Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[bengal_fan]

Hey Bengal Fan! The water in the Tiber is just fine! When can we expect you?

probably not for a while at least. i really wouldn’t be crossing as i was raised catholic and now consider myself protestant. the Marian doctrines (as binding doctrines) are something i have trouble with. i have trouble with papal authority (not in the sense Luther did, but in the sense the orthodox churches do). there are other small issues as well. the view of scripture (i fall in the prima scriptura camp), process of salvation (i differ very slightly but it’s an important difference i think). keep praying for me.

 

[BrewMax]

Then you are calling Jesus a liar, or a weakling. You are saying that He cannot keep us in all Truth, as He promised!

The Teachings do not contradict the scripture. Scripture was created from them.

Jesus is not merely man but divinity as God himself so that negates your statement. Scripture is the inspired word of God and I’m sorry but some Catholic traditions do contradict Scripture.

 

[BrewMax]

ahhhh…don’t get me started on trying to prove the Queenship of Mother Mary in the Bible…because you’d be surprise that it is everywhere in the OLD TESTAMENT and in the NEW.

My brother…you really do need to understand the Bible.

??? You really must be joking. The queenship of Mother Mary in the Bible? Acolades I believe are in order for succeeding to put three fallicies into one sentence. Mary is NOT everyone’s mother. She is also improperly tagged as queen of Heaven and thirdly, absolutely NONE of this is Scriptural. I believe you need to learn Scripture. The huge leaps to get Mary out of Gensis 3:15 and Revelation are unsubstantiated and her name is never spoken in either instance. In fact, she is never mentioned past Acts. Now, tell me again that Catholic traditions square with Scripture. Baloney!

 

[Singinbeauty]

actually men guided by God.

God decided it and told men what to put in it. They had no part in ‘deciding’ what was to be in the bible and what wasn’t. All they did was do what God told them. Thankfully. But it wasn’t them that figured it out, it was God telling them.

 

[cascherman]

??? You really must be joking. The queenship of Mother Mary in the Bible? Acolades I believe are in order for succeeding to put three fallicies into one sentence. Mary is NOT everyone’s mother. She is also improperly tagged as queen of Heaven and thirdly, absolutely NONE of this is Scriptural. I believe you need to learn Scripture. The huge leaps to get Mary out of Gensis 3:15 and Revelation are unsubstantiated and her name is never spoken in either instance. In fact, she is never mentioned past Acts. Now, tell me again that Catholic traditions square with Scripture. Baloney!

Regardless of what you believe about Mary, I would be at least a little more careful when talking about Jesus’ earthly mother. You are talking like she is a pharisee we should be embarrassed of. I would rather give her more honor (not worship) due to her motherhood of Jesus than give her disrespect and disregard due to her not being our Savior.

As for Mary being our mother:

John 19:26-27 “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, you son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from this hour the disciple took her into his home.”

Personally when you look at this verse in the whole context of the Catholic faith you see more than just Jesus taking care of ‘business’ before he died. He is giving his mother to us, to be our spiritual mother. You can nit-pick the Catholic faith as if all it stands for is Mary, the Pope, Purgatory, and Praying to the Saints, but it will never make sense to you unless you look at the whole of Catholicism. That is why you can’t and won’t step back and understand it all. You look at the Catholic faith through a protestant sight glass.

 

[bengal_fan]

God decided it and told men what to put in it. They had no part in ‘deciding’ what was to be in the bible and what wasn’t. All they did was do what God told them. Thankfully. But it wasn’t them that figured it out, it was God telling them.

not exactly the definition of inspired. your version seems to involve God possessing the men of the councils. not exactly how inspiration works. the men debated over the books for a long time. the Holy Spirit guided the men but didn’t posess them as though they had no choice in whether or not to follow the Spirit’s guidance. is this how you think the books of the Bible were written? that God took the pens and wrote the books?

 

[Singinbeauty]

Understood. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen either.

Sure, and the world was flat… at least that was the story that had been told since who knows when by very knowledgable and smart men. Oral tradition, can’t ALWAYS trust it… Especially when the quotes you use are men that lived WAY after the apostles were gone and not ONE that was an apostle who lived during that time. Or even ONE person who lived during that time.

Look at Urban Legends…

 

[Singinbeauty]

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

God decided it. The He told them what to put 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.

Sometimes, and I am being quite honest here, I think you could be a good politition Manny. “Keep in mind the Bible is a collection of books stories, from the five books of Moses, historical books, prophetic books.” I am sorry if I find the inspired Word of God more than just a collection of stories and books. But anything God touches is more than just ‘stories’.

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.

Not exactly. The time that followed Christ letters were written to church’s for them to follow. Maybe not while Christ was alive but then, they had the live - real thing so letters were not required. We got the New Testament FROM those letters. So, they DID exist before the bible was put in its current form, hence the bible DID exist in Peter and Paul’s time.

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.

Doesn’t seem to have made a huge difference. How someone could discount the bible, God’s inspired WORD, as simple stories is beyond me.

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.

What does this have to do with my assertion that the bible existed in another form BEFORE it’s current form???

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.

Again, POINT? GOD decided they didn’t belong. Then HE told the church what to include. This was not the church’s decision but GOD’S. It still doesn’t refute the fact that those that were included existed before the bible was put into it’s current form. You have a hard time agreeing to this. Show me where the letters that are in the bible were written AFTER the church put the bible into it’s current form…

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.

Nope, God did…

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.

The bible existed but not in it’s current form. Why is this so hard??? Did the new church NOT follow the instructions and teachings of the letters (which are included in the bible we have today)? These writings existed before the bible’s current form but it doesn’t make them less valid or that the bible just magically appeared one day because some men in a council decided what books would be included. They followed those teachings as we do today (from reading it in the bible in it’s current form). It’s kind of exciting to know that the words I read in the bible are the same ones that the early church’s read as new believers.

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.

I am not ignoring history. Just trying to give the credit where credit is due… GOD. ALL through Him is perfect. Man screws it up.

 

[Singinbeauty]

not exactly the definition of inspired. your version seems to involve God possessing the men of the councils. not exactly how inspiration works. the men debated over the books for a long time. the Holy Spirit guided the men but didn’t posess them as though they had no choice in whether or not to follow the Spirit’s guidance. is this how you think the books of the Bible were written? that God took the pens and wrote the books?

Even in your version the decision was GOD’S. He guided them to include the books HE wanted, correct? So GOD decided what was to be involved. I believe that God is All Powerful and that nothing in the bible would have been omitted if it meant our life or death. He wanted to make sure we had the guide needed to follow Him.

 

[guanophore]

My question remains: in what area of the Bible does it fall short, and not give enough knowledge for our salvation?

What it is lacking is an authoritative interpretive source. Once the writing is separated from the Sacred Tradition from whence it was gleaned, the standard for understanding the meaning is lost.

 

[cascherman]

Even in your version the decision was GOD’S. He guided them to include the books HE wanted, correct? So GOD decided what was to be involved. I believe that God is All Powerful and that nothing in the bible would have been omitted if it meant our life or death. He wanted to make sure we had the guide needed to follow Him.

Your zeal is good, let me give you a few verses that come to mind when I read your post.

John 14:16-19 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.”

John 14: 25-27 " “I have told you this while I am with you.The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid…” "

He is promising us people who are guided by the Holy Spirit to Truth, there is no mention here of a book (again the Bible is given to us by God, but is it the sole authority?) These people did bring us the New Testament, inspired by God through the Holy Spirit.

They have the Truth facilitated by the Holy Spirit, not of themselves.

“In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.”

Man, that sounds a lot like Christ is ‘living’ through his apostles, not only through the scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

Do you happen to have an exhaustive list of these “Sacred Tradition (upper case T) which can never change”?

The Christian life does not consist of an “exhaustive list”, justasking. It is a way of being in the world, a perspective on life. and a manner in which the Truth of Jesus is lived and expressed. This is what Jesus taught His disciples. This is what was committed to the Apostles, who chose faithful men who could teach others also.

You remind me of the man who asked Jesus:

“Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Mark 10:17

You notice Jesus did not give him a “list” of things to do?

This oral Tradition of the Church that was recieved from the Apostles is not something outside the Scriptures is it?

No, they parallel them. The NT was formed out of the Sacred Oral Traditions, and represents them.

Where can this Tradition be found and studied?

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for starters. One can also study the creeds, liturgy, and the prayers of the Church.

 

[Lampo]

No. If you don’t provide some way for others to access this story in the future then it will be lost. Future generations will not be able to say one way or the other if your story is true or not with out some documentation.

No, people have free will to accept the truth or not. The story of me calling my dad a “heathen” when I was 5 will still be a true story 2,000 years from now. My son could write down and it would be documented. Just like the ECF writing down what they were taught.

 

[BrewMax]

As for Mary being our mother:

John 19:26-27 “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, you son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from this hour the disciple took her into his home.”

Personally when you look at this verse in the whole context of the Catholic faith you see more than just Jesus taking care of ‘business’ before he died. He is giving his mother to us, to be our spiritual mother. You can nit-pick the Catholic faith as if all it stands for is Mary, the Pope, Purgatory, and Praying to the Saints, but it will never make sense to you unless you look at the whole of Catholicism. That is why you can’t and won’t step back and understand it all. You look at the Catholic faith through a protestant sight glass.

john 19:26-27 in no way says that Mary is our mother. This is simply another far stretch. It isn’t so. Jesus was solidifying his early family with his mother and his brother. This is really simple to see. Why don’t you get it? It is because you aren’t permitted to access your own conscience or thinking. I will continue to use the knowledge and understanding that God gives me.

 

[Little_Mary]

probably not for a while at least. i really wouldn’t be crossing as i was raised catholic and now consider myself protestant. the Marian doctrines (as binding doctrines) are something i have trouble with. i have trouble with papal authority (not in the sense Luther did, but in the sense the orthodox churches do). there are other small issues as well. the view of scripture (i fall in the prima scriptura camp), process of salvation (i differ very slightly but it’s an important difference i think). keep praying for me.

I didn’t realize you were raised Catholic. But if you consider yourself protestant now you have crossed it, you just need to swim back I’ll keep a dry towel handy. Prayers for you - God bless…

 

[nilofc]

Even in your version the decision was GOD’S. He guided them to include the books HE wanted, correct? So GOD decided what was to be involved. I believe that God is All Powerful and that nothing in the bible would have been omitted if it meant our life or death. He wanted to make sure we had the guide needed to follow Him.

Sure. God decided what to include in the bible. And He used people like Jimmy Swaggart, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Billy Graham to compile these books.

NOT!

 

[nilofc]

john 19:26-27 in no way says that Mary is our mother. This is simply another far stretch. It isn’t so. Jesus was solidifying his early family with his mother and his brother. This is really simple to see. Why don’t you get it? It is because you aren’t permitted to access your own conscience or thinking. I will continue to use the knowledge and understanding that God gives me.

Hmmm…you seem to be ignoring what Jesus said when he was on the cross. I wonder why Jesus didn’t call John by his first name but rather “Son, behold thy mother”. Is it because Jesus is representing John as the human race?

You seem to contradict what Jesus is saying. Why call yourself christian then?

…and one more thing, do you really think that Jesus had “brothers”? Don’t you know that there is no word for “cousins” in the Hebrew language. Do you honestly think that Abraham is really Lot’s “brother” when he called him one. Isn’t it that Lot was Abraham’s nephew.

You need to go down deep to understand the scriptures. And you really need to have the church’s authority to understand these things otherwise, you’d be confuse just like the 35,000 Protestant denominations who can’t agree on certain doctrines because they believe what they want to believe only according to their own interpretation.

 

[nilofc]

Here’s a quote from Martin Luther:

“Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).”

…maybe you should question your protestant forebearer why he said this.

The thing is …

You cannot have Jesus as your King if you don’t have Mary as your Queen.

 

[brother_dan_mac]

??? I don’t understand. Why would it or should it say that?? What’s the point?

The bible was written by the first christians, many of whom were followers of Christ when He was alive. There was a council HUNDREDS of years later to decide what scriptues were inspired by God. This was long after THE CHURCH was refering to itself as Catholic [the first mention of the Church being “Catholic” was in 104A.D. by the Pope, as by then the Church had grown to many parts of the world and was now catholic, or universal as the word means ]. Therefore the BIBLE was originally Catholic, and centuries later KING JAMES had a loyal subject [a relative] take out the books that did not suit his taste in theology, in particular, that which supported Catholic theology more closely. So, THE CHURCH decided what was scripture, and also decides through long discernment what else is reliable as doctrine and practice. This authority was given to it by Christ to Peter, who was the first Pope.

brother dan mac

 

[guanophore]

john 19:26-27 in no way says that Mary is our mother. This is simply another far stretch. It isn’t so. Jesus was solidifying his early family with his mother and his brother. This is really simple to see. Why don’t you get it? It is because you aren’t permitted to access your own conscience or thinking. I will continue to use the knowledge and understanding that God gives me.

This is silly, BrewMax. Everyone is permitted, and required, to access one’s own conscience and thinking.

Who do you think the woman in Rev. is who gives birth to the Messiah?