If the Catholic Church made stuff up, as many non-Catholics claim....

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Non-Catholics, before the printing press was invented in the 15th century, scripture was copied by hand which could have been easily altered to fit the needs of those in a position of authority, which of course was the Catholic Church. If the CC made stuff up, eg purgatory, the Immaculate conception, as many claim, how do you know they didn’t alter scripture just as they supposedly made other things up? How do you know you have the authentic word of God, unaltered by the Catholic church?
 
joe370 said:
Non-Catholics, before the printing press was invented in the 15th century, scripture was copied by hand which could have been easily altered to fit the needs of those in a position of authority, which of course was the Catholic Church. If the CC made stuff up, eg purgatory, the Immaculate conception, as many claim, how do you know they didn’t alter scripture just as they supposedly made other things up? How do you know you have the authentic word of God, unaltered by the Catholic church?
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the argument that Bart Ehrman makes in his book Misquoting Jesus—that ultimately you can’t be sure that the original text wasn’t changed and, in fact, argues that certain manuscript difference are due to intentional theological “adjustments” rather than scribal errors.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
This is pretty much the argument that Bart Ehrman makes in his book Misquoting Jesus—that ultimately you can’t be sure that the original text wasn’t changed and, in fact, argues that certain manuscript difference are due to intentional theological “adjustments” rather than scribal errors.
Click to expand...
I believe we can be sure that the original text wasn’t changed. What is your response to the OP?
 
joe370 said:
I believe we can be sure that the original text wasn’t changed. What is your response to the OP?
Click to expand...
If the original text wasn’t changed, we wouldn’t have manuscript differences—so the question isn’t whether the text was changed, it’s whether the changes that were made matter or not. And people disagree about that.

I didn’t really understand the second part of the original post, but no, there’s no way to know that something wasn’t changed early on.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
This is pretty much the argument that Bart Ehrman makes in his book Misquoting Jesus—that ultimately you can’t be sure that the original text wasn’t changed and, in fact, argues that certain manuscript difference are due to intentional theological “adjustments” rather than scribal errors.
Click to expand...
In apologetics the trustworthiness of the Bible is a big topic. Even more specifically, if the Bible had been altered by Catholics it would support their views on such matters that seperate us, which it does not.
However, the original manuscripts WERE changed. That is why we have textual variants and manuscript differences. That is one reason those who support the Traditional Text are so adament about it.
 
So if the Catholic Church did change scripture text, then all Protestants are fake faiths because they follow only the Bible which you claim to have been doctored by the Church.
 
I agree with ConstantineTG… also I don’t see how Protestantism didn’t change texts, since the Reformers took books out of the Bible 🤷
 
ConstantineTG said:
So if the Catholic Church did change scripture text, then all Protestants are fake faiths because they follow only the Bible which you claim to have been doctored by the Church.
Click to expand...
Not all Protestants are “Bible-only” Christians.
 
Since many of the books in the Bible were written in several different languages, it is probably a given that some changes were made.

From my understanding, that is why Muslims believe they have the true faith because they believe the Qu’ran has survived extant without change.

I am not sure I buy that for a variety of reasons, just saying.

I think the real question would be whether any substantive changes were made and do those changes alter the basic teachings and lessons that Christians base their beliefs upon.

I am not sure we will ever know for sure.🤷

Seeker.
 
This thread reminds me of an ongoing tension between myself and my Baptist parents. They often point out that they believe in the Bible alone and don’t understand how I as a Catholic can believe some of the things I do, and then I retort that their Bible is essentially a Catholic document.

Anyways, I believe it is pretty logical that some minor changes have occured due to human error over the centuries, but the beautiful part about the Catholic Church is that we also have Sacred Tradition. The human errors in copying the text could never be so severe as to alter doctrine because Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are both the Word of God. (I know our Protestant friends will disagree with this, but I think it makes perfect sense that the two act to keep one another in accordance with the Deposit of Faith once and for all delivered)
 
Dave_Noonan said:
If the original text wasn’t changed, we wouldn’t have manuscript differences—so the question isn’t whether the text was changed, it’s whether the changes that were made matter or not. And people disagree about that.

I didn’t really understand the second part of the original post, but no, there’s no way to know that something wasn’t changed early on.
Click to expand...
Let’s say that non-Catholics are right about the CC and the CC made up doctrines such as purgatory and the Immaculate conception, as many claim. Certainly those same non-Catholics should be concerned with the possibility that the same CC could have done the same with their sole rule of faith, casting some doubt on their sole rule of faith, regarding its authenticity, something no non-Catholic would ever admit?
 
I have to say that I do look at certain Canon Laws and doctrines of the Catholic Church and don’t see them as God serving but self serving.

Someone once explained the difference between protestants and Catholics used to be:

A Protestant acknowledges the possibility his church could have gotten some things wrong, but believes it hasn’t

A Catholic won’t acknowledge the possibility the Church has gotten some things wrong, but believes it has.
 
Rightlydivide said:
In apologetics the trustworthiness of the Bible is a big topic. Even more specifically, if the Bible had been altered by Catholics it would support their views on such matters that seperate us, which it does not.

So your proof that the CC did not alter doctrine found in the bible is based on the idea that scripture does not support your view on such matters that separate catholics and non-catholics? That’s a pretty good answer, but, the CC leaders, long before the bible was codified, supported doctrines such as purgatory and Mary’s sinlessness, and found scripture to be supportive of them as well.
However, the original manuscripts WERE changed. That is why we have textual variants and manuscript differences. That is one reason those who support the Traditional Text are so adament about it.
Click to expand...
I was worried that the thread might take this turn; I really wasn’t talking about textual variances, which are unavoidable. I am talking about additions to and subtractions from the authentic word of God. Of course I do not believe that that happened; just trying to figure out why non-Catholics have no problem trusting the CC when it comes to their sole rule of faith, and distrusts the CC regarding other teachings. :confused:
Click to expand...
 
Lutheranteach said:
I have to say that I do look at certain Canon Laws and doctrines of the Catholic Church and don’t see them as God serving but self serving.

Someone once explained the difference between protestants and Catholics used to be:

A Protestant acknowledges the possibility his church could have gotten some things wrong, but believes it hasn’t

A Catholic won’t acknowledge the possibility the Church has gotten some things wrong, but believes it has.
Click to expand...
Sure they admit the wrongs done, but I really want to stay focused on the OP if possible. Textual variances notwithstanding, what is your response to the OP?
 
hizstory said:
This thread reminds me of an ongoing tension between myself and my Baptist parents. They often point out that they believe in the Bible alone and don’t understand how I as a Catholic can believe some of the things I do, and then I retort that their

Bible is essentially a Catholic document.

If it is a catholic document, and of course it is, then it seems reasonable that non-Catholics should be just as concerned as to whether the CC added to or subtracted from it. :confused:
Anyways, I believe it is pretty logical that some minor
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Absolutely. If it serves ones purpose, or an organizations purpose “errors” can be made. Also, the level of true accidents in translations etc. The copy of a copy of a translation, or an error, or a transposition, of a translation etc…Sit down with the white pages and start copying and see what happens. Oral tradition is even quicker to foster mistakes
 
joe370 said:
I was worried that the thread might take this turn; I really wasn’t talking about textual variances, which are unavoidable. I am talking about additions to and subtractions from the authentic word of God. Of course I do not believe that that happened; just trying to figure out why non-Catholics have no problem trusting the CC when it comes to their sole rule of faith, and distrusts the CC regarding other teachings. :confused:
Click to expand...
I think it’s more that they’d have something to complain and blame about the Catholic Church.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Lutheranteach said:
Absolutely. If it serves ones purpose, or an organizations purpose “errors” can be made. Also, the level of true accidents in translations etc. The copy of a copy of a translation, or an error, or a transposition, of a translation etc…Sit down with the white pages and start copying and see what happens. Oral tradition is even quicker to foster mistakes
Click to expand...
Agreed. Insignificant textual errors were made, but not doctrinal errors for the simple fact (if one believes the bible) - that the holy spirit guided the CC through those early centuries, leading up to the point when the CC finally, out of necessity, codified the the canon, and of course the holy spirit remains forever with the CC, if John 14 is to be believed, which means that doctrinal truth remains in tact. The same CC leaders that codified the bible embraced teachings such as purgatory and Mary’s sinlessness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top