How Many Protestants Wrote NT Scripture?

[MDK]

God established His Church and ascended to Heaven with no New Testament Scripture in existence. It would be another 15 to 20 years before any New Covenant Scripture at all was written, and 70 years after Christ ascended before the final NT Scripture was completed, then 350 years after the ascension before the inspired Scriptures were identified and separated from the false writings in existence and assembled into the authentic Bible.

By the time Jesus ascended, He had started His Church built on His assigned Rock (Peter), and in changing Simon’s name to Rock denoted Rock’s new duty as Rock of Christ’s Church on Earth. We note that there is no one in prior history who had been named “Rock” before Christ did this to Simon. Christ went on to tell His Apostles that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church with Peter as rock (Prime Minister), because the King would protect His Prime Minister from errors in regard to the Church’s teachings. So Christ established Church authority (Magisterium) gave them the deposit of faith and sent His Holy Spirit to guide these Apostolic men into all truth. Christ’s Church had only God-given Authority and Oral Tradition. Beginning at Pentecost (with no Protestants in the upper room on Pentecost), the Church began proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, with Peter’s preaching converting 3,000 to Christ’s Church that day. God’s Church was teaching His Word, which through Apostolic Succession and the protection of the Holy Spirit the faith of the Apostles is still taught today in God’s one Church. These authentic oral teachings were and still are Catholic, as the men teaching them were and still are Catholic. After some 15 to 20 years of teaching Catholicism orally, some of these men decided to start writing some of it down. The written teachings of Catholicism became the New Testament. The NT was written by Catholic men who believed Catholicism and wrote down Catholicism into Scripture. They did not write all of the Oral Tradition into Scripture, and Scripture itself tells us this. There was not one Protestant among the writers of NT Scripture. The New Testament is Catholicism, and the Bible itself is a Catholic book from beginning to end. The roots of God’s New Covenant Church are found in the OT. The New Covenant Church authored the NT. The New Covenant Church pulled the inspired texts together into the Bible. There was not one Protestant present to help assemble the Scriptures into the Bible at the end of the fourth century, as God’s New Covenant Church did with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

1500 years after Christ ascended, and the first printed Catholic Bibles emerged from the printing presses, there arose men who protested God’s faith which had been taught for 1500 years. Since the Bible taught Catholicism and not what they preferred, they declared themselves as interpreters of Scripture, so they could change the meanings from Catholicism to what they preferred. The protesters of God’s Church have been doing this now for 500 years, manipulating the interpretations of the Bible that is Catholicism, so they can have their own version of Christ and Christianity as they prefer. God’s Church made it through the Protestant revolt unscathed in teachings and still teaches the same faith today as the Apostles taught starting on Pentecost (where no Protestant was present).

God established the Magisterium and Oral Tradition protected by the Holy Spirit in His Catholic Church. The Catholic Church using the authority and oral Tradition created the NT Scriptures. The Catholic Church using the authority and protection of God assembled the inspired texts into the authentic Bible (73 books). There was not one Protestant who helped during this entire process. Protestantism came much later and disdaining God’s Church chose to distort His teachings to have Christianity as they preferred, although very inauthentic and getting worse with each error added to it. It’s really sad, but true.

So, the answer to the question of how many Protestants wrote NT Scripture is NONE. No Protestant man authored any of the authentic New Testament. It wasn’t until 1500 years after Christ ascended that these men protested 1500 years of Apostolic faith, and continue this man made tradition protesting Apostolic faith to this day routinely telling the author of the New Testament (Catholic Church together with the Holy Spirit) that the Author doesn’t know how to interpret these same Scriptures, and this team is therefore wrong. Is this humility before the Lord, or personal pride? Is this justice to God? Is authentic Christianity telling the Holy Spirit that He is wrong? Is it authentic Christianity to disbelieve Jesus who said that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church built on Rock which began as He hung on the holy cross? Is it authentic Christianity to teach conflicting ideas of Jesus? Is it justice to Christ that we go our separate ways instead of being in His one Church with one set of Apostolic Doctrines and His Seven Sacraments as He asked that we all be one as He and the Father are One?

To help in understanding the intent and purpose, this criticism is not directed at current day Protestant individuals, but at Protestantism which divides God’s Church, in opposition to Christ asking that we all be one. Protestantism only exists because of men’s pride, and is not from the will of God. It is an appeal to think about what is going on, rather than just accept 500 years of man made “churches” which are not authentic and which all teach error in faith and morals to one degree or another. God created His one Catholic Church for unity of His family, and it has never once taught error in faith and morals for 2000 years, and if we believe Christ (as I do), it never will teach error. So, if you love God, please come to the only place teaching the fullness of revealed truth of Christ, His Catholic Church.

 

[mathematician]

How mant Catholics wrote NT scripture?

If you told St Paul that he was a Catholic he would, let us say, ask what the h*ll you were talking about. He had never even heard the term.

If, before climbing into your time machine to transport yourself back to the twenty first century, you made a stab at explaining what you meant, he would just have told you you were talking nonsense, and that he was a Jew.

I know that you can expect anachronisms by the handful when catholics are spouting propaganda, but there are limits.

 

[Eucharisted]

How mant Catholics wrote NT scripture?

If you told St Paul that he was a Catholic he would, let us say, ask what the h*ll you were talking about. He had never even heard the term.

If, before climbing into your time machine to transport yourself back to the twenty first century, you made a stab at explaining what you meant, he would just have told you you were talking nonsense, and that he was a Jew.

I know that you can expect anachronisms in abundance when catholics are spouting propaganda, but there are limits.

Imagine if you told him he was canonized

 

[Bill_Pick]

How mant Catholics wrote NT scripture?

If you told St Paul that he was a Catholic he would, let us say, ask what the h*ll you were talking about. He had never even heard the term.

If, before climbing into your time machine to transport yourself back to the twenty first century, you made a stab at explaining what you meant, he would just have told you you were talking nonsense, and that he was a Jew.

I know that you can expect anachronisms by the handful when catholics are spouting propaganda, but there are limits.

How many Protestant

 

[chaunceygardner]

I am wondering why you are asking this question, since you seem to “know” the answer?

Your polemic seems solely aimed at stirring up senseless arguing over ground that has been covered time and again in these forums and many other places. What do you hope to accomplish?

It must be embarassing to many other Catholics to read stuff like this, which does nothing to further any kind of Christian dialogue. If you hope to bring others into the faith by presenting this as an example of a true Catholic perspective, you are certainly having the exact opposite effect.

 

[GeorgeSword]

How mant Catholics wrote NT scripture?

If you told St Paul that he was a Catholic he would, let us say, ask what the h*ll you were talking about. He had never even heard the term.

If, before climbing into your time machine to transport yourself back to the twenty first century, you made a stab at explaining what you meant, he would just have told you you were talking nonsense, and that he was a Jew.

I know that you can expect anachronisms by the handful when catholics are spouting propaganda, but there are limits.

Of course he would have said that. There was no division then, and no need for a name other than ‘Christian’, and that term being reserved for those people who followed the Messiah, since all orthodox believers belonged to a single Church. They might have still been Jewish due to the fact that Christianity is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant if you wish to speak broadly, but in time this faded away and as more schism appeared they came to be known as ‘Catholic’, or universal.

 

[MDK]

I am wondering why you are asking this question, since you seem to “know” the answer?

Your polemic seems solely aimed at stirring up senseless arguing over ground that has been covered time and again in these forums and many other places. What do you hope to accomplish?

It must be embarassing to many other Catholics to read stuff like this, which does nothing to further any kind of Christian dialogue. If you hope to bring others into the faith by presenting this as an example of a true Catholic perspective, you are certainly having the exact opposite effect.

Thanks for your comments. If you thought about it a little, you could likely and hopefully determine the purpose. Please do take a legitimate shot at understanding, or do you prefer to just sit back and throw rocks at what is a truthful posting about a serious issue. I’ll give you hints. It’s not as you professed senselessness, nor can it be brushed off falsely as simply a polemic as you meant (unless you want to admit that God’s truth is controversial to you as a Christian), but your errors are possibly due to a personal limitation or hopefully temporary inability to see further than that into what is decent and right. I believe God created you for more than what you’re showing. If you still honestly can’t figure it out, then I’ll tell you. But, I’d really appreciate you using reason and intellect for something constructive instead of for attempted derision.

What is likely really embarrassing for those who put a premium on personal pride, is repeatedly being told and explained the truth, but not being able to recognize and/or accept it. But, then again, it’s pride and arrogance that often keep people from seeing and adopting the simple truth. We must be humble to come to the Lord as he taught, and not arrogant in doing it as one prefers to tell God how much truth of God’s one is willing to believe.

 

[MDK]

How many Catholics wrote NT scripture?

All New Covenant Scripture was written by Catholic men with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If you told St Paul that he was a Catholic he would, let us say, ask what the h*ll you were talking about. He had never even heard the term.

If you told Paul now that he was a Catholic, he would completely agree.

Paul was a member of God’s one true Church which around the year 105 at the latest, began referring to itself with the descriptive term Catholic, since it was spreading everywhere (universally). The same people who came up with the term “Christian” also started using the term “Catholic.” The terms “Christian” and “Catholic” were and still are used interchangeably. Everyone at that time who was in God’s one New Covenant Church was a Christian and Catholic. All Catholics were Christian and all Christians were Catholic.

If, before climbing into your time machine to transport yourself back to the twenty first century, you made a stab at explaining what you meant, he would just have told you you were talking nonsense, and that he was a Jew.

Paul would congratulate me on accuracy. Paul was born Jew and had Roman citizenship. All the Apostles were born Jews. They all converted into God’s New Covenant Church, and didn’t remain stuck in the Jewish faith (which are the roots of Catholicism). Having a Jewish bloodline and being brought up in the Jewish faith does not prevent one from becoming Catholic.

It still happens today… Rosalind Moss who is now a Catholic was born Jew.

I know that you can expect anachronisms by the handful when catholics are spouting propaganda, but there are limits.

The truth is the truth. It’s just sad when those who profess to be in the faith of Christ, will deride the truth about Him as though it were merely propaganda. I’m not aware of any limit on the truth, but sadly people limit themselves by rejecting the truth. When they reject authentic Catholic teachings, they are also rejecting Christ.

 

[Hisalone]

All NT scripture was written by Jews with the exception of Luke who was a gentile.

 

[MDK]

All NT scripture was written by Jews with the exception of Luke who was a gentile.

Sorry, but this is wrong. All men who wrote NT Scripture were in God’s New Covenant Church at the time they wrote Scripture, which was and is Catholic. The question of whether they were born in the Jewish faith or none at all is not relevant to what faith they were when they wrote Scripture.

 

[Hisalone]

Sorry, but this is wrong. All men who wrote NT Scripture were in God’s New Covenant Church at the time they wrote Scripture, which was and is Catholic. The question of whether they were born in the Jewish faith or none at all is not relevant to what faith they were when they wrote Scripture.

They were completed Jews, Jews who believed in Messiah

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How mant Catholics wrote NT scripture?

If you told St Paul that he was a Catholic he would, let us say, ask what the h*ll you were talking about. He had never even heard the term.

If, before climbing into your time machine to transport yourself back to the twenty first century, you made a stab at explaining what you meant, he would just have told you you were talking nonsense, and that he was a Jew.

I know that you can expect anachronisms by the handful when catholics are spouting propaganda, but there are limits.

These more recent divisions are irrelevant to the Apostolic period. The Apostles were “none of the above” - they were neither Catholic nor Protestant, but pre-Catholic as well as pre-Protestant.​

Which of the tribes was Abraham a member of ? None of them - he was pre-tribal, pre-Israelite, pre-Edomite, pre-Ishmaelite. ISTM that the Apostles are related to the modern divisions of the Church in the same way: they were not Catholic, or Protestant or Orthodox, but previous to all: so they belong to the history & tradition of all. So no one can claim to own them.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Imagine if you told him he was canonized

Or that his letters were holy Scripture ​

 

[O.S.Luke]

Even more anti-Protestant polemic, courtesy of CAF.

 

[Rightlydivide]

the thread is direct at us. So lets deal with some of the content. The OP wants to duke it out with us. You can be nice and so many of you are. Or you can deal with the fact that if the history he claims is accurate; we should be Catholic. But if it is not, it **is not **and that needs to be confronted.

God established His Church and ascended to Heaven with no New Testament Scripture in existence. It would be another 15 to 20 years before any New Covenant Scripture at all was written, and 70 years after Christ ascended before the final NT Scripture was completed, then 350 years after the ascension before the inspired Scriptures were identified and separated from the false writings in existence and assembled into the authentic Bible.

Inspired scriptures were starting to be identified prior to Peter’s death. It is accurate to say the final canonical form of the NT first appears in a list 350 or so years later.

By the time Jesus ascended, He had started His Church built on His assigned Rock (Peter), and in changing Simon’s name to Rock denoted Rock’s new duty as Rock of Christ’s Church on Earth. We note that there is no one in prior history who had been named “Rock” before Christ did this to Simon. Christ went on to tell His Apostles that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church with Peter as rock (Prime Minister), because the King would protect His Prime Minister from errors in regard to the Church’s teachings.

The last part is not accurate. The gates of hell has nothing to do with protecting the church from errors as it specifically relates to its teachings. The church always dealt with error. The churches in Revelation have errors and yet the infallible Bible calls them churches. The Gates of Hell is a statement dealing with soteriology; not doctrine as defined by your magisterium hundreds of years later.

So Christ established Church authority (Magisterium) gave them the deposit of faith and sent His Holy Spirit to guide these Apostolic men into all truth. Christ’s Church had only God-given Authority and Oral Tradition. Beginning at Pentecost (with no Protestants in the upper room on Pentecost), the Church began proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, with Peter’s preaching converting 3,000 to Christ’s Church that day. God’s Church was teaching His Word, which through Apostolic Succession and the protection of the Holy Spirit the faith of the Apostles is still taught today in God’s one Church.

If you mean that the apostles built churches that built churches and men succeeded men…you would be accurate. If you are discussing the irrelevent (because hundreds of groups have it) and imaginary doctrine of a lineage of people laying hands on one another in an unbroken line, it is purely speculative and not practical anyway. For 500 bucks I can get apostolic succession from a valid but illicit bishop. Now, perhaps it occured. History is murky from 30 AD to 180 AD when we get some of our imaginary lines of papal succession. However, 2000 years later, it could not keep the religion of Christianity together and created a group of churches that subsist to partake of the Eucharist. The Eucharist that should still be a meal like it was in the beginning. You took the Passover meal and you spread it out over hundreds of years and lost the original meaning.

These authentic oral teachings were and still are Catholic, as the men teaching them were and still are Catholic.

Absolutely not.
No belief in an assumption of Mary.
No use of images or icons. Starting around 150 AD they use art on walls to convey a point and tell stories but no veneration to speak of.
Married bishops.
Different dates for easter if we believe the tradition that come to us from John to Polycarp.
The Eucharist was still the Agape Feast of Corinthians and the Didache…they were not a seperate liturgical event.
Well I could go on. Interesting theory and to your credit, that is the company line you are spouting. But real history…nope. Not a chance. You take bits and pieces of your heavily interpolated history and what documents you have left and run with it. But things in the Didache that show words prior to the Lords Supper that do not have a single thing with turning bread and wine into something else and congregations picking their own leaders and ignore them.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I imagine they were all Christians but if you forced me to pick I would say they were Orthodox. Of course from your point of view maybe they were all Protestants since from the Orthodox view the Roman Patriarch left the Catholic Church and became the first Protestant and then of course schism begot schism till be got where we are today. The protesting Bishop of Rome is then responsible for the others who protested him. See what happens when you rebel. :ehh:

Maybe all of the Protestants including the Pope will go home to Istanbul.

Very confusing!!!

PS No offense meant just pointing out irony in the question. It is all in perspective. I also could have joked never mind who wrote it…WHO follows it.

 

[imkingdad]

I am wondering why you are asking this question, since you seem to “know” the answer?

Your polemic seems solely aimed at stirring up senseless arguing over ground that has been covered time and again in these forums and many other places. What do you hope to accomplish?

It must be embarassing to many other Catholics to read stuff like this, which does nothing to further any kind of Christian dialogue. If you hope to bring others into the faith by presenting this as an example of a true Catholic perspective, you are certainly having the exact opposite effect.

Perhaps you should see it as what it was, an attempt to evangelize you & give you an opportunity to Repent of your errors & to disavow the many Heresies that your predecessors handed down to you.

But its easier to persevere in error than to challenge yourself.

 

[imkingdad]

the thread is direct at us. So lets deal with some of the content. The OP wants to duke it out with us. You can be nice and so many of you are. Or you can deal with the fact that if the history he claims is accurate; we should be Catholic. But if it is not, it **is not **and that needs to be confronted.

Inspired scriptures were starting to be identified prior to Peter’s death. It is accurate to say the final canonical form of the NT first appears in a list 350 or so years later.

The last part is not accurate. The gates of hell has nothing to do with protecting the church from errors as it specifically relates to its teachings. The church always dealt with error. The churches in Revelation have errors and yet the infallible Bible calls them churches. The Gates of Hell is a statement dealing with soteriology; not doctrine as defined by your magisterium hundreds of years later.

If you mean that the apostles built churches that built churches and men succeeded men…you would be accurate. If you are discussing the irrelevent (because hundreds of groups have it) and imaginary doctrine of a lineage of people laying hands on one another in an unbroken line, it is purely speculative and not practical anyway. For 500 bucks I can get apostolic succession from a valid but illicit bishop. Now, perhaps it occured. History is murky from 30 AD to 180 AD when we get some of our imaginary lines of papal succession. However, 2000 years later, it could not keep the religion of Christianity together and created a group of churches that subsist to partake of the Eucharist. The Eucharist that should still be a meal like it was in the beginning. You took the Passover meal and you spread it out over hundreds of years and lost the original meaning.

Absolutely not.
No belief in an assumption of Mary.
No use of images or icons. Starting around 150 AD they use art on walls to convey a point and tell stories but no veneration to speak of.
Married bishops.
Different dates for easter if we believe the tradition that come to us from John to Polycarp.
The Eucharist was still the Agape Feast of Corinthians and the Didache…they were not a seperate liturgical event.
Well I could go on. Interesting theory and to your credit, that is the company line you are spouting. But real history…nope. Not a chance. You take bits and pieces of your heavily interpolated history and what documents you have left and run with it. But things in the Didache that show words prior to the Lords Supper that do not have a single thing with turning bread and wine into something else and congregations picking their own leaders and ignore them.

Your Sola Scriptura is showing. a manmade Construct that is totally reputiated by the Bible itself. you consist need to misquote The ECF & to denigrate that which does not conform to your particular set of Heresies is expected.

 

[MDK]

They were completed Jews, Jews who believed in Messiah

You’re getting closer, but not there yet. They were no longer in the Jewish faith, were they? They were in the New Covenant faith, the one for which the Jewish faith is the roots. Otherwise, they would not be followers of Christ. The New Covenant faith was and is the same Catholic faith today, the faith of the Apostles.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I imagine they were all Christians but if you forced me to pick I would say they were Orthodox. Of course from your point of view maybe they were all Protestants since from the Orthodox view the Roman Patriarch left the Catholic Church and became the first Protestant and then of course schism begot schism till be got where we are today. The protesting Bishop of Rome is then responsible for the others who protested him. See what happens when you rebel. :ehh:

Maybe all of the Protestants including the Pope will go home to Istanbul.

Very confusing!!!

PS No offense meant just pointing out irony in the question. It is all in perspective. I also could have joked never mind who wrote it…WHO follows it.

Could be. Maybe we poor Protestants need to cross the Bosphorus instead of the Tiber.