Origin of Sacred Scriptures?

[bamaster47]

I stumbled across this video on YouTube, made by a non-Catholic Christian man regarding the origin of the Bible and the inspiration of its authors:

youtube.com/user/ChristianAnswers777#p/a/f/2/eUwqNjcWcx8

The video takes a very clearly anti-Catholic stance, rejecting several important teachings of Catholicism regarding how the Bible came into existence. It ends by saying that the Catholic Church needs to repent because it has taught that Church Tradition is above Sacred Scripture.

Please watch this video and respond to this post with your thoughts on what is said in the video. What is the official Catholic rebuttal to the points made in the video?

Other anti-Catholic videos have been published by the same YouTube channel, such as this one, which purports that the Catholic Church is not the One True Church: youtube.com/watch?v=hGnHj6y72nY …please feel free to comment on this video as well. I know there is solid Catholic apologetics out there to respond to these videos, so I’ve come here to know what it is

Thanks!

 

[nablaise]

The person who made that video clearly did not read the Catechism:

II. THE CHURCH’S ORIGIN, FOUNDATION AND MISSION

758 We begin our investigation of the Church’s mystery by meditating on her origin in the Holy Trinity’s plan and her progressive realization in history.

A plan born in the Father’s heart

759 "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,"150 to which he calls all men in his Son. "The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ."151 This “family of God” is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father’s plan. In fact, "already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Advance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time."152

The Church- foreshadowed from the world’s beginning

760 Christians of the first centuries said, "The world was created for the sake of the Church."153 God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the “convocation” of men in Christ, and this “convocation” is the Church. The Church is the goal of all things,154 and God permitted such painful upheavals as the angels’ fall and man’s sin only as occasions and means for displaying all the power of his arm and the whole measure of the love he wanted to give the world:

Just as God’s will is creation and is called “the world,” so his intention is the salvation of men, and it is called "the Church."155

With this knowledge, it seems to me that questions concerning Sacred Scriptures are basically answered.

 

[srferdave]

Through that whole rambling he did not state once how the books of the New Testament came to be. All he said is that the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible.

Did the Bible fall out of the sky?

Someone some how had to decide which books were inspired. They didn’t just happen without any human intervention. So who decided which books these would be? It was the Christian Church. What was the first Christian Church - it was the Catholic Church.

Just because the term catholic was not used in the first couple centuries does not mean that the Catholic Church was not the original Church. The term catholic means universal. Rome eventually made Christianity the official religion (after the persecutions). Since Rome ruled the west it only makes sense that the term universal (catholic) would be used.

 

[Theophorus]

Just because the term catholic was not used in the first couple centuries does not mean that the Catholic Church was not the original Church. The term catholic means universal. Rome eventually made Christianity the official religion (after the persecutions). Since Rome ruled the west it only makes sense that the term universal (catholic) would be used.

The term “Catholic Church” used as a descriptive, to differentiate from gnostics and other heretics was in established use by the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch who died c. A.D.117

In the video several stereotypically false claims are made including:

that we worship Mary( any Catholic worth their salt knows that this one is false)

that there was no Catholic Church till at least the A.D. 300’s (cf. Mat Ch16 and St Ignatius of Antioch on that one)

The Church claims that she is the source of Scripture
(check the Catechism round paragraph 80 for what is said about the transmission of the word of God)

etc. etc.

So the Church didn’t give us the Bible but it did recognise what books are part of the bible. That the Church recognised the divinely inspired books of Scripture is exactly what we believe. There were many documents going around in the early years some good(like the Shepherd of hermas) and some dodgy (like the gnostic gospel of Philip) that aren’t in the canon. It was the early Christians who sorted the wheat from the chaff. these early Christians were members of the Catholic Church given the Authority to do so by Christ Himself (again cf. Mt ch16)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Here’s a fallacy in logic he used. He said that if the canon of Scripture was discerned by Tradition that therefore Tradition must be “superior” to Scripture. Not only does he not offer a reason for why he comes to that conclusion, but it is absurd on its face. If a Christian living in 60 A.D. discerned that Christ was the Son of God is that Christian therefore superior to God? The idea doesn’t even make any sense.

His big “point” that was accompanied by the flashing word “IMPORTANT” was: “The Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it.” First of all, to state the obvious: That is the Catholic position. Scripture does not become Scripture only when the Church declares it so—the Church receives what was handed to Her (CCC#105). So his entire argument there against Catholicism is a strawman. Second, in saying this he unwittingly admits Tradition was the mechanism the Church used to recognize Scripture. And third, his generic “The Christian Church” recognized Scripture is useless if he refused to identify either a bishop or council or an actual Christian whose canon was correct. Which one of those recognized his 66-book canon and on what basis does he embrace that Christian’s canon over another’s?

In short, this youtuber’s arguments are illogical and amateurish.

 

[rdscheirer]

What all of these idiotic charlatans don’t realize is that when Jesus or anybody else in the New Testament mentions “Scripture” they are talking about the Old Testament. The New Testament was not written yet! Even St. Paul says remeber the SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION we have taught you. He lived in the first century maybe around the same age as Jesus as he was of the age 30’s-40’s as a Pharisee to have power to go after the new sect.

 

[simspt]

I stumbled across this video on YouTube, made by a non-Catholic Christian man regarding the origin of the Bible and the inspiration of its authors:

youtube.com/user/ChristianAnswers777#p/a/f/2/eUwqNjcWcx8

The video takes a very clearly anti-Catholic stance, rejecting several important teachings of Catholicism regarding how the Bible came into existence. It ends by saying that the Catholic Church needs to repent because it has taught that Church Tradition is above Sacred Scripture.

Please watch this video and respond to this post with your thoughts on what is said in the video. What is the official Catholic rebuttal to the points made in the video?

Other anti-Catholic videos have been published by the same YouTube channel, such as this one, which purports that the Catholic Church is not the One True Church: youtube.com/watch?v=hGnHj6y72nY …please feel free to comment on this video as well. I know there is solid Catholic apologetics out there to respond to these videos, so I’ve come here to know what it is

Thanks!

The NT writings were judged by the early church as authortitative or not by tradition aka rule of faith. that rule of faith was also influeced by the NT writings. There was a circularity and dynamic process occurring early on eg 1st and 2nd century. Tradition both written and oral were never divorced from each other in the early church. Preaching and oral first then written later (same Gospel).

 

[thistle]

I stumbled across this video on YouTube, made by a non-Catholic Christian man regarding the origin of the Bible and the inspiration of its authors:

youtube.com/user/ChristianAnswers777#p/a/f/2/eUwqNjcWcx8

The video takes a very clearly anti-Catholic stance, rejecting several important teachings of Catholicism regarding how the Bible came into existence. It ends by saying that the Catholic Church needs to repent because it has taught that Church Tradition is above Sacred Scripture.

Please watch this video and respond to this post with your thoughts on what is said in the video. What is the official Catholic rebuttal to the points made in the video?

Other anti-Catholic videos have been published by the same YouTube channel, such as this one, which purports that the Catholic Church is not the One True Church: youtube.com/watch?v=hGnHj6y72nY …please feel free to comment on this video as well. I know there is solid Catholic apologetics out there to respond to these videos, so I’ve come here to know what it is

Thanks!

He should read Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt To The Catholic Church by Henry G. Graham.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

 

[James224]

I stumbled across this video on YouTube, made by a non-Catholic Christian man regarding the origin of the Bible and the inspiration of its authors:

youtube.com/user/ChristianAnswers777#p/a/f/2/eUwqNjcWcx8

The video takes a very clearly anti-Catholic stance, rejecting several important teachings of Catholicism regarding how the Bible came into existence. It ends by saying that the Catholic Church needs to repent because it has taught that Church Tradition is above Sacred Scripture.

Please watch this video and respond to this post with your thoughts on what is said in the video. What is the official Catholic rebuttal to the points made in the video?

Other anti-Catholic videos have been published by the same YouTube channel, such as this one, which purports that the Catholic Church is not the One True Church: youtube.com/watch?v=hGnHj6y72nY …please feel free to comment on this video as well. I know there is solid Catholic apologetics out there to respond to these videos, so I’ve come here to know what it is

Thanks!

Same ole stuff! There are many arguments against their views but I would start out with reason: The Church started in 33ad and the first book of the NT wasn’t written until around 48ad. By then the church had spread over the known world. Where was the authority during those first 15 years? The first copy of the NT wasn’t written down until around 90ad. So if the bible was the sole rule of faith, nobody would have had the faith!