S
simspt
Guest
By the way it was this very question that ultimately led to me acknowledging how much I took Catholicism for granted as a former Protestant.
- Status
K
kepha1
Guest
I would like to refute the first claim in the [bible.ca/catholic-questions.con](http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions)
Straw man argument: assumes that only Rome rejected or questioned James and Hebrews. This is not true. Universal acceptance for any of the books was gradual, and one of the determining factors of canonization. Even the Gospels were not generally accepted as inspired until 120 AD. Hebrews was not even quoted until after 250 AD, and not universally accepted until the 4rth century. African synods compiled the final list of books to be in the Bible, and was later approved by Rome, and we have been using the same 73 books ever since.
The question also assumes a failed Protestant theory of bible origins. Some of them think all Christians automatically knew which books were inspired and which weren’t, as if Apostolic Teaching took a back seat to copies of letters that no one knew for sure if they were inspired or not, as if the existence of a church was entirely dependent on written words only. This “theory” of bible origins doesn’t hold up to historical truth.
The question also fails to understand the process for canonization of the holy books. There were strict criteria the CATHOLIC Church had to follow before formally declaring a writing to be divine. Inspiration occurs when the scripture is enscripurated, (at the time of writing) but it still requires the Church to canonize the scripture, which is a formall declaration of its inspiration.
Inspiration had to be PROVEN, not just assumed. Rome approved the list, but did not reject or accept any books.
Why did Martin Luther call James “an epistle of straw” but later accepted it?
Straw man argument: assumes that only Rome rejected or questioned James and Hebrews. This is not true. Universal acceptance for any of the books was gradual, and one of the determining factors of canonization. Even the Gospels were not generally accepted as inspired until 120 AD. Hebrews was not even quoted until after 250 AD, and not universally accepted until the 4rth century. African synods compiled the final list of books to be in the Bible, and was later approved by Rome, and we have been using the same 73 books ever since.
The question also assumes a failed Protestant theory of bible origins. Some of them think all Christians automatically knew which books were inspired and which weren’t, as if Apostolic Teaching took a back seat to copies of letters that no one knew for sure if they were inspired or not, as if the existence of a church was entirely dependent on written words only. This “theory” of bible origins doesn’t hold up to historical truth.
The question also fails to understand the process for canonization of the holy books. There were strict criteria the CATHOLIC Church had to follow before formally declaring a writing to be divine. Inspiration occurs when the scripture is enscripurated, (at the time of writing) but it still requires the Church to canonize the scripture, which is a formall declaration of its inspiration.
Inspiration had to be PROVEN, not just assumed. Rome approved the list, but did not reject or accept any books.
False assertion. Notice they don’t give names of the books.
I would ask this bigot who compiled the New Testament. But anti-Catholics don’t answer simple questions, so debating with them is a waste of time.
B
BrianH
Guest
Two things. Where do you get the 120 AD date from?
Second, a link I will provide shows numerous quotes from Hebrews pre 250 AD
textexcavation.com/documents/html/ecatena.html
C
crazzeto
Guest
Start with this book
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
May also be purchased on amazon
amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271430944&sr=1-1
Edit:
BTW, Martin Luther tried dumping James, Jude, Hebrews & Revelation… And successfully dumped 6 books from the OT… Technically these can be found in his bible, but unindexed and at the back of the bible. In the introduction to James Luther wrote:
C
crazzeto
Guest
Well I couldn’t help emailing the author of this website (from my spam email account). Just can’t let ignorance of this magnatude go with out offering some illumination.
K
KShaft
Guest
Yes but typical and quite hysterical if you ask me. A bitter woman is much worse to be around than any despot third world leader(Ive been around Al Qaeda and Jaysh Al Mahdi terrorists), they just cant kill you without going to jail or at least spending a few days in court before claiming some sad childhood trauma or describing how their latest break up drove them to such actions, and then get off!
Z
Zooey
Guest
Oh I had no doubt. But everything this woman has thrown at me has been crapola. She doesn’t “give a cr*p” about the fathers, but wants me to read Mary Ann Collins. I’m probably torturing myself by continuing to converse with her, but I can’t help myself
Oh, I’ve heard of Mary Ann Collins.
And what I’ve heard is, that there is absolutely nothing to show that Mary Ann Collins even exists.
No one has ever seen her. No one has ever heard her speak. There are no pictures of her.
And best of all: Whoever is “ghost-writing” the Mary Ann Collins persona, has that most dangerous of all qualities in a bold-face liar: S/he has a bad, BAD, memory, and has, in consequence, given the world a half a dozen or so differing versions of her “life story”, all of which contradict each other on many salient points. My personal favorite is that she can’t make up her mind whether she converted to Catholicism, or whether she was born Catholic, and (depending which version in being used) she says that her parents are Catholic (while claiming that she converted as an adult), or that her parents are Protestant (while declaring simultaneously that she is a cradle Catholic and that they are “still lost to the Catholic Church”. (OK; she is
ruder than that, but CAF has
rules of behaviour after all. And so do I!!)
Z
Zooey
Guest
Actually, perusing some of MAC’s dreck has often as not left me with the feeling that “she” is being ghosted by a male. I can’t pin it down; it just seems to me that she comes across as so stereotypically “hell hath no fury” that s/he seems to have been created by a not-very-talented fiction writer.
Or possibly, now that I think about it again,a
committee of them. Each less talented and more :takeoff:insanely anti-Catholic than all the others.
L
ljsedivy
Guest
Thank you so much for posting this book. Exactly what I was looking for. I can’t wait to receive my copy.
THANK YOU!
P
PJM
Guest
GREAT CARE must be taken. There is alot of mis-informaton out there.
I recommend this site:Very well done and supported.
Catholic Bible Study and History. … History of the Catholic Bible Early History (Similar to Bible Study #1 Intro.) …
www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible
K
KShaft
Guest
You know, its really a shame stuff like this happens. These guys are really pathetic. I mean cant you just state issues that you have with the church in a dignified, informed, matter of fact manner. Typically not with left leaning guys Ive noticed. Theyve all read thier ‘rules for radicals’ book which instructs thier marxist brood to marginalize those who are moderates or traditionalists like they are extremists and if you need to make up things in the meantime in order to do it, so be it(and here under psuedonymns too).Actually, perusing some of MAC’s dreck has often as not left me with the feeling that “she” is being ghosted by a male. I can’t pin it down; it just seems to me that she comes across as so stereotypically “hell hath no fury” that s/he seems to have been created by a not-very-talented fiction writer.
Or possibly, now that I think about it again,a
Sometimes I think its a waste of time dealing with these guys thinking our time could be put on more productive things like studying scripture or chatecism or founding saints teachings, but, destroying thier arguments almost gives a focus on what to study, and strengthens the faith of those who are countering the arguments and those who would have questions. So perhaps it is a blessing in disguise.
Lord bless.
Keith
I
Ignatius
Guest
Try “Where we got the bible” by HENRY G. GRAHAM. It’s available on line here:
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
The Church of Christ is quite a denomination. They themselves don’t call themselves a denomination, but other denominations think of them as being just another denomination. A “non-denomination” denomination!
They are interesting from a Catholic point of view as well. As explained to me by a Church of Christ evangelist, back during the “Great Awakening” Alexander Campbell et al felt that all the different denomiations, creeds and confessions weren’t what God wanted, so they decided to go “back to the bible” and see what the bible said, without reference to any previous creed or confession. Forget what Luther said, forget what Calvin wrote, forget what Wesley did. Just go back to the bible for what the bible itself has to say.
And, interestingly enough, the salvation theology they developed is very similar to the Catholic Church’s! Very similar soteriology.
That is, by forgetting about Reformation polemics and about Luther and Calvin, by reading just the bible alone they returned to Catholic views of salvation! Fascinating, from a Catholic point of view.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Yes, it really is a shame to see the depths these folks will sink to, they are so desperate to make a show of themselves.
Pathetic, really…and they all seem to have read the same playbook of
nonsense.
G
Gabbione
Guest
Hi Fellow Seekers!
Hey, what this whole thread really points out is the truly SORRY state of affairs of The Church, i.e. Catholicism, today. Ever since the end of Vatican II in 1965, for 40 years there was precious little education regarding Catholicism, what it means to be Catholic, why we believe what we believe, and where are the authoritative citations for such. Ask most Catholics between the ages of 15 and 50 why they are Catholic and they tell you “Because my parents were Catholic.” From 1965 until about 5 years ago, rigorous catechises was virtually unheard of in most dioceses.
Because of the lack of knowledge about the rudiments of our Faith, well-meaning Catholics by the millions left to True Faith to sit in the pews of evangelical and fundamentalist denominations or just left the Church altogether. The largest denomination in the USA is Catholicism; the second largest denomination is fallen away Catholics! People want, they thirst to know God! It is in our nature to seek Him!
I’ve heard every excuse from “The Powers That Be” arguing against strong programs for every stage of life — everything from we don’t have the resources (i.e. priests or religious educators) to people are too busy to come. Yet when you look at what happens at mega-churches, they have programs for everyone 8 to 80, blind, sane, or crazy! And these programs are BURSTING at the seams with fallen away Catholics!
About 30% to 50% of those mega-church members are “former Catholics” and when you ask them why they are attending a particular church, they reply “Because my soul gets fed here” (meaning Bible preaching, Bible study, or even I have a “personal” relationship with Jesus!") or “They have so many programs for my children.” And those same people are the very ones who “The Powers That Be” say wouldn’t show up for programs sponsored by their local Catholic Church!
we Catholics need to turn our ship around and tell people about the full, complete, and total Truth which we, and we alone possess. We are called to be salt and light to the world and we have done a damnably poor job of it lately. It high time we educated ourselves, our children and the world!
Peace be to you!
Hey, what this whole thread really points out is the truly SORRY state of affairs of The Church, i.e. Catholicism, today. Ever since the end of Vatican II in 1965, for 40 years there was precious little education regarding Catholicism, what it means to be Catholic, why we believe what we believe, and where are the authoritative citations for such. Ask most Catholics between the ages of 15 and 50 why they are Catholic and they tell you “Because my parents were Catholic.” From 1965 until about 5 years ago, rigorous catechises was virtually unheard of in most dioceses.
Because of the lack of knowledge about the rudiments of our Faith, well-meaning Catholics by the millions left to True Faith to sit in the pews of evangelical and fundamentalist denominations or just left the Church altogether. The largest denomination in the USA is Catholicism; the second largest denomination is fallen away Catholics! People want, they thirst to know God! It is in our nature to seek Him!
I’ve heard every excuse from “The Powers That Be” arguing against strong programs for every stage of life — everything from we don’t have the resources (i.e. priests or religious educators) to people are too busy to come. Yet when you look at what happens at mega-churches, they have programs for everyone 8 to 80, blind, sane, or crazy! And these programs are BURSTING at the seams with fallen away Catholics!
About 30% to 50% of those mega-church members are “former Catholics” and when you ask them why they are attending a particular church, they reply “Because my soul gets fed here” (meaning Bible preaching, Bible study, or even I have a “personal” relationship with Jesus!") or “They have so many programs for my children.” And those same people are the very ones who “The Powers That Be” say wouldn’t show up for programs sponsored by their local Catholic Church!
we Catholics need to turn our ship around and tell people about the full, complete, and total Truth which we, and we alone possess. We are called to be salt and light to the world and we have done a damnably poor job of it lately. It high time we educated ourselves, our children and the world!
Peace be to you!
N
Nicea325
Guest
I have encountered the website in the past and it is biased. Secondly,the questions are answerable. The website reads:
Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can’t answer
Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:
1.** If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it?**
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13)
Infallibility does not equate into an instant decision. Jesus’ church must be infallible,hence Jesus handed it over to men,not a book.No different when it rejected Gnostic Gospels and unorthodox doctrines (i.e.,Arian heresy,Montanist,Donatist,etc,etc).
** Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. **
Name the books which accepted at one point,but later rejected?
**If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known? **
How does being illuminated by the HS equate into perfection?
C
crazzeto
Guest
Well what I find interesting is point 1 is flat out false, though Hebrews was in fact a contested book. However once the list was first drawn up in Hippo that was all she wrote. Interestingly as I mentioned to them in email, Martin Luther personally contested James & Hebrews rather hotly.
The same is true of Revelation, it was also contested but again the contest died off completely once the list was drawn up in Hippo. And again, Luther rejected Revelation, in fact as I directly quoted them in email, Luther said he couldn’t find Christ in Revelation.
I haven’t gotten a response back from them.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Exactly! I will be shocked,if you get a response back. Keep me informed as to what they say.
- Status