Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[Mannyfit75]

That is where you and I differ Manny… I cannot separate scripture and the bible. To me, they are one and the same. I think this is where the mis-communication is coming from.

Who decided then that the** 27 NT are inspired**?

I also like to add that in Acts Saul while persecuting to the Church, Jesus said to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

Consider this fact that the Book of Acts was written 10-20 after the event took place. The Church was in existence before the Book of Acts was written, and it was in existence before Epistles of Paul were written.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Who decided then that the 27 NT are inspired?

God. The Holy Spirit.

Who told the catholic church they were inspired?

Does it mean they weren’t officially inspired until the catholic church said so?

 

[Mannyfit75]

God.

How did God do it?

 

[Singinbeauty]

How did God do it?

Do I know the mind and actions of God?

I don’t know. How does God do anything? It is not my place to know God’s mind or fret about HOW He does things. I just know He does them and that is enough for me.

 

[Mannyfit75]

God. The Holy Spirit.

Correct.

Who told the catholic church they were inspired?

God inspired men and Church Councils that the 27 NT are inspired.

Does it mean they weren’t officially inspired until the catholic church said so?

God guided the His Church which books were Canonical and which were not Canonical. The Catechism of the Catholic Church made this very clear:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God** inspired the human authors of the sacred books**. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is **not a “religion of the book.” **Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. 73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[Mannyfit75]

Do I know the mind and actions of God?

I don’t know. How does God do anything? It is not my place to know God’s mind or fret about HOW He does things. I just know He does them and that is enough for me.

God did it through his Church. Just as Jesus promised, he would send the Holy Spirit who will guide them in all truths. The formation of Scripture was the Holy Spirit at work through His Church.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Correct.

God inspired men and Church Councils that the 27 NT are inspired.

God guided the His Church which books were Canonical and which were not Canonical. The Catechism of the Catholic Church made this very clear:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

You didn’t answer my question. I will re-state it…

Does it mean they weren’t inspired until the catholic church officially said so?

 

[Mannyfit75]

You didn’t answer my question. I will re-state it…

Does it mean they weren’t inspired until the catholic church officially said so?

The OT were inspired, and are the NT. The Church needed to declare that both Old Testament and New Testament are inspired because at the time of the Apostolic Age, there were other books (Gnostic Gospels) or Gospels thought to be more inspiring than the Epistle of James, Book of Revelations, and so forth. If the Church had not declare the books of the OT and NT canonical, the Bible would probably have more books in it than we know.

We would become Gnostics if the Church had not official declare these books to be Canonical. The Jews themselves have to separate themselves from the Christians and form their own Council of Jamnia, which rejected the Septuagint, reject the Jesus as the Messiah, and so forth.

We would see a different kind of Christianity today, if the Catholic Church had done declare the 27 NT as canonical.

I hope I have answer your question. You need to know the reasons why the Catholic Church had to make an official statement on Canon of Scripture by forming Councils to decided which were inspired and which were not.

Christianity needed to defined itself and become more orthodox in its belief. The formation of Canon of Scripture is just one of them. It was heresy so that Christianity in the entire Church would not fall into heresy of Gnosticism.

 

[Singinbeauty]

The OT were inspired, and are the NT. The Church needed to declare that both Old Testament and New Testament are inspired because at the time of the Apostolic Age, there were other books (Gnostic Gospels) or Gospels thought to be more inspiring than the Epistle of James, Book of Revelations, and so forth. If the Church had not declare the books of the OT and NT canonical, the Bible would probably have more books in it than we know.

We would become Gnostics if the Church had not official declare these books to be Canonical. The Jews themselves have to separate themselves from the Christians and form their own Council of Jamnia, which rejected the Septuagint, reject the Jesus as the Messiah, and so forth.

We would see a different kind of Christianity today, if the Catholic Church had done declare the 27 NT as canonical.

I hope I have answer your question. You need to know the reasons why the Catholic Church had to make an official statement on Canon of Scripture by forming Councils to decided which were inspired and which were not.

Christianity needed to defined itself and become more orthodox in its belief. The formation of Canon of Scripture is just one of them. It was heresy so that Christianity in the entire Church would not fall into heresy of Gnosticism.

Just because it was said to be inspired in the 1500’s doesn’t mean that it wasn’t inspired when it was written. The church didn’t decide it was inspired, GOD said it was and told the church when it was decided that we would compile the teachings and writings into one convenient book. But it does not mean that it wasn’t inspired when it was written. SO, the bible - being compiled of Holy Scripture that was written at the time that the Church was getting it’s start - existed as it’s separate form way before we decided to compile it into one book. God inspired those writings and teachings, men wrote those inspired words down, the Church followed those teachings, and then in the 1500’s it was decided that we would put those teachings and writings in one book.

It doesn’t matter that others existed at the time. Those included in the bible now (considered inspired) were also written and existed and those, that are the bible now, existed as the Church grew. Whether separate or together in one book it is still the inspired Scripture of God and shouldn’t be thought of as any less because we didn’t have it in the book it is in today.

They existed before being compiled into the book. Therefore, they existed as the Church grew - hence, since the bible IS those writings and teachings, the bible existed as the Church grew. Because the bible would be nothing if you took those writings and teachings out but a binding with nothing in between.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Just because it was said to be inspired in the 1500’s doesn’t mean that it wasn’t inspired when it was written. The church didn’t decide it was inspired, GOD said it was and told the church when it was decided that we would compile the teachings and writings into one convenient book. But it does not mean that it wasn’t inspired when it was written. SO, the bible - being compiled of Holy Scripture that was written at the time that the Church was getting it’s start - existed as it’s separate form way before we decided to compile it into one book. God inspired those writings and teachings, men wrote those inspired words down, the Church followed those teachings, and then in the 1500’s it was decided that we would put those teachings and writings in one book.

The list in the Council of Trent is the same Canonical List found in Carthage and Hippo.

It doesn’t matter that others existed at the time. Those included in the bible now (considered inspired) were also written and existed and those, that are the bible now, existed as the Church grew. Whether separate or together in one book it is still the inspired Scripture of God and shouldn’t be thought of as any less because we didn’t have it in the book it is in today.

The only problem is that the Protestant Bible has less books than what we Catholics have or the Eastern Orthodox Church have. The Protestants in the late 16th Century remove 7 Deutrocanonical Books, books your forefathers call as Apocryphal.

They existed before being compiled into the book. Therefore, they existed as the Church grew - hence, since the bible IS those writings and teachings, the bible existed as the Church grew. Because the bible would be nothing if you took those writings and teachings out but a binding with nothing in between.

The Bible would be nothing if the God had not inspired men in the Church to accept the 27 NT books as part of the Canon of Scripture. Sacred Scripture now is complete in its entirety.

 

[Singinbeauty]

The Bible would not nothing if the God had not inspired men in the Church to accept the 27 NT books as part of the Canon of Scripture. Sacred Scripture now is complete in its entirety.

No, the bible would be nothing if God had not inspired the men to WRITE it down. Just because the church decided what goes into the book we now read from doesn’t mean it wasn’t inspired when it was written down. The Church still learned and followed those writings even before it was in it’s current form. without those inspired writings the bible would have nothing to include in it, therefore - those men who were on that council would have nothing to declare as inspired. Those writings existed way before those men were born or had even had a chance to read them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, the bible would be nothing if God had not inspired the men to WRITE it down. Just because the church decided what goes into the book we now read from doesn’t mean it wasn’t inspired when it was written down. The Church still learned and followed those writings even before it was in it’s current form. without those inspired writings the bible would have nothing to include in it, therefore - those men who were on that council would have nothing to declare as inspired. Those writings existed way before those men were born or had even had a chance to read them.

I made a typo which I corrected. I wrote. The Bible **would be nothing **if the God had not inspired men in the Church to accept the 27 NT books as part of the Canon of Scripture. Sacred Scripture now is complete in its entirety.

So you are claiming the NT came before the Church? Don’t get me wrong my Protestant friend. I believe in Acts that the Gospel was preached orally. Jesus didn’t commanded his Apostles to write.

The Church did well without the NT in written form for the first 10-20 years.

 

[Singinbeauty]

I made a typo which I corrected.

I know, and I just wrote as if you had said ‘it would be nothing if…’ But you and I differ on that. I think it would be nothing without the scripture and you seem to believe that it would be nothing without the church deciding it was inspired.

I wrote. The Bible **would be nothing **if the God had not inspired men in the Church to accept the 27 NT books as part of the Canon of Scripture. Sacred Scripture now is complete in its entirety.

So you are claiming the NT came before the Church? Don’t get me wrong my Protestant friend. I believe in Acts that the Gospel was preached orally. Jesus didn’t commanded his Apostles to write.

The Church did well without the NT in written form for the first 10-20 years.

Actually, if you read my posts - I never say that the bible existed BEFORE the Church. At least I tried not to. But it did exist while the Church grew and Scripture grew with the Church. Half the bible existed before the Church. The OT. But the rest finished it up while the Church was cutting it’s teeth in this world.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, if you read my posts - I never say that the bible existed BEFORE the Church. At least I tried not to. But it did exist while the Church grew and Scripture grew with the Church. Half the bible existed before the Church. The OT. But the rest finished it up while the Church was cutting it’s teeth in this world.

I would have say it existed in oral form in the Apostolic Age.

 

[Singinbeauty]

I would have say it existed in oral form in the Apostolic Age.

Ok. Agree’d. That would mean that the Bible existed before it was put into it’s current form…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ok. Agree’d. That would mean that the Bible existed before it was put into it’s current form…

Our prespective differ. I am thankful for the Catholic Church who Canonized all books from the OT and NT. If she hadn’t, I think our Bible today would have Gospel of Thomas, Gospel Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, etc…

 

[Singinbeauty]

Our prespective differ. I am thankful for the Catholic Church who Canonized all books from the OT and NT. If she hadn’t, I think our Bible today would have Gospel of Thomas, Gospel Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, etc…

God wouldn’t have let that happen.

 

[St_Violet]

well, God indeed inspired men, but these men went through rough times of deciding of was considered inspired and what wasn’t, deciding what was inspired took the Church alot of prayer , alot of disagreements and possibly even arguments, and alot of studying etc etc, Since the Catholic Church is the church Christ himself established, it’s really no coincidence that the Lord motivated the Catholic Church to compile it and therefore The Church should be appreciated for their hard work because like I said putting the bible together was no easy task.

a thank you letter wouldn’t hurt either, you protestants can simply send it to the Vatican, tell them Violet says hi

 

[guanophore]

What must you do specifically to be saved?

Why are you trying to derail this thread, ja4? What does this question have to do with the Topic?

You say you can trust the Canon of scripture beceause “they had certain criteria they used to decide which books”. This is true, and all those criteria, as well as the selection of what the criteria would be, come from Sacred Tradition. I know this chaps you, because you prefer to believe it does not exist, but there it is, right in your hand!

Purgatory is a word uses to encompass the explanation of how we are cleansed with Christ’s saving blood. Do you not believe that you will be cleansed with His blood and made holy before stepping into His presence? Do you think you will sin in heaven? Do you sin now? And what happens to make it possible so not only you won’t sin, but you won’t even be drawn to sin? We believe it is Christ’s blood cleansing us, this process has been called purgatory by the Church. We believe that we are not just declared righteous by His sacrificial blood but actually made completely righteous by His blood.

The marian doctrines all explain who Christ is. Scripture tells us Mary’s soul magnifies the Lord. In other words, looking at Mary, only makes the picture of who Christ is bigger. Or do you disagree with that interpretation of scripture also?

What part of scripture can one not believe and still be saved? That is what I hear from your question. What teaching of the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, can be rejected and not reject Christ?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

You are falling into his ploy. He has to conceded defeat on this topic, but still doesn’t want to admit that Sacred Tradition exists, or has any value. Instead, he throws a spattering of Chick Tract strawmen out, and tries to derail the thread!

How can fire cleanse a soul? Not even the I Corinthians 3 passage claims this.

I disagree with this. It may claim to do so but when we look at the specifics of the marian doctrines and compare them with scripture we don’t see this.

I don’t see how you are making this connection with Mary.

I’m trying to understand what the essentials are of the gospel message is in the catholic church. What are the components that must be believed to be saved in the catholic church?

Start another thread, then. You hare already on 2-3 Marian threads vociferously disagreeing. Do you really need to derail this one too?

 

[guanophore]

The OT were inspired, and are the NT. The Church needed to declare that both Old Testament and New Testament are inspired because at the time of the Apostolic Age, there were other books (Gnostic Gospels) or Gospels thought to be more inspiring than the Epistle of James, Book of Revelations, and so forth. If the Church had not declare the books of the OT and NT canonical, the Bible would probably have more books in it than we know.

We would become Gnostics if the Church had not official declare these books to be Canonical. The Jews themselves have to separate themselves from the Christians and form their own Council of Jamnia, which rejected the Septuagint, reject the Jesus as the Messiah, and so forth.

We would see a different kind of Christianity today, if the Catholic Church had done declare the 27 NT as canonical.

I hope I have answer your question. You need to know the reasons why the Catholic Church had to make an official statement on Canon of Scripture by forming Councils to decided which were inspired and which were not.

Christianity needed to defined itself and become more orthodox in its belief. The formation of Canon of Scripture is just one of them. It was heresy so that Christianity in the entire Church would not fall into heresy of Gnosticism.

I don’t think you did. I am not at all sure you understand the question. She keeps asking if they were inspired when they were written, or not until the church declared them to be such.