Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Debating Marian dogmas is fodder for another thread. But you are correct that the Marian dogmas are not explicit in the Bible, nor need they be. They are part of Sacred Tradition.

Rev. 12 makes sense to me. Again another thread.

I’ve started a new thread on this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=187271

 

[Montalban]

Hello,

Say what? The Bible in the Bible - it doesn’t. That it must make such a statement - it doesn’t - that is a logical deduction. If something is the only source of authority it must contain a statement within itself to testify to that authority.

I thought I was arguing against you, but I’m not. My mistake. My apologies

 

[BrewMax]

Hello,

It is a matter of historical fact! By the way, Catholics are not bound by it must be in the Bible, as Protestants are. Catholics, having the fullness of revealed Truth have all three modes of divine revelation - Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Debating Marian dogmas is fodder for another thread. But you are correct that the Marian dogmas are not explicit in the Bible, nor need they be. They are part of Sacred Tradition.

Rev. 12 makes sense to me. Again another thread.

Sola Scriptura - the erroneous idea that the sole authority and mode of revealed truth is the Bible and that it sufficiently contains all revelation within it needed for salvation. The source are Protestants on this forum.

What you are claiming to be a matter of historical is very debatable. It has been debated through the centuries. If traditions are not established in scripture, then how can anyone be certain of their Christian authenticity? I can claim that the Holy Spirit revealed another planet of humans to me but does it make it so just because I claimed it? Most everything you have claimed to be fact has been and continues to be questioned and debated by many.

 

[bengal_fan]

Hello,

The three modes of revelation are equal - none have a primacy over the other. There is much revelation that cannot be deduced only by Scripture. .

i disagree that all three are equal. i agree that there is much that cannot be directly deduced by scripture ALONE, but it can be found by properly interpreting scripture (by “properly” i mean within context of trained theologians and in group setting).

As for discarding all that cannot be found in Scriptures or easily deduced from them. The Trinity is a doctrine that cannot be found in Scripture. And even starting with the idea of the Trinity and trying to look and see if it is in Scriptures, some will see it and some won’t. So by that standard the Trinity would have to be discarded.

the trinity is actually pretty clear in the scriptures. not as a word of course, but the idea of the Father and Son being one in the same and sending their Spirit to us, and that Spirit being God dwelling within us and guiding us is all through the NT. poor example. many of the Marian doctrines can only be found by stretching the idea of archetypes. i am not saying i deny the Marian doctrines of the church by any means (i wrestle with them but do not deny them), i am saying that i do not hold to them as “Tradition” but as tradition just as anything that cannot be pretty easily deduced from scripture should be treated (the trinity being pretty easily deduced from scripture).

 

[bengal_fan]

Because you accept a document that was put together and preserved through the ages by the Authority of Rome, .

it was actually put together by church council and by the bishops representing all the churches at the time. not by the “authority of Rome” or by the Roman catholic church. it was put together by the Catholic (universal or one) church. i fully acknowledge that some special honor has always been given the bishop of Rome by the other bishops and right thinking protestants should turn an ear when the pope says something. but that position does not hold the authority to add doctrines (binding on all Christians) unilaterally. it must match scripture and be agreed upon by the other bishops.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hello,

That was a very moving story about your faith. I was raised a Southern Baptist, no dancing, drinking, smoking and so on…. I was always taught I could not loose my faith, once saved, always saved. The only problem was, if I were to drink, dance, smoke and everything else, “I must not be saved….” I enlisted in the military in the late 80’s and was out of my parents grasp for the first time. I would fall into sin hear and there and feel guilty as hell! I would talk to the pastor and was told the same old thing, once saved, always saved. A very confusing thing to never know what the rules really were and how to follow God and his plan of life. So needles to say, with every Baptist preacher I talked to I would get a slightly different answer depending on his interpretation. After years of frustration and doubting my faith, I resigned myself to live a stress free life of not attending any church.

But in 95 the Lord gave me a wife. I knew I wanted a good life and marriage so I began to take her to Church. After a while in Church she was baptized in the Baptist Church. After ten years of hit or miss church attendance and two boys later we both decided something was wrong with the whole protestant/Baptist thing. I truly believed the Holy Spirit led us to the Catholic Church. I also had a dream or two about my Granddad, although I can’t remember if he said anything…. My wife and I now have a home and just like raising children, I know what is expected of me-I finally have direction from the Church, not just a saying of the “Holy Spirit will guide me.”

The best thing ever, was my first confession. I did not tell anyone, but I almost broke down and cried talking to the priest. This was something I could not admit after all, I’m cop! I told him things I have never told anyone and for the first time in my life I knew I had been forgiven!

As for my parents, they believe I belong to a cult and I’m heading straight for hell! If they only knew, they believe this out of pride, they will let a preacher berate them all day long, but heaven forbid a priest or the Pope say the same thing. Now that I am Catholic, I finally get to understand the History of the Church and all the Christians who died in the defense of the faith for the last two-thousand years! How can you know where you are going if you don’t know where you have been?

I do not know if my Granddad can hear me when I pray for him or talk to him, but at least I do not feel like a heretic for doing just that. As far as the priest and nuns, I hold them in high regard, what a group of special people; they are the ones who I really look up too. And I will say, in the Catholic Church, the truth has set me free!

Thank you for sharing. I am very touched by your openess.

I am continually amazed by what people think is history. And to what lengths they will twist facts. Actually, many are innocently mislead by their pastors, who were also mislead, and it’s a shock to fine out what true history is, and that the CC is true.

From being here on the forum, I have noticed some denominations seem to used anit-Catholicism as their foundation.

I have been quite offended by the virulant attacks, judgements (you obviously don’t know the Bible) and inuendos hurled at me, others, and the Catholic faith by nonCatholics on an Catholic website. I have never called anyone stupid. When I ask simple questions, I am responded by DUH. Is that respectful? I have right to ask questions without being attacked.

 

[bengal_fan]

I have been quite offended by the virulant attacks, judgements (you obviously don’t know the Bible) and inuendos hurled at me, others, and the Catholic faith by nonCatholics on a Catholic website. I have never called anyone stupid. When I ask simple questions, I am responded by DUH. Is that respectful? I have right to ask questions without being attacked.

i have actually see you be a little disrespectul of other religions as i’m sure i have been as well. but your statement of this being a “catholic website” isn’t quite fair. this is the Non-Catholic Religions section of this website. a place to discuss and debate other arms of Christianity as well as other faiths. this is where you should expect to see people disagreeing with catholic doctrine.

 

[qui_est_ce]

it was actually put together by church council and by the bishops representing all the churches at the time. not by the “authority of Rome” or by the Roman catholic church. it was put together by the Catholic (universal or one) church. i fully acknowledge that some special honor has always been given the bishop of Rome by the other bishops and right thinking protestants should turn an ear when the pope says something. but that position does not hold the authority to add doctrines (binding on all Christians) unilaterally. it must match scripture and be agreed upon by the other bishops.

I mostly agree. By authority of Rome, I mean the Bishop of Rome, whom Catholics call the Pope. I also did not use the term Roman Catholic Church in my post. It was the Catholic Church, yes but Caps. I will have to agree to disagree with you on this one!

I agree with your statement that doctine must not go against Scripture, and must be agreed upon by the bishops. This meeting of the bishops to define doctrine is a Council, according to the Catholic Church. We may need to agree to disagree on this one, I don’t know exactly where you stand.

You obviously know your history, but I think a lot of people don’t realize that there were a lot of different opinions (heresies) over the years about what one should believe. Some seem to think the Bible just was always there, and everybody always believed in the Trinity, etc… The Councils had to convene to determine Doctrine when some started new ideas, like Jesus wasn’t God, Jesus wasn’t human, or which books made up the Bible, etc.

Peace, and thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

[HailMary]

The Bible is over 2000 years old and God’s word is the same then as it will be forever.

The word of God is Jesus Christ, not the bible.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Protestant101]

Thank you for sharing. I am very touched by your openess.

I am continually amazed by what people think is history. And to what lengths they will twist facts. Actually, many are innocently mislead by their pastors, who were also mislead, and it’s a shock to fine out what true history is, and that the CC is true.

From being here on the forum, I have noticed some denominations seem to used anit-Catholicism as their foundation.

I have been quite offended by the virulant attacks, judgements (you obviously don’t know the Bible) and inuendos hurled at me, others, and the Catholic faith by nonCatholics on an Catholic website. I have never called anyone stupid. When I ask simple questions, I am responded by DUH. Is that respectful? I have right to ask questions without being attacked.

It does seem that you are attacking a bit yourself; and when I stated that you don’t seem to know the Bible very well; it was not meant disrespectfully; but based upon the ideas you are presenting on Sola Scriptura. You are stating falsehoods about what it means; and if you do know something I don’t then you should just say it. The poor me syndrome of decrying “anti-catholic” is rather boring to me after listening to it by so many who actually cannot prove their points by the Bible. I apologize for offending you; but no offense is meant. Considering your approach to Protestants here; I don’t think we are doing all that bad.

 

[qui_est_ce]

i have actually see you be a little disrespectul of other religions as i’m sure i have been as well. but your statement of this being a “catholic website” isn’t quite fair. this is the Non-Catholic Religions section of this website. a place to discuss and debate other arms of Christianity as well as other faiths. this is where you should expect to see people disagreeing with catholic doctrine.

You are correct about this being the nonCatholic religions, forurm of CAF, but that does not make it a Protestant Forum.

I may have been sarcastic, but I have never attacked or implied that someone was a liar, as Protestant101 did.

One can disagree respectfully.

 

[Protestant101]

You are correct about this being the nonCatholic religions, forurm of CAF, but that does not make it a Protestant Forum.

I may have been sarcastic, but I have never attacked or implied that someone was a liar, as Protestant101 did.

One can disagree respectfully.

Where did i call anyone a liar? I would suggest that you are being anti-Protestant by twisting our posts and our words. I said you were NOT lying, but that you were spreading a lie.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It does seem that you are attacking a bit yourself; and when I stated that you don’t seem to know the Bible very well; it was not meant disrespectfully; but based upon the ideas you are presenting on Sola Scriptura. You are stating falsehoods about what it means; and if you do know something I don’t then you should just say it. The poor me syndrome of decrying “anti-catholic” is rather boring to me after listening to it by so many who actually cannot prove their points by the Bible. I apologize for offending you; but no offense is meant. Considering your approach to Protestants here; I don’t think we are doing all that bad.

How my view of Sola Scriptura (I stated I did not agree with it) have anything to do with my knowledge of the Bible? What falsehoods did I claim? What do I know that you don’t???

 

[bengal_fan]

You obviously know your history, but I think a lot of people don’t realize that there were a lot of different opinions (heresies) over the years about what one should believe. Some seem to think the Bible just was always there, and everybody always believed in the Trinity, etc… The Councils had to convene to determine Doctrine when some started new ideas, like Jesus wasn’t God, Jesus wasn’t human, or which books made up the Bible, etc.

Peace, and thanks for your thoughtful reply.

i agree that the councils were convened to mostly deal with heresies arising. there were many arguments and disagreements in these councils but eventually decisions would be made and the church would move forward. i see the councils where the books of scripture being decided upon as councils convened to battle heresy. they finally decided to best battle heresy was to nail down exactly what books exemplified the apostle’s teaching. these books were decided upon and then used to battle heresy. Tradition grew out of the apostle’s teaching. the church defined the apostle’s teaching (in my view) when they defined what scripture was. i am a protestant because i think that there have been things added to Tradition (meaning binding doctrine) that shouldn’t have been. not because they are necessarily wrong, but because we can’t show through the apostle’s teaching (and this goes back to before scripture had been defined) or scripture clearly enough to say “you’ve got to believe this or you’re a heretic or in schism or…” etc. i also think much of what happened in the reformation was political (on both sides) and that it was up to the church to really be the lightning rod of unity, but it didn’t do that and still has not done that (IMO again). why were none of the reformers invited to Trent? why was Luther not given a fair chance to air his disagreements to those who had the power to hear them and do something (i don’t hold to all that Luther disagreed with mind you). why was Calvin not taken seriously by the church? i think hundreds of years of separation fall back to those in power to stop it (the pope and bishops) didn’t do what was necessary (and i don’t mean burning heretics at the stake). the burden should fall to the Vicar of Christ to feel the sheep and lambs, and to take care of those God put in his charge. the church allowed politics to corrupt her thinking (i am not speaking doctrinally here and the reformers allowed the same thing as well). all this is to say, i’m not sure exactly where i stand, but i am searching for answers and there must, must, must be a way to bridge the gap that separates all who claim to love and know Christ. but i believe firmly that the Roman Catholic Church (and the eastern churches in communion with the pope) will have to take the lead.

 

[Protestant101]

How my view of Sola Scriptura (I stated I did not agree with it) have anything to do with my knowledge of the Bible? What falsehoods did I claim? What do I know that you don’t???

In other words we must answer all your questions; but you refuse to answer our’s??

 

[bengal_fan]

One can disagree respectfully.

i agree with this completely!! and i think this is some of the problems the body of Christ is facing. Augustine said it best:

in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, charity.

 

[Mannyfit75]

And? It still existed before it was put in it’s current form.

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit compiled the list of the Bible and which books are consider canonical.

But you have to agree that the bible existed WAY before being put into it’s current form. I am not talking about those other books, I am talking about the books contained in the bible.

It wasn’t called the Bible. Keep in mind the Bible is a collection of books stories, from the five books of Moses, historical books, prophetic books. Those were scrolls back then written from parchments.

The Bible include both OT and NT testaments. So no the Bible did not exist as its current form. In the time of Christs, it was just the Torah and the 7 Deutrocanonical Books.

And yet they still made it in. Doesn’t discount the fact that the books that are included in our current bible existed before the church decided to put it all together in one convenient place.

I don’t know if you taken a course or read material how Biblical Canon was made. I have read several books on how we got the Bible.

It took 10-20 years after the ascension of Jesus Christ for all the Four Gospels to be made. The Church existed before the Gospels and the Letters were added into the Canon of Scripture.

There were other books the Gnostic Gospels floating around. Many of these books were consider more inspiration than Revelations and Letters of James. The Church had to decide which book should be used.

In 144 AD, there was a heresy called Marcionism which rejected the Hebrew Canon completely. The Catholic Church then condemned it. This heresy lead the Church to form Synods to compiled a list of Books that ought to be used in the Churches.

So in 392 in the Council of Carthage and Council of Hippo 396 AD compiled a list of the Bible.

I don’t see the relevance of this pertaining to my post that you quoted… *sigh You can’t deny that the bible existed way before being put in its current form. These letters and writings are what the early church used when the apostles weren’t able to be physically there. So how can these writings NOT have authority?

The Bible at the time of the Apostles was only the Torah. It wasn’t even a Bible back then. The Bible is a collection of books from the Old Testament and New Testament.

We ‘protestants’ don’t OWN the church. And I think we OWE God for the bible we have today. Not the humans that put His inspired words into its current form. But that’s just me…

Oh you do. The Holy Spirit guided the Church which compiled the list of the Bible which ought to be canonical. You cannot ignore history.

I also like to add that Protestants **need to stop **separating Christ and His Church. I have been seeing this a lot lately.

 

[bengal_fan]

The Bible at the time of the Apostles was only the Torah. It wasn’t even a Bible back then. The Bible is a collection of books from the Old Testament and New Testament.

sorry but you are wrong here. the “bible” at the time of the apostles and Jesus (let’s just say the “scriptures” at the time) was the Tanakh. the entire collection that we would call the Old Testament. you had two forms of it (basically). one that included to dueterocanonical books and one that didn’t (that’s not to say the one that didn’t didn’t consider them scripture). the Torah is just the first 5 books of the Tanakh.

 

[Mannyfit75]

sorry but you are wrong here. the “bible” at the time of the apostles and Jesus (let’s just say the “scriptures” at the time) was the Tanakh. the entire collection that we would call the Old Testament. you had two forms of it (basically). one that included to dueterocanonical books and one that didn’t (that’s not to say the one that didn’t didn’t consider them scripture). the Torah is just the first 5 books of the Tanakh.

I stand corrected.

Tanakh (Hebrew: תנ״ך‎) (also Tanach, IPA: [taˈnax] or [təˈnax], or Tenak) is an acronym that identifies the Hebrew Bible. The acronym is formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Tanakh’s three traditional subdivisions:

Torah (תורה), which includes the Five Books of Moses. The printed form of the Torah is called “the Chumash” (חומש), meaning “five-part.” The Torah is also known by its Greek name, “the Pentateuch,” which similarly means “five scrolls.”
Nevi’im (נביאים), meaning “Prophets.” This division includes the books which, as a whole, cover the chronological era from the entrance of the Israelites into the Land until the Babylonian captivity of Judah (the “period of prophecy”). However, they exclude Chronicles, which covers the same period. The Nevi’im are often divided into the Earlier Prophets, which are generally historical, and the Later Prophets, which contain more exhortational prophecies.

Ketuvim (כתובים), meaning “Writings,” are sometimes also known by the Greek title “Hagiographa.” These encompass all the remaining books, and include the Five Scrolls. They are sometimes also divided into such categories as the “wisdom books” of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs, the “poetry books” of Psalms, Lamentations and Song of Solomon, and the “historical books” of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.

The Tanakh is also called Mikra or Miqra (מקרא), meaning “that which is read”.

 

[bengal_fan]

I stand corrected.

Tanakh (Hebrew: תנ״ך‎) (also Tanach, IPA: [taˈnax] or [təˈnax], or Tenak) is an acronym that identifies the Hebrew Bible. The acronym is formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Tanakh’s three traditional subdivisions:

Torah (תורה), which includes the Five Books of Moses. The printed form of the Torah is called “the Chumash” (חומש), meaning “five-part.” The Torah is also known by its Greek name, “the Pentateuch,” which similarly means “five scrolls.”
Nevi’im (נביאים), meaning “Prophets.” This division includes the books which, as a whole, cover the chronological era from the entrance of the Israelites into the Land until the Babylonian captivity of Judah (the “period of prophecy”). However, they exclude Chronicles, which covers the same period. The Nevi’im are often divided into the Earlier Prophets, which are generally historical, and the Later Prophets, which contain more exhortational prophecies.

Ketuvim (כתובים), meaning “Writings,” are sometimes also known by the Greek title “Hagiographa.” These encompass all the remaining books, and include the Five Scrolls. They are sometimes also divided into such categories as the “wisdom books” of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs, the “poetry books” of Psalms, Lamentations and Song of Solomon, and the “historical books” of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.

The Tanakh is also called Mikra or Miqra (מקרא), meaning “that which is read”.

CORRECT!