Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[Mannyfit75]

You are absolutely right. But, everything else in the church must be established within the authority of Scripture. In the case of the Catholic church, I believe that there are many things that do not square with the Bible.

Not really. Most Non-Catholic Christians don’t have the proper understanding on these doctrine and dogmas so they say they are unbiblical because they aren’t in the Bible.

When in fact they are. When the Bible is interpreted in the light of the teachings of the Catholic Church, it can be properly be understood.

Though one would not be able to grasp certain beliefs like the Trinity. We can explain it but how it works, no one really knows. It’s a mystery and we have to have faith that God is a Triune God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There are more then 7 deutrocanonical books. Really - 7 in OT and** 7 in NT**

.
It’s important because of protestant’s propaganda: Catholics ADD deutero-books to Bible on XVI century.

No. The Deutrocanonical Books had always been in the Canon of Scripture.

Take a look at this list:

Develop of Old Testament Canon:

1000-50 BC:
The Old Testament (hereafter “OT”) books are written.
C. 200 BC:

Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the “Septuagint” (abbreviation: “LXX”). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.

AD 30-100:
Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.
C. AD 100:

So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.

C. AD 400:
Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the “Vulgate”). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or “Ecclesiasticus”], and Baruch–he calls “apocrypha,” that is, “hidden books.” But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.

AD 1536:
Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to German. He assumes that, since Jews wrote the Old Testament, theirs is the correct canon; he puts the extra 7 books in an appendix that he calls the “Apocrypha.”

AD 1546:
The Catholic Council of Trent reaffirms the canonicity of all 46 books.

 

[Mannyfit75]

C. AD 51-125:
The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced–for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).

C. AD 140:
Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deletes references to Jesus’ Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”–the first to be compiled–forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.

C. AD 200:
But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

AD 367:
The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine’s Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]

AD 904:
Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.
AD 1442:

At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.
AD 1536:

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.

AD 1546:
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html

 

[justasking4]

When the Bible was compiled, it was not compiled for the purpose of being the sole rule of faith.

How do you know this?

 

[justasking4]

nilofc;2785996]Well, actually you got it the other way around. The assumption was the belief of the early christians and even the apostles. It has only been officially defined in 1950.

Take your Bible and go through every verse in the NT and you will not find any verse that supports the idea that Mary was assumed. This was never taught by the apostles.

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

There is absolutely no evidence that “at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven”. This is not mentioned for centuries.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

Without any facts to support these assertions all you have are speculations of men. Scripture says nothing of her supposed assumption and there are no eyewitness accounts either.

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

Just because something may be possible doesn’t mean its factual. The problem with this is that it always comes down to what the facts are and there are no facts to support her assumption. Since the catholic church is making the claim she was assumed, it must produce the proof for it. It can’t because there is none.

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

With this kind of reasoning i could claim that most people in the NT were assumed into heaven also since we don’t have their remains. Would you be willing to believe such a thing on this basis?

For your enlightenment read on:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

 

[Mannyfit75]

Take your Bible and go through every verse in the NT and you will not find any verse that supports the idea that Mary was assumed. This was never taught by the apostles.

Revelation 12:1 covers it all. Of course we already have this discussion. To me Revelation 12:1 is proof text that Mary assumed.

1 And a **great sign **appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

The great sign appeared, which indicate that a woman appeared in heaven.

This text can also have interesting parallel with Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

and Matthew 1:22-23

22 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: 23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Co-incidence? I hardly think so. John believed that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Messiah-King. He believes the prophecy of Isaiah is fullfilled in Jesus Christ.

When he received a revelation in Patmos, what he saw was a woman clothed with the sun, who gave birth to a male child, who will rule all nations with an iron rod. We know this child is Jesus Christ. We also know that Jesus’ mother is Mary.

 

[cascherman]

You ARE critical of the Bible and folks within the Catholic church disagree with each other on what the Bible says, let alone Protestant denominations. So for that, you have a magisterium who simply just uses authority to establish one interpretation of Scripture and that settles all disputes right? It surely doesn’t make their interpretation right unless you believe that they have been given “ultimate” and supreme discenment by the Holy Spirit.

You can take what I said and say its critical, but the reason I said it was not criticizing the Bible, was because I knew what I was saying looked like I was saying the Bible falls short, but if you read, on which I question if you really payed attention to what I said, you would see I say those things because I truly believe the Bible is required, is necessary, and is exactly what God wants it to be, his written Word. I just don’t believe that is all he left us.

When you have “changeable” authorities equal to Scripture, it is then easy to waffle truth around and, make it up as you go. Scriture is not the only authority but when we we put it first, it is a level and a plumb line that holds true to EVERY situation.

Well when you read the Bible with an open mind and see Christ established a Church that would be led in the Truth, it’s easy to see why I would see equality in authority in the Church and the Bible.

I especially understand why you resist believing Christ established a Church that is led in Truth, I’ve been in the same boat. If you accept that, the only natural impulse is to think of the Catholic Church since it’s the only acceptable option for a Church that has been around since the beginning.

 

[Lampo]

Take your Bible and go through every verse in the NT and you will not find any verse that supports the idea that Mary was assumed. This was never taught by the apostles.

Do these count?:

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

And since the ECF were taught by the Apostles, I’d say your last assertion is false too!:

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

 

[justasking4]

Do these count?:

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

And since the ECF were taught by the Apostles, I’d say your last assertion is false too!:

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

If you look at all the scriptural passages in context, you will not see Mary mentioned. No apostle ever said she was assumed into heaven. Not one.
Look also at claims being made outside the scriptures about this. The earliest one you quote is 377. Almost 400 years after the supposed fact. Again what all these men are doing is speculating. These are not eyewitness accounts like we have for the resurrection of Christ as recorded in I Corinthians 15:1-8.
If we had to depend on the evidence for tthe resurrection of Christ as catholics do for Mary’ assumption there would not be much of church today. The unbeliever would be well within his grounds to dismiss it as a myth.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you look at all the scriptural passages in context, you will not see Mary mentioned. No apostle ever said she was assumed into heaven. Not one.
Look also at claims being made outside the scriptures about this. The earliest one you quote is 377. Almost 400 years after the supposed fact.

Same can be said with the Trinity since that was not defined until 325 AD.

Trinity comes from the word Trinitas. I believe it was Origen who came up with the term when explaining the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The unbeliever would be well within his grounds to dismiss it as a myth.

They aren’t myth. No ECF ever called them as myth. It was not until the time of the modern Protestantism started to debunk these doctrines and call them un-Biblical.

 

[cascherman]

The earliest one you quote is 377. Almost 400 years after the supposed fact.

probably closer to 300 years. Big difference in those days and in justifying our discussion.

 

[BrewMax]

Name one and I will leave the Church today!

Mary was remained free from actual sin her whole entire life. Contradicting to Scripture and untrue.

 

[Little_Mary]

You are absolutely right. But, everything else in the church must be established within the authority of Scripture. In the case of the Catholic church, I believe that there are many things that do not square with the Bible.

The Catholic church, THE only church in existence at the time, Christian church, and the Mass, and oral tradition and the magesterium, **ALL existed before the bible was born. AND they are the REASON the bible was born. **

The bible came out of the church. The church did not come out of the bible. The bible was compiled to square with the church. Not vice versa. The bible is a Catholic document.

I think it is important to ponder why the bible was ever compiled at all. I’ll bet you will find that it was NOT for the purpose of personal, individual interpretation.

 

[BrewMax]

When the Bible is interpreted in the light of the teachings of the Catholic Church, it can be properly be understood.
.

That’s like saying in Jeffery Dahmer’s opinion, he didn’t do anything wrong.

 

[Little_Mary]

How do you know this?

Because I took the time to study a little history.

 

[Little_Mary]

That’s like saying in Jeffery Dahmer’s opinion, he didn’t do anything wrong.

Well, if we did away with congress just as protestants have done away with papal authority, Jeffrey would be a free man today.

 

[BrewMax]

The Catholic church, THE only church in existence at the time, Christian church, and the Mass, and oral tradition and the magesterium, **ALL existed before the bible was born. AND they are the REASON the bible was born. **

The bible came out of the church. The church did not come out of the bible. The bible was compiled to square with the church. Not vice versa. The bible is a Catholic document.

I think it is important to ponder why the bible was ever compiled at all. I’ll bet you will find that it was NOT for the purpose of personal, individual interpretation.

This is some of the most blatantly untrue material I have ever seen on here. Catholic tradition and magisterium did NOT exist before Jesus Christ spoke the words contained in the Gospels. You must think the Catholic church is larger than God himself! You obviously do because you claim that the Catholic church created the material contained in the Bible.

 

[Little_Mary]

Mary was remained free from actual sin her whole entire life. Contradicting to Scripture and untrue.

It is true. It does not contradict the teaching of the Church, which is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth which is what the bible teaches.

 

[BrewMax]

It is true. It does not contradict the teaching of the Church, which is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. That is what the bible teaches.

not so. Mary herself said, “I rejoice in my God and my Savior”. Why would Mary need a Savior if she was sin free? Scripture also says that ALL have fallen short of God’s grace. This is squarely an anti-Biblical Catholic teaching.