How Many Protestants Wrote NT Scripture?

[MDK]

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.

I’m not offended in the least. It must be said first that you indeed follow the model of Protestantism, where there is no authority but yourself to decide what is and is not “truth”. This is why so many people who love God will go astray. I want you to know the fullness of revealed truth about our beautiful Lord, Jesus the Christ as He taught to His Apostles.

Actually, there was no irony in the question itself. It was straight forward and true. The irony is that you illustrate exactly what I was warning about, in Protestantism, that you continue the man made tradition of “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.”

While you hold yourself as the authority, I hold Christ as the authority. Christ established His Church, which is part of His Kingdom, with a Prime Minister’s office. That the Orthodox and Protestants reject this office, shows that they are not in the model of the Church built by Christ.

Who follows the Scriptures is a very good question. To answer this, one must know what the Scriptures actually teach. With Protestantism, there is no way to know for sure what the Catholic Scriptures teach. Each man decides for himself what God has taught, and this often conflicts with each other. The Catholic Church is the only way w know for certain what Scriptures actually teach, having a constant teaching of the faith of the Apostles for almost 2,000 years. From there, some follow them, and some do not.

 

[MDK]

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

It would be a step (or swim) in the right direction to go from Protestant to Orthodox, but you’d still have the Tiber to swim to get to the fullness of revealed truth.

I would feel so much better with you in an Orthodox Church, which does pretty well in teaching the faith of the Apostles, and has seven valid Sacraments.

There are rumblings that Catholic and Orthodox seem very close to major reconciliation, so going to Orthodox may essentially get you across the Tiber as well pretty soon.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I’m not offended in the least. It must be said first that you indeed follow the model of Protestantism, where there is no authority but yourself to decide what is and is not “truth”.
The problem with that statement is that it is a generalization that does not hold true to all Protestant faiths. I don’t know what “model” you are referring to other than the model that some Catholics use to paint all Protestants with the same brush.

I don’t think Protestants have a monopoly on ignorance.

 

[MDK]

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,
You need to go back and learn Church history a little better… History and just plain truth are witnesses against what you wrote above. It’s not just lacking in facts, it’s flat out unrepresentative of what occurred.

The Apostles were of the same faith as St. Ignatius of Antioch who is believed to have described God’s New Covenant Church as Catholic, because it was fulfilling its mission to preach to the ends of the earth and was now spreading everywhere, or universally. The Catholic Church is not a division of the Church. This is the same group who coined the term “Christian.” It is God’s one Church. The Catholic Church existed at Pentecost, and no other Church did. That Jesus’ Church wasn’t given that descriptive name Catholic until some time later, does not change the Church. The term Christian was used interchangeably with the term “Catholic” back then, as it is now. Back then, all Catholics were Christians, and all Christians were Catholic.

 

[Zundrah]

How many Protestant

Make that number one more.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Gottle,
You need to go back and learn Church history a little better… History and just plain truth are witnesses against what you wrote above. It’s not just lacking in facts, it’s flat out unrepresentative of what occurred.
You might need to read some history of your own - yours sounds a bit revisionist. Read some of Dave Armstrong’s stuff, as well as some Catholic historians. The first and second generation Christians were more akin to “Jewish Christians”. That doesn’t mean that the Church wasn’t birthed at Pentecost, but it was a very very far cry from where it was even in the very early time of Justin Martyr, much less the ante-Nicene Church Fathers.

 

[MDK]

The problem with that statement is that it is a generalization that does not hold true to all Protestant faiths. I don’t know what “model” you are referring to other than the model that some Catholics use to paint all Protestants with the same brush.

I don’t think Protestants have a monopoly on ignorance.

Protestants by no means have a monopoly on ignorance. In fact, there are a great many who know some very good teachings and truths of Christ. We are all ignorant to some degree. I am harder on my fellow Catholics who have the fullness of revealed truth in front of them, and who have decided for themselves which of God’s truth they will accept and believe. However, in the matters which are before us, is what is in context here.

The Protestant model I spoke of is exactly what the Protestant Fathers established. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, all rejected the Prime Minister established by Christ. This position of Prime Minister of God’s Earthly Kingdom is specifically there to help with unity and to teach infallibly. The Protestant model of rejecting what Christ established for unity and teaching authority has caused fragmentation and false teachings to flourish within the Protestant communities.

I do not intend to paint all Protestants with the same brush, and have tried to avoid that during my posts. That Protestantism created thousands of individual belief systems makes it impossible to “paint them all with the same brush.” The point is that those adhering to the Protestant model do all share a rejection of the office of Prime Minister. I don’t think you guys deny rejecting the pope, do you? That is pretty standard tenet of Protestantism, is it not?

 

[MDK]

You might need to read some history of your own - yours sounds a bit revisionist. Read some of Dave Armstrong’s stuff, as well as some Catholic historians. The first and second generation Christians were more akin to “Jewish Christians”. That doesn’t mean that the Church wasn’t birthed at Pentecost, but it was a very very far cry from where it was even in the very early time of Justin Martyr, much less the ante-Nicene Church Fathers.

In truth, there is no revisionism done by me. They were working out the details with the protection of the Holy Spirit, and notice that when Peter spoke, the matter was settled. This is the same thing that we have now in the Catholic Church, the successor of Peter is the final authority on matters of faith and morals. The Church back then was growing, was it not? Your argument is akin to saying that a person must have different DNA when matured, because they didn’t look like that when they were a child. It is the same person, same DNA, just developing and then becoming more developed.

God didn’t hand them Scriptures and say “follow this.” God established an authoritative teaching Church to work out all the details. This same authoritative teaching Church exists today, still with a Prime Minister and still teaching the faith of the Apostles as taught on Pentecost, never having taught error in faith and morals. It is 2,000 years older now, so what person would expect the Church on day one to look exactly the same as the Church 2,000 years later. Yet, the DNA is the same, and has worked to make the Church what it is today, with the promise of Jesus Christ, is His one Bride, His one Mystical Body.

 

[MDK]

Make that number one more.

Please, one more of what?

 

[O.S.Luke]

I do not intend to paint all Protestants with the same brush, and have tried to avoid that during my posts. That Protestantism created thousands of individual belief systems makes it impossible to “paint them all with the same brush.” The point is that those adhering to the Protestant model do all share a rejection of the office of Prime Minister. I don’t think you guys deny rejecting the pope, do you? That is pretty standard tenet of Protestantism, is it not?

Whether you intended to or not - you have. And as a United Methodist, I am accountable to the Articles of Religion, the General Conference, the Book of Discipline (canon law and doctrine), and my bishop. We are not an antinominan communion. And not all Protestants branch from Calvin and Lutheran and Zwingli (and if you’re putting Luther and Zwingli into the same camp, you really need to read the Marburg Colloquy, btw), particularly Anglicans and Methodists.

You have some studying to do. Generalizations and assumptions are rarely helpful nor accurate.

 

[Bill_Pick]

How Many Protestants Wrote NT Scripture? I will have to say NONE I do not believe we had any protestants until about 1400 Ad, did we even hade the word protestants at the time we got the Bible.
NO I must say the Bible is a Cathloic book,
we did not have a protestant on this earth in 48ad

 

[O.S.Luke]

In truth, there is no revisionism done by me. They were working out the details with the protection of the Holy Spirit, and notice that when Peter spoke, the matter was settled. This is the same thing that we have now in the Catholic Church, the successor of Peter is the final authority on matters of faith and morals. The Church back then was growing, was it not? Your argument is akin to saying that a person must have different DNA when matured, because they didn’t look like that when they were a child. It is the same person, same DNA, just developing and then becoming more developed.
You are erecting a strawman. I don’t play - sorry.

God didn’t hand them Scriptures and say “follow this.” God established an authoritative teaching Church to work out all the details.

I might agree with 1,700 years.

That’s all debated still - particularly more among Catholic historians than Protestant ones. Better straighten out your own house on that one MDK. And good luck. I don’t think any of this invalidates Catholicism. But the claims you make simply aren’t that neat - and history pretty much shows that. Even the history of Catholic historians.

[/QUOTE]

 

[MDK]

Whether you intended to or not - you have. And as a United Methodist, I am accountable to the Articles of Religion, the General Conference, the Book of Discipline (canon law and doctrine), and my bishop. We are not an antinominan communion. And not all Protestants branch from Calvin and Lutheran and Zwingli (and if you’re putting Luther and Zwingli into the same camp, you really need to read the Marburg Colloquy, btw), particularly Anglicans and Methodists.

You have some studying to do. Generalizations and assumptions are rarely helpful nor accurate.

Actually, no I haven’t. There are common things among all faith systems owing their origins to men of the 15th century. To deny these is to be in error. That you choose take it that way, does not mean it was intended that way.

United Methodist ecclesial community was formed in 1968, was it not? How can that possibly be the Church started by Christ? There is literally no way possible, if we leave out fiction.

Did I ever say that these men believed the same things? Of course not! If they did, then they wouldn’t have each had their own ecclesial communities, disagreeing with each other. This very teaching of different and irreconcilable doctrines is not from God, and is exactly the problem with Protestantism that I find misleading to those adherents.

 

[MDK]

You are erecting a strawman. I don’t play - sorry.

Neither do I play that game, and so why claim otherwise? It’s the simple truth, and not a game.

Uh… I think the Ecumenical Councils might disagree with you on that one. That took a while, which goes back to the papacy functioning quite different 400-500 years later than it did in the first generations. Again, that’s from Catholic historians, not Protestant.

This doesn’t support the point you’re trying to or would like to make. The Ecumenical Councils would not disagree with me, nor I with them. The papacy (office of head Bishop) existed during that time, in a chain from Peter to Benedict XVI. I’m aware of the history, and it shows the Catholic Church and Papacy were established by Christ.

Debatable.

Not debated by Christ. Only debated by those who do not know or who do and reject the truth.

I might agree with 1,700 years.

But, you’re not the authority, are you? Christ is. This affects your relationship with the Truth, but the truth still exists regardless of your “agreement” with it.

The Church with Peter as Head was started on the holy cross, and got her 'legs" at Pentecost. The office of Head Bishop was moved by the first Head Bishop to Rome. The office today is still the Bishop of Rome.

That’s all debated still - particularly more among Catholic historians than Protestant ones. Better straighten out your own house on that one MDK. And good luck. I don’t think any of this invalidates Catholicism. But the claims you make simply aren’t that neat - and history pretty much shows that. Even the history of Catholic historians.

May be you just had the idea of erecting straw men in your mind… I never said it was that neatly wrapped up, but to speak of the simple truths, I have done so, and have done so accurately. We can discuss these in more detail, showing the struggles, etc. However, what I wrote is true.

We could tell someone where we went to college, without discussing all the trials and late nights and prayer to get through, right? Then we could also discuss the trails in deeper conversation. That there were trials, does not mean we didn’t go to college there, or that by saying the truth of going to college that meant everything was very easy and neat.

 

[Zundrah]

Please, one more of what?

…think about it.

 

[MDK]

…think about it.

You were replying to an incomplete sentence of Bill’s, which left the door wide open… You really don’t want me to fill in the blank with all the true answers, do you?

 

[Zundrah]

You were replying to an incomplete sentence of Bill’s, which left the door wide open… You really don’t want me to fill in the blank with all the true answers, do you?

Please do.

 

[MDK]

Please do.

Different thread, and you probably wouldn’t like the true answers anyway.

 

[Zundrah]

Different thread, and you probably wouldn’t like the true answers anyway.

No, it’s okay, you can tell me. I won’t get mean.

 

[MDK]

No, it’s okay, you can tell me. I won’t get mean.

Not liking them is not the same as not getting mean, so I appreciate that you have offered restraint. The answers don’t all involve the OP, although you should already have some idea of what does involve the OP if you’ve read the posts thus far. Just as with the Catholic truths, I don’t think you’d listen anyway.