NT was complete and was in existence. Paul’s letters were circulating and held to be Scripture as early as 50AD.
Click to expand...
It is possible that the New Testament documents were complete by 110–at least some scholars think so. However, which documents? Tell me why you think the Gospel of Thomas shouldn’t be part of the canon? THe Jesus Seminar scholars have “canonized” the Gospel of Thomas and currently argue that it is the equal to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Prove to me it isn’t part of scripture. Why not include it? What about all those other Gnostic 'gospels"? By what right to you reject them?
Seconldy for 1500 years the Church did quite well without any infallible proclamation regarding the OT- yet right up until the pronouncement the Church NEVER reached a consensus regarding the status of the Deutero-Canonicals. The Jews also did quite well without an infallible proclamation regarding what Scripture is, yet they knew what Scripture was becasue Jesus bound them to it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don’t agree. First, nobody could call the unending arguments and heresies of the first four centuries about the Holy Spirit and Jesus doing “quite well”. It was quite patently doing very poorly about the very bible you claim has all authority. In the end. only the Church and the Pope which ended the arguemtn. Otherwise, it would still be going on.

I cannot argue the rest without making this a book. But you are wrong about when the church enclosed the canon, wrong about the Dueterocanonicals, and wrong about the Jewish canon as well.

I love this topic!! But please, I doubt anybody will read it if we make the replies too long. Can you make each charge one snappy question?

God bless, and I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am,’

Annem
 
annem said:
It is possible that the New Testament documents were complete by 110–at least some scholars think so. However, which documents? Tell me why you think the Gospel of Thomas shouldn’t be part of the canon? THe Jesus Seminar scholars have “canonized” the Gospel of Thomas and currently argue that it is the equal to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Prove to me it isn’t part of scripture. Why not include it? What about all those other Gnostic 'gospels"? By what right to you reject them?
Click to expand...
Alright: Simple question: And how do you know you can trust the Church to define and delimit the Canon?
Sorry, but I don’t agree. First, nobody could call the unending arguments and heresies of the first four centuries about the Holy Spirit and Jesus doing “quite well”. It was quite patently doing very poorly about the very bible you claim has all authority. In the end. only the Church and the Pope which ended the arguemtn. Otherwise, it would still be going on.
Click to expand...
The protestant would say you are misunderstanding Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is NOT a denial of the authority of the Church, but rather INISISTS that the Church SUBMITS to Scripture- Scripture is a higher norm then the Church. The RCC position AT BEST places the Church and Tradition on an equal plain as Scripture.

The protestant would also say that the “Romanist” system has not produced any more unity then the protestant system. They would point to the Liberal nuns and priests, and laity etc. who pretty much ingore everything the Church teaches except the Pastoral/Social Justice teachings.
I cannot argue the rest without making this a book. But you are wrong about when the church enclosed the canon, wrong about the Dueterocanonicals, and wrong about the Jewish canon as well.
Click to expand...
That is not an argument. Write a book. Who cares? Make an argument. You can’t just tell me I am wrong and then leave it at that- such says nothing at all!

Such a statement plays right into the Stero-type that Catholics can’t deal with any meaningful protestant arguments. They only protestants Catholics can deal with are the Jack Chick types.
I love this topic!! But please, I doubt anybody will read it if we make the replies too long. Can you make each charge one snappy question?
Click to expand...
Well, if others here aren’t interested in reading and academic debate that is not my problem. I am here to learn, I am not here for snappy comebacks and cute apologetics tricks.
 
Apologist78 said:
Well, if others here aren’t interested in reading and academic debate that is not my problem. I am here to learn, I am not here for snappy comebacks and cute apologetics tricks.
Click to expand...
**So…what exactly are you here to learn about?? :confused: **
 
I have not read all contributions to this debate.

However the history of the Canon is interesting.

Why are some books included and others are not?

At one time the *Letters of Clement, the Letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas *and the Didache were considered canonical by some. However in the final Canon they were excluded.

Essentially the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided which books are in the Bible and which are not.
 
Apologist78 said:
Neuman though a difficult read, I did study his theory of development- and his seven tests for an authentic development or a corruption.
Click to expand...

If that’s John Henry Newman you mean, speling hiz naim korektli duz hellp 😃​

Otherwise it can be difficult to know who is meant 🙂 It might have helped if he & [St. John Neumann (http://www.stjohnneumann.org/) had not lived at about the same time; especially as Newman is himself Venerable. OTOH, Newman is about as English as could be imagined.

It’s interesting he’s been mentioned, because his own “awakening to religion”, in 1815, was to Evangelicalism; & one of the influences on him, whom he mentions a number of times, was Thomas Scott; who was a Calvinist.

But neither the 1845 or the 1878 edition of the “Essay on Development”, & still less Newman’s Catholic writings on the subject of development, have anything to say about Calvinist knowledge of Catholic doctrine (or lack of it) - the background to the “Essay” is not Calvinism, but his attempt to steer a middle course between Calvinism & Catholicism: a middle course which he thought he found in the Church of England
 
NoelFitz said:
I have not read all contributions to this debate.

However the history of the Canon is interesting.

Why are some books included and others are not?

At one time the *Letters of Clement, the Letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas *and the Didache were considered canonical by some. However in the final Canon they were excluded.

Essentially the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided which books are in the Bible and which are not.
Click to expand...
The books which are inspired claims the protestant speak for themselves. Hence the books you mention were excluded becasue it was self evident they were not inspired. It is not the Church that determines Canon, but the Canon itself which determines Canon. The Church admits the protestant recognizes Canon and submits.

Indeed the Church guided by the Holy Spirit recognizes the Canon- however the protestant would claim that this is not infallibly.

Seconldy- the above argument made by the protestants is I think weak- as I am sure you agree. (Even the great William Whitaker really does not answer the argument directly and very well. He basically argues that the testimony of the Church is one of several ways to know the Canon, hence the argument is somewhat diluted.) However the more powerful argument they fall back on is the “Well the Jews knew what Scripture was and they did not need any guy in Rome claiming infalliblity for himself to tell them what it was- hence it is the same for the Christian Church.” The other more powerful argument they use, and I have not seen answered- is this: “According to Catholics Scripture cannot serve as a rule until it is established as such,and also until the Church knows the extent of Scripture. For Catholics the Church tells us the extent of Scripture and extablishes its authority based on its testimony. How do you know you can trust the Church?”
 
Alright: Simple question: And how do you know you can trust the Church to define and delimit the Canon?
Click to expand...
Because Jesus Christ gave us a church, led by Peter, which was in place and functioning long before the books of the bible were even written. The bible is only one of the pillars of the church Jesus left behind.

That church structure is evident immediately—the apostles promptly found a replacement for Judas. And Paul, after all, wrote about the Bishop Crispus soon afterwards. Then there was a church council before all the books of the bible were written. And let’s not forget that Paul kept writing about “tradition” which had been “passed on”. What tradition could that be but the truths of Christianity which were to be held sacred by the church itself, a sacred deposit of faith.

This is a topic that really bothers me, because I read so many books about early Christianity. And although there are great herds of atheist scholars, and a valiant group of Protestant scholars trying to stem the tide, Catholic scholars are practically nonexistent. And yet it is only Catholic scholars who have the answers that can really defend Christianity.

Bart Erhman had a recent bestseller that convinced millions that the bible can’t be trusted. Central to his thesis in “Misquoting Jesus” is that the bible is a mess textually. No one can really know what Jesus said or the early Christians believed because the text is so altered. Protestants have squirmed and danced, trying to get around the problems Ehrman noted. I have read their responses to Erhman, and found them unconvincing.

What was never explored by Erhman or any of the Protestant scholars was the role of the church in the bible, protecting the bible, deciding what was canon—anything that would be brought up by a Catholic. (Aside note: The only “Catholic” mention Erhman made was of supposed devious monks altering texts later on. I do get so sick and tired of hearing about these so-called, mythical devious monks.)

Another bestseller would be Elaine Pagels, who has argued that the Gnostics were present since the beginning of Christianity. And, of course, since she much, much prefers the Gnostics to those right and wrong proclaiming Christians, she has managed to convince millions to give up Christianity. Hey, if the traditional Christians were only one of many early types of Christianity, why would anyone prefer them to the much looser Gnostics?

And here is another recent biblical scholar attacking early Christianity (this one not on the bestseller lists but well known to scholars): April DeConick, who wrote a book saying that John’s gospel was written in response to Gnostics and the Gospel of Thomas. She also claims that Jesus’ divinity is not clear in any of the synoptic gospels. .

If the Protestants were the only group to respond to scholars like these—and, alas, they pretty much are—then Christianity would really be in trouble, because, in essence, all these are questions about the credibility of the bible. To which the Protestants can only reply feebly.

But we, as Catholics, have an ironclad response to these challenges. The church was already there. Already protecting the faith. Already in place with bishops and priests. It already had what Paul calls “tradition”.

God bless, Annem
 
At one time the Letters of Clement, the Letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were considered canonical by some. However in the final Canon they were excluded.
Click to expand...
Good point. And here is another reason the whole biblical scholarship arguments have been so wildly skewed for the las t century: these books are rarely explored, since only Protestant scholars reply to the atheists, and Protestant scholars cannot make proper use of these materials. How can they take a stand that 1 Clement clearly shows the early pope using his authority? The letters of Ignatius practically SCREAM in favor of the authority of the bishops and Rome in particular? Do you know how many times I have ever heard a Protestant scholar take that position? Never, of course.

The entire field of biblical scholarship is in desperate need for the Catholic response to these questions.

God bless, Annem
 
Apologist 78
Straw man- as would say the protestant. When you say the Church was around before the Bible, what you MEAN is that the Church was around BEFORE the NT. The OT was around. seconldy, to say the Church predates the NT is true in the sense that the Church was born before a word was penned of the NT. However by 110 at the latest the entire NT was complete and was in existence. Paul’s letters were circulating and held to be Scripture as early as 50AD…
Click to expand...
The atheist would ask the Protestant why he thinks the books of the canon became part of the canon when, as Pagels, Erhman, DeConick, the Jesus Seminar, etc., all insist, there were great numbers of Gnostics and other early forms of Christianity, also writing books, also claiming them inspired, and what’s more, these other forms were so much more fun?

In fact, the Protestant has no real response to this.

The Catholic does. The Catholic church was in place right from the start. The truths of tradition, which would become the bible, were already in place and being given to pagans as fast as Paul and the other missionaries could talk.

God bless, Annem
 
That church structure is evident immediately—the apostles promptly found a replacement for Judas. And Paul, after all, wrote about the Bishop Crispus soon afterwards. Then there was a church council before all the books of the bible were written. And let’s not forget that Paul kept writing about “tradition” which had been “passed on”. What tradition could that be but the truths of Christianity which were to be held sacred by the church itself, a sacred deposit of faith.
Click to expand...
Right. So as George Salmon would say you are in effect proving the Church using Scripture, then proving Scripture using the Church.
This is a topic that really bothers me, because I read so many books about early Christianity. And although there are great herds of atheist scholars, and a valiant group of Protestant scholars trying to stem the tide, Catholic scholars are practically nonexistent. And yet it is only Catholic scholars who have the answers that can really defend Christianity.
Click to expand...
Bart Erhman had a recent bestseller that convinced millions that the bible can’t be trusted. Central to his thesis in “Misquoting Jesus” is that the bible is a mess textually. No one can really know what Jesus said or the early Christians believed because the text is so altered. Protestants have squirmed and danced, trying to get around the problems Ehrman noted. I have read their responses to Erhman, and found them unconvincing.
Click to expand...
What was never explored by Erhman or any of the Protestant scholars was the role of the church in the bible, protecting the bible, deciding what was canon—anything that would be brought up by a Catholic. (Aside note: The only “Catholic” mention Erhman made was of supposed devious monks altering texts later on. I do get so sick and tired of hearing about these so-called, mythical devious monks.)
Click to expand...
Another bestseller would be Elaine Pagels, who has argued that the Gnostics were present since the beginning of Christianity. And, of course, since she much, much prefers the Gnostics to those right and wrong proclaiming Christians, she has managed to convince millions to give up Christianity. Hey, if the traditional Christians were only one of many early types of Christianity, why would anyone prefer them to the much looser Gnostics?
Click to expand...
And here is another recent biblical scholar attacking early Christianity (this one not on the bestseller lists but well known to scholars): April DeConick, who wrote a book saying that John’s gospel was written in response to Gnostics and the Gospel of Thomas. She also claims that Jesus’ divinity is not clear in any of the synoptic gospels. .
Click to expand...
If the Protestants were the only group to respond to scholars like these—and, alas, they pretty much are—then Christianity would really be in trouble, because, in essence, all these are questions about the credibility of the bible. To which the Protestants can only reply feebly.
Click to expand...
Since you have not given any of the protestant replies, how can I truly know if they are feeble or not?

The problem is that the Bible is a book of Faith primarily, not simply a history book, or even just a book. When you subject a book of Faith to Science, it does not always work well becasue of the simple fact that Science and the Bible answer two very different questions. Science by nature is NOT designed to handle matters of Faith.

Protestants AND Catholics understand the Scriptures to be inspired. In light of the Scriptures inspiration, it is taken to be inerrant. In other words inerrancy is not something proven by Science, it is something which flows from Scriptures inspiration.
But we, as Catholics, have an ironclad response to these challenges. The church was already there. Already protecting the faith. Already in place with bishops and priests. It already had what Paul calls “tradition”.
Click to expand...
And we know the Church preserved the Faith becasue? (In other words outside the Bible how do you know this?)

This Tradition Paul speaks about you bring up— does this Tradition contain the IC? The PV of Mary? Purgatory? Papal Infallibility? In other words we see what Paul did write in his letters, and none of that appears. Do you mean to say he was telling everyone about the pope, Mary, etc by word of mouth instead of letter?

A more plausiable explanation for this Tradition is simply Paul referring to what he had delieved already- namely the Gospel. In other words keep to what Paul had taught whether by Word or by Letter- and the Word refers to the Letter. “Romanists” argue the protestant try to allege that this “Oral Tradition” is somehow different from what Paul had written. Hence the burden of proof is on the “Romanist” to prove this. The burden of proof argues the protestant is on the Catholic to prove that Paul was teaching the people about Mary, the pope, Purgatory in his oral teaching rather then simply referring back to the very same message he delivered.

So tell me: Do you allege that the oral traidition was different from what Paul had written, or the same?
 
annem said:
Good point. And here is another reason the whole biblical scholarship arguments have been so wildly skewed for the las t century: these books are rarely explored, since only Protestant scholars reply to the atheists, and Protestant scholars cannot make proper use of these materials. How can they take a stand that 1 Clement clearly shows the early pope using his authority? The letters of Ignatius practically SCREAM in favor of the authority of the bishops and Rome in particular? Do you know how many times I have ever heard a Protestant scholar take that position? Never, of course.
Click to expand...
Of course- but protestant scholars are quite familiar with those writtings. Have you ever read their reflections on them?
The entire field of biblical scholarship is in desperate need for the Catholic response to these questions.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you there. Unfortunately Catholic Scholarship these days doesn’t seem very interested in defending the Faith. Catholics Scholarship seems more interested in making the Church more paliatable to the modern liberal secular culture.

God bless, Annem
 
Apologist 78
Since the Bible recieves its authority from God, it relies on the Church in no way.
Click to expand...
I, too, have heard Protestants claim this. Without wanting to say anything that would hurt anyone’s feelings, it’s just wrong.

Before the Catholic church, most scholars believe there wasn’t even a canon of Jewish scripture. Yes, there were lists, such as those by Josephus, but the lines were fuzzy, and no books were truly excluded. THe many groups of Jewish people had scrolls, lots of loose collections of scrolls, such as those found by the Dead Sea. Some groups accepted this scroll; some did not.

The idea of a closed canon did not even exist until the Catholic church.

Martin Hengel (one of the most important Protestant scholars) says that the four gospels were accepted right away, and were read aloud during early church services (Mass) just as the ancient Jews had read aloud at services from their sacred scrolls. And we have a form of proof of this since both 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius have citations from the gospels.

However, many of the books of what would become the New Testament would be a source of contention for the first three/four hundred years of the church. Revelation is one example.

In fact, it was the church, led by the pope, and after consultation with the bishops in councils, which decided the canon and formed the bible.

God bless, Annem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top