protestants reading the bible are taking the catholic church's word for it.

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh good grief.

OK.

There should be no argument that somehow humans were involved in the process of adjucating the canon. I mean somehow, somewhere, somebody or some folks had to decide that Hebrews was in and 1 Clement was out. Now we can have a debate on how this happened and how easy this process was, but the fact remains that humans were involved in this process.

However,

This was not a case of humans deciding for God what the Bible would look like. This certainly was settled in heaven and God was just allowing man to join him in this process.

God certainly uses humans in His work, even today this happens. This does not mean that humans should take the praise and glory for this. When this happens it is just man joining God in what He is doing and all praise goes back to Him.

Just because God uses humans in one branch of Christianity, it does not mean this branch of Christianity is superior in any way.

It is true that the apostolic church at some point adopted the name Catholic for itself. This apostolic church later divided into multiple organizations. When this happens according to logical rules of inheritance, all child organizations inherit from the parent (obviously certain attributes like name can only be inherited by one child).

So the folks that were involved in adjucating the canon are logically common ancesters to all of us.

So there is absolutely no basis in all of this for one organization to make boasts for itself in this. In fact it does not seem becoming and fitting at all.
 
elvisman said:
Nonsense**. There were more than a dozen “Gospels” and not all were considered Scripture by all**, that is.
It took the Authority of the Church to declare the canon. Same goes with the the Epistles. There were dozens of those, as well, but the Authority of the Church and the promise of Christ in John 16:12-15 trumped the nay-sayers.

And none of those people were protected by infallibility. If Luther had his way - you’d be reading a much smaller Bible today than you do. It’s only because of the prodding of his contemporaries that he eventually settled. AND, it’s only because of the Canon declared by the Catholic Church that you even have the Bible you have now - albeit an “edited” version
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I am extremely confused now. If the Early Church (which was East and West together before the Schism) compiled the Canon, then why do the present day Catholic and Orthodox churches have different sets of books in their canons? Something obviously went wrong.
 
Why would the One Holy Apostolic Church, choose Books and writings to include in the Bible, that would disagree with the teachings of the Church.

Why would the One Holy Apostolic Church , choose to teach something different than what the books and writings contained.

The Catholic Church had 400 yrs to study all of the writings and books that were part of Christianity. It makes no sense at all that they would choose books to include in The Holy Bible , their holy book, that would refute their ways of worship. They understood the writings and their interpretations better than we do today. They were closer to the events that unfolded, understood the language and its meanings. Likewise, why would the church teach anything different than what was contained in both the writings and the understanding of those writings as part of the doctrines and practices of the church.

It is illogical that God would have divinely inspired the writings, inclusion and understandings and then left them to the care of his church who got it all wrong. Protestants are basically saying that God would have left his divine word in the hands of Apostates for 1500 yrs and then sent Martin Luther to correct the churches teachings and to proof read and correct his written word.
 
Publisher said:
Luke and Acts were passed around as a single book…and written after Paul’s death…so Paul could have hardly quoted “Luke”.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that all the books were separately passed around

So do you think Luke stole from Paul?

What dates do you have on those? I have Luke written in c. 60AD and Paul died in c. 67AD.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Oh good grief.

OK.

There should be no argument that somehow humans were involved in the process of adjucating the canon. I mean somehow, somewhere, somebody or some folks had to decide that Hebrews was in and 1 Clement was out. Now we can have a debate on how this happened and how easy this process was, but the fact remains that humans were involved in this process.

However,

This was not a case of humans deciding for God what the Bible would look like. This certainly was settled in heaven and God was just allowing man to join him in this process.

God certainly uses humans in His work, even today this happens. This does not mean that humans should take the praise and glory for this. When this happens it is just man joining God in what He is doing and all praise goes back to Him.

Just because God uses humans in one branch of Christianity, it does not mean this branch of Christianity is superior in any way.

It is true that the apostolic church at some point adopted the name Catholic for itself. This apostolic church later divided into multiple organizations. When this happens according to logical rules of inheritance, all child organizations inherit from the parent (obviously certain attributes like name can only be inherited by one child).

So the folks that were involved in adjucating the canon are logically common ancesters to all of us.

So there is absolutely no basis in all of this for one organization to make boasts for itself in this. In fact it does not seem becoming and fitting at all.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
.
It is illogical that God would have divinely inspired the writings, inclusion and understandings and then left them to the care of his church who got it all wrong. Protestants are basically saying that God would have left his divine word in the hands of Apostates for 1500 yrs and then sent Martin Luther to correct the churches teachings and to proof read and correct his written word.
Click to expand...
That is a silly and unintelligent statement to make. You can’t honestly believe it.
 
I have heard tallk of this Q manuscript. Do we have it in hand?

My question why couldn’t Q be the actual oral history and not a written source?
 
That is a silly and unintelligent statement to make. You can’t honestly believe it.
Click to expand...
It was meant to be silly. As far as being unintelligent, you explain what Luther did. Did Luther not Challenge the teachings of the Church? Did he not rewrite the Bible, leave out entire books, and change some words? Did Luther not start his own Church?

All Protestant denominations can trace their lineage to Luther. Who gave Luther his authority to do what he did. If you can prove that God spoke to Luther and told him to do what he did, I will change to Protestant. Until then, I will stay with the Church that Jesus started through his apostles with the understandings of the teachings that he left us.
 
Proallen said:
Hmmm. I am extremely confused now. If the Early Church (which was East and West together before the Schism) compiled the Canon, then why do the present day Catholic and Orthodox churches have different sets of books in their canons? Something obviously went wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes - something did go wrong. It’s called the Great Schism.

The canon - which the Catholic Church has today - was the very same canon declared at the Councils of Rome (382) Hippo (393), Carthage (397), and Trent (1545-1563).
 
Cursilista said:
It was meant to be silly. As far as being unintelligent, you explain what Luther did. Did Luther not Challenge the teachings of the Church? Did he not rewrite the Bible, leave out entire books, and change some words? Did Luther not start his own Church?

All Protestant denominations can trace their lineage to Luther. Who gave Luther his authority to do what he did. If you can prove that God spoke to Luther and told him to do what he did, I will change to Protestant. Until then, I will stay with the Church that Jesus started through his apostles with the understandings of the teachings that he left us.
Click to expand...
Thats just bad history. It seems like you need to read about the German Reformation, the English Reformation, and the Radicial Reformation.
 
elvisman said:
Yes - something did go wrong. It’s called the Great Schism.

**The canon - which the Catholic Church has today **- was the very same canon declared at the Councils of Rome (382) Hippo (393), Carthage (397), and Trent (1545-1563).
Click to expand...
That’s funny. Hippo and Carthage became part of the Orthodox church didn’t they?
 
schaick said:
My understanding was that all the books were separately passed around

So do you think Luke stole from Paul?

What dates do you have on those? I have Luke written in c. 60AD and Paul died in c. 67AD.
Click to expand...
“Stole” from Paul…no…used Paul’s letters as did some of the other gospel writers…yes…Luke, which was written first…then followed by Acts most likely written 80 CE to end of first century.
 
apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonGermanReformation.htm

Ok, I just read about the German Reformation and it sounds like Luther took it all upon himself, with the assistance of others to rewrite the bible, reinterpret the bible. Luther’s interpretation is assissted by others but it was his final interpretation that won out.

I dont see where this history refutes what I said before.

Looking up the English and Radical now
 
Cursilista said:
It was meant to be silly. As far as being unintelligent, you explain what Luther did. Did Luther not Challenge the teachings of the Church? Did he not rewrite the Bible, leave out entire books, and change some words? Did Luther not start his own Church?

All Protestant denominations can trace their lineage to Luther. Who gave Luther his authority to do what he did. If you can prove that God spoke to Luther and told him to do what he did, I will change to Protestant. Until then, I will stay with the Church that Jesus started through his apostles with the understandings of the teachings that he left us.
Click to expand...
This is much more of a rant than it is an accurate depiction of what Luther taught and challenged in the Roman church. The books you are referring to were even set apart from the Scriptures by St. Jerome when he compiled the Latin Vulgate. They clearly contain errors of many kinds and cannot be considered the fully inspired word of God because they are not and kudos to Luther for having the presence of mind and the Spirit for knowing it and doing something about it. The apocrypha is useful for (some) history especially the Maccabean period, but it cannot stand as Scripture. It has been challenged as such for centuries, long before the Reformation.

Even you and the Orthodox church which you claim is also in an unbroken lineage of the Apostles has differring sets of books in your Canons. All (30,000 and some) Protestants agree upon the books of the Bible, but yet (2) churches, Catholic and Orthodox cannot agree. Hmmm:hmmm:
 
The English Reformation was the series of events in 16th century England by which the Church of England first broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

These events were, in part, associated with the wider process of the European Protestant Reformation, a religious and political movement which affected the practice of Christianity across most of Europe during this period. Many factors contributed to the process: the decline of feudalism and the rise of nationalism, the rise of the common law, the invention of the printing press and increased circulation of the Bible, the transmission of new knowledge and ideas among scholars and the upper and middle classes. However, the various phases of the English Reformation, which also covered Wales and Ireland, were largely driven by changes in government policy, to which public opinion gradually

I think you need to read your history. The Reformation was more politically motivated and they reinterpreted the bible to fit their needs. The Reformers took power unto themselves by using religion to inforce their authority.
 
Cursilista said:
The English Reformation was the series of events in 16th century England by which the Church of England first broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

These events were, in part, associated with the wider process of the European Protestant Reformation, a religious and political movement which affected the practice of Christianity across most of Europe during this period. Many factors contributed to the process: the decline of feudalism and the rise of nationalism, the rise of the common law, the invention of the printing press and increased circulation of the Bible, the transmission of new knowledge and ideas among scholars and the upper and middle classes. However, the various phases of the English Reformation, which also covered Wales and Ireland, were largely driven by changes in government policy, to which public opinion gradually

I think you need to read your history. The Reformation was more politically motivated and they reinterpreted the bible to fit their needs. The Reformers took power unto themselves by using religion to inforce their authority.
Click to expand...
You couldn’t have attended college.
 
You tell me to read history and YOU had to actually look up High School history…:rolleyes:
Tell me how the English Reformation can trace their lineage to Luther…
 
Dokimas said:
It’s just hard to take hearing the CC did this and the CC did that while not mentioning the Holy Spirit at all. ALL the credit goes to the Holy Spirit, IMO, so at the very least, He should get the ‘top billing’ and not you or I or any church including the CC.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Dokimas said:
It’s just hard to take hearing the CC did this and the CC did that while not mentioning the Holy Spirit at all. ALL the credit goes to the Holy Spirit, IMO, so at the very least, He should get the ‘top billing’ and not you or I or any church including the CC.
Click to expand...
Yes all credit does go to the Holy Spirit, but we must remember that the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Catholic Church. Every thing the Church accomplished in any age is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church. The two are in-separable just as you and your soul are one and the same in the person God created you to be. So it is with the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top