Matthew's Gospel in Protestantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter teachccd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

teachccd

Guest
How does someone who believes in Sola Scriptura know that “The Gospel according to Matthew” is really written by Matthew?? What scriptural proof is there and if one cannot find any then why wasn’t the uninspired title removed from Protestant bibles since Apostolic Tradition does not apply??
 
This post ran for three days with no replies. HMMM…Makes me glad that I’m Catholic!!👍
 
teachccd said:
How does someone who believes in Sola Scriptura know that “The Gospel according to Matthew” is really written by Matthew?? What scriptural proof is there and if one cannot find any then why wasn’t the uninspired title removed from Protestant bibles since Apostolic Tradition does not apply??
Click to expand...
Sola scriptura doesn’t rule out all tradition. It just rightly places tradition below scripture.
 
teachccd said:
This post ran for three days with no replies. HMMM…Makes me glad that I’m Catholic!!👍
Click to expand...
Has your church infallibly declared that Matthew was written by Matthew? Has it declared infallibly who the author of Hebrews is?
 
We need to be careful when talking about Sola Scriptura. We Catholics tend to take it absolutely literally, and make fun of our separated brethren for using Biblical commentaries. That is wrong.

In reality, it is just a handy title for their concept that one should get one’s faith and belief only from Scripture and not from “traditions of men.” It doesn’t rule out the use of various helps to understanding what the Bible says or means. It does rule out what we call our Sacred Tradition. (They don’t know what they’re missing!)

Ruthie
Tiber swim team '06
 
Calvinator said:
Has your church infallibly declared that Matthew was written by Matthew? Has it declared infallibly who the author of Hebrews is?
Click to expand...
No. But it was our Church that put Matthew on the top of this Gospel which you also accept in your Bibles. If you maintain that Matthew is the author of that Gospel, that did not come from a Protestant perspective since this gospel was identified some 1500 years prior to Protestantism. So, I guess what I’m getting at is if most Protestants don’t use statues, the rosary, Sacred Tradition, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Sacramental or liturgical worship, why would they keep Matthew at the top of their first gospel. Why didn’t they throw that away also???:confused:
 
Ruthie said:
We need to be careful when talking about Sola Scriptura. We Catholics tend to take it absolutely literally, and make fun of our separated brethren for using Biblical commentaries. That is wrong.

In reality, it is just a handy title for their concept that one should get one’s faith and belief only from Scripture and not from “traditions of men.” It doesn’t rule out the use of various helps to understanding what the Bible says or means. It does rule out what we call our Sacred Tradition. (They don’t know what they’re missing!)

Ruthie
Tiber swim team '06
Click to expand...
We don’t get our faith from " traditions of men" either. I know perfectly well what is meant by Sola Scriptura and you are right in saying that while they say “SCRIPTURE ONLY” they don’t really follow that perspective. If they did then they would have to remove the identity of Matthew from their Bibles. I would never make fun of our “separated brethren” if they want to adhere to the same Sacred Traditions that we hold to like the word that they use for scripture: Bible. It’s not in the Bible.🙂 So while many wish to be “Sola Scriptura” they simply cannot separate themselves from Sacred Tradition which is, in essence, what scripture actually is in written form.

I’m just perplexed at the whole notion of the pick and choose items that many Protestants will filter through and yet claim 'Sola Scriptura". They accept that there was to be 27 New testament books when nowhere in Scripture does it state this. How can they accept the infallible canonicity of Scripture from the Early Church Fathers and yet reject most of everything else they taught?? I’m absolutely amazed…🤷 :eek: teachccd
 
teachccd said:
No. But it was our Church that put Matthew on the top of this Gospel which you also accept in your Bibles. If you maintain that Matthew is the author of that Gospel, that did not come from a Protestant perspective since this gospel was identified some 1500 years prior to Protestantism. So, I guess what I’m getting at is if most Protestants don’t use statues, the rosary, Sacred Tradition, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Sacramental or liturgical worship, why would they keep Matthew at the top of their first gospel. Why didn’t they throw that away also???:confused:
Click to expand...
One could deduce from history that Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, without the magesterium.

It appears that you believe if one accepts that Matthew wrote Matthew, one should also accept all the catholic doctrines that are explicit only in your church’s collection of sacred traditon? Is this accurate?
 
If one doesn’t want to hold to all the doctrines held by Catholics regarding Sacred Tradition–they should be able to state why the Catholic Church which does believe in those sacred traditions-- told the truth about some–lied about others–and why there is no record of Protestants back there at that time disputing what was held by the Catholic Church.

See I don’t see how they can be exact liars that only lie about things that Protestants 1500 years would believe in!

Now while it would theoretically be possible that this 100% coincidence of alleged Catholic lies and Protestants beliefs could be possible the chances of it happening and the Lord not inspiring anyone to espouse the Protestant view for 1500 years is Laughable!

That’s where the whole house of cards falls.

See if there was a Protestant church in the first four centuries that held to the Protestant Canon of scriptures–that didn’t believe in the body and blood being present in the eucharist and who publicly declared that they had it on authority form some of the disciples themselves that the Bishop of Rome had no preeminence–then Protestants could claim that a church like that had existed from the beginning and that that was the church that Jesus founded.

There is no record of anything like that!

Just like there is no record of Protestants protesting the Canon of scripture at any of the councils.

Now don’t insult anyone’s intelligence. If God did want to give the church a Genuine book of Scriptures called the Bible are you going to tell me that He wouldn’t be able to inspire just one person to address those Councils and espouse the Protestant viewpoint?

Now Satan may want people to believe that God is that weak but we know that Jesus said “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My church”.

If you believe that the Catholic Church got the scriptures wrong–and if you can not point to any church that got the scriptures right in those first centuries of the church–then how can you prove anything?

Sola Scriptura as an authority absent the magisterium makes absolutely no sense because the “Sense” of that notion was not seen anywhere in Actual History in Actual Churches!

And the more that someone tries to prove that–when there is no proof–the more laughable the whole system becomes.

The Catholic Church always makes sense for a reason. It is the Truth!

Now can The Truth always be disputed? Of course!

Satan has been diputing the Truth since the beginning of time.

But listen folks–if something does make sense–if it does fit with Actual history–it’s because it is the Actual Truth abouth the Actual Jesus and His Actual Church exercising the Actual Authority that He Actually gave it!

That’s why you can find that church even in the history of pagan Romans who had no reason to believe in it.

That’s why you also Don’t find the Protestant church in the history of Pagan Romans who didn’t have any reason to believe in it either.

When Catholic historians and Pagan historians agree about the Actual history and reality of the Catholic Church just do this–

Quit fighting a losing war!

God gave you a brain! God is Infinite! God is not as small as narrow minds would like you to believe He is!

Millions have converted to the truth of the Catholic faith and millions and believed it from birth.

If All those people were Liars–if all those people didn’t have the truth in them before the Reformation happened 1500 years later–do you really think that a bunch of liars would consistently preach the same lies for all those centuries without God ever raising the Protestant church in all those centuries?

When you answer that question you can either use the brain God gave you or cling to what is comfortable and what you have been taught.

But as you wallow in your comfortableness–when you wallow in Blessed Assurance’s promise of Once Saved Always Saved ask yourself “Is this the rocky road that Jesus says leads to Eternal life?”

Is this what Jesus means by “Taking up your cross and following me?”

Do you think that Catholic Liars about the truth went to their deaths in the Roman Arenas while No Protestants did?

And if you think they were christian and not Catholic read what any of them said in the first centuries after Jesus. Ask yourself if they sound like Protestants or like Catholics.

If you do truely do this you will come to the Catholic Faith.

If you won’t truely do this you heart is as closed and hardened as Pharoh.

The choice is yours! All of us Catholics are praying that you will come home to the Fullness of the Faith that testifies of the Real Jesus and His Real Historical Catholic Church!
 
Teachccd said,
“you are right in saying that while they say “SCRIPTURE ONLY” they don’t really follow that perspective.”

I think you might have misinterpreted what I said. Let me rephrase it. Protestants are not being hypocritical in their use of the phrase, “Sola Scriptura.” It was never intended to be absolutely literal. It is just a “shorthand” title for a more complicated issue.

An example from our side is Papal infallibility. Taken absolutely literally, that would mean that **everything **our B16 said would be revealed truth. We all know that isn’t so - but it is too cumbersome to call the concept “Papal infallibility, which applies only to matters of faith and morals, and then only if the Pope defines it as an infallible teaching.”

You also said,
“I’m just perplexed at the whole notion of the pick and choose items that many Protestants will filter through and yet claim 'Sola Scriptura”. They accept that there was to be 27 New testament books when nowhere in Scripture does it state this. How can they accept the infallible canonicity of Scripture from the Early Church Fathers and yet reject most of everything else they taught?? I’m absolutely amazed…"

Protestants may indeed miss the point in many areas, but that does not make them stupid. They also get impatient with us for not seeing what is perfectly plain to them. I’m not arguing for moral relativism. We have the fullness of the Magisterium and they don’t.

Yes, I, too, get impatient with some of them; Yep, there’s a beam in my own eye! 😃

Ruthie
 
What protestants are saying is that the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice. They believe that God does reveal himself through nature, church tradition, pastors/priests, and even dreams and visions. But these will never contradict the clear teaching of Scripture since God does not contradict himself. When a doctrine or teaching disagrees with Scripture it is wrong.

The church’s traditions and councils have been very helpful in determining what books belong in Scripture and the meaning of various passages. We do value tradition, but reject it when it goes against the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
 
That would be all fine and good if the bible fell out of the sky complete and certified by the Holy Spirit as the only rule of faith.

That didn’t happen!

The reason that some books were believed and became a part of the Bible and other books weren’t believed and didn’t become part of the bible was the authjoratative judgement of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

No other way!

Authoratative take it to the Bank–that’s the way the Holy Spirit brought the Bible to the world.

If you have a problem with that take it up with the Holy Spirit!

If you have a problem with the authority of the Catholic church then beat up the Holy Spirit for entrusting the bible to that authority!

Guess what–no Protestants and no Sola Scriptuaists had anything whatsoever to do with the Bible!

Wha cares what lying heretics 1500 years after Jesus say about anything? They have absolutely zero authority!

Anytime they claim that the holy spirit changed what it said about the bible 1500 years later–they’re blasphemers of the holy spirit.

Jesus said that anyone who committs Blasphemy against the hoy spirit will not be forgiven in this world or the world to come.’

Of course temporal punishment for sin is forgiven in the world to come but the same Protestant Blasphemers who lie about the holy Spirit also lie about Jesus and the authority that he gave his church.

Why does it take a rocket scientist? The church had to have authority and Peter and his successors had to have authority–otherwise all you have is people believing anything they want to which happens in thousands of Protestant denominations.

You know who loves that division?

Satan!

You know who hates the fact that the Catholic Church is unified in its teaching of the Deposit of the Faith left to the apostles?

Satan!

would you rather bet your soul on the side that wrote the bible, picked out the bible and has interpreted the bible for 2,000 years opr what you like to be your soul on the divided side/

Don’t listen to Satan! He always likes division!
 
I have repeatedly asked this question and have never really been answered. How do we know that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims? Don’t quote the Bible since according to you we don’t have the Bible until we have the authority of the Church first. Using the Bible to establish the authority of the Church would be like me writing a letter saying I have been appointed head of the Church and then using that letter as proof that I was appointed. There is nothing to establish the Church as having authority except that the Church says it has. You can say that Jesus gave it authority but how can you prove it except by saying that is what the Church told you?
 
Prof 54 said,
“What protestants are saying is that the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice. They believe that God does reveal himself through nature, church tradition, pastors/priests, and even dreams and visions. But these will never contradict the clear teaching of Scripture since God does not contradict himself. When a doctrine or teaching disagrees with Scripture it is wrong.”

That is the standard Protestant teaching. While our understanding of Divine Revelation differs from yours, we do agree with your last sentence: “When a doctrine or teaching disagrees with Scripture it is wrong.”

We hold that Divine Revelation was handed down both in writing and in word of mouth. St. Paul agrees: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15, RSV

For a better understanding of Sacred Tradition, read the Catechism, paragraphs 65-84, and a little further if you’d like to understand the Magisterium better. You can find it at scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a1.htm#65

Your sister in Christ,

Ruthie
 
And how can you even prove that Christ existed if the Catholic Church didn’t tell you?

Now of course you may say that pagan Roman sources such as Josephus testify to Christ’s existence Apart from the Catholic Church’s witness and the Bible’s witness.

OK–if that is confirmation enough for Christ–why are not other pagan Roman sources who testify of the historicity of the Catholic Church as descending from the apostles and the historicity of pagan Roman sources who thought the early christians to be cannibals because of their belief in the Eucharist–why do those sources hold no water with the sola scriptura Bible fell out of the sky-non brains?

If the Bible cannot attest to itself–can’t sources outside the bible attest to it?

The Catholic Church cannot help ther fact that No Protestant sources attest to the Bible in the first four centuries.

The Catholic Church can’t help it that there are no records of people with Protestant views in the first four centuries before the
Canon of scripture was endorsed by the Catholic magisterium.

And the Catholic Church can’t help the fact that pagan historians can quote how chuches around the Roman empire traced themselves back to the apostles!

Not the Catholic Church claiming for itself what is true–not the Ble claiming for itself to be true–but secular pagan historians backing up its claims.

The Catholic Church can’t help it that you can go to the catacombs and see how the early christians praid for the dead!

The Catholic Church cannot help it that Mary is painted in some of those catacombs.

And the Catholic Church can’t help it that No Protestants ideas which would come 1500 years later are part of any histortical recordof the christian church of the 1st four centuries!

You don’t want to believe what the Catholic Church teaches–fine–so what? You want to discount the absence of any Protestant church–go ahead–you can believe anything you want to believe.

Just don’t make out like there is no history to back up the Catholic Church’s claims and don’t make out that the fact that there is No history of an early Protestant church that tha makes no difference. It would in any court of law.

And yes bottom line it does come down to faith–if you weren’t there and didn’t actually see Jesus rise from the dead then why would you believe it?

You would believe it because of the people who were there and who had seen Jesus after he arose–the disciples–and yes you would believe them and accept them as having authority without 1 single bit of scripture–you would believe them that Jesus had given them authority because everything else they said was true and made sense–so you wouldn’t believe that 20% of the time they would be lying about the Deposit of the faith which is what Protestants maintain about the Catholic faith.

And yes you would believe these things not because there was video evidence and sworn affadavits about every person who the apostles laid hands on–a complete record of their entire life–and positive proof that for every second since Jesus that there was an unbroken line of apostlic succession.

I wasn’t alive to see all the US Presidents but I believe that all of them existed because history tells me they did. I don’t believe it only because history tells me that is true but because the history makes sense!

The same is true of the Catholic faith and the books of scripture that it chose as being inspired.

I wasn’t there to verify if everything in the scriptures is true–just like I wasn’t there to verify that everything a historian says about George Washington is true–but when you hear the same history from many historians you can plausibly believe that all those historians are not lying.

Just like you can plausibly believe that Early church Fathers who believed in the body and blood of Christ being in the Eucharist–that they weren’t lying.

What would be hard to believe would be a Protestant church existing when No historians agreed that one existed!

That is Fact!

Protestants can run away from it all they want–their religion was Invented 1500 years later!

They can believe in an early Protestant church because they want to believe it–they can’t believe it because the historical witness supports it!

An early Protestant church in the first four centuries is as ludicrous as ancient Semites being in the Americas as the Mormons maintain. The historical witness to both is the same.

It is Zero!
 
SyCarl asked,
“I have repeatedly asked this question and have never really been answered. How do we know that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims?”

A look at the history of the Bible answers that. The Catholic church was the ***only ***church when the canon of the Bible was settled. There was no other authority. That canon was used for a bit more than 1000 years, before the Protestants tampered with it, and we Catholics still use it today.

The process was not arbitrary, but took place over several generations, under the guidance of the HS…

“Don’t quote the Bible since according to you we don’t have the Bible until we have the authority of the Church first.”

Once again, I say, consult history. Without the Catholic church,* there would be no Bible. *

Jesus founded the Catholic Church. He wasn’t talking about a set of beliefs when He said, “On this rock I will found My church.” He was talking about Peter. “You” is the 2nd person singular throughout Mt 16:17-19; Jesus was not addressing all the Apostles (2nd person plural), nor a belief (3rd person singular). He was talking to Peter.

Yours in Christ,
Ruthie
 
SyCarl said:
I have repeatedly asked this question and have never really been answered. How do we know that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims? Don’t quote the Bible since according to you we don’t have the Bible until we have the authority of the Church first. Using the Bible to establish the authority of the Church would be like me writing a letter saying I have been appointed head of the Church and then using that letter as proof that I was appointed. There is nothing to establish the Church as having authority except that the Church says it has. You can say that Jesus gave it authority but how can you prove it except by saying that is what the Church told you?
Click to expand...
Sigh.

Once again:

What other churches claim to have been the church founded by Christ?

Prove these churches existed in the Age of the Apostles.

We have a number of letters from the Apostles which are part of Scripture and attest to the existence of the Catholic Church from this time.

The Roman persectutions are well attributed. Or do you doubt that Nero blamed Christians for Rome’s burning?

This is the trouble with Protestantism—you cannot get around the problem of apostolic succession nor the lack of authority possessed by Luther and Calvin and all the others. And so you wish it away, and claim we Catholics have not responded to your “argument”, which always reduces to a variation of “Why can’t I be Pope”?

Is it really that hard to see that Peter wasn’t a Calvinist?
 
Prof_54 said:
The church’s traditions and councils have been very helpful in determining what books belong in Scripture and the meaning of various passages. We do value tradition, but reject it when it goes against the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
So do Catholics. Sacred Tradition cannot go against Scripture since they are both from the same wellspring of God’s revelation. I’m really confused at what in the heck "Sola Scriptura’ means to a Protestant. You claim it but then you take the many sides of Catholicism. I’m perplexed…🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top