Removed Scripture?

[almosthome1]

First, I’m new, and I’m not certain that this is the appropriate section for my question, so if not please let me know.

I had fallen away from my Catholicism, in large part I suppose now to heresy. My family is “Catholic” (in quotes bc for the majority it is only in name), but semirecently I have felt a huge pull within myself to be an actual Catholic, and have been reading the Holy Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

My question is, very frequently, I am confronted with accusations that the Bible is not authentic, that way back when someone had alterned it, specifically in taking out passages of reincarnation and adding stuff to make God sound mean, that in the original He was the most peaceful loving being and that hell is a figment of someone’s imagination. At first simply redirecting the accusers to the Catholic Bible or if they were super persistent to the Orthodox Bible as it has the 3rd Macabees, but that doesn’t seem to work either now.

They have never told me who this someone is that changed things, google has been not help, although I did see few gnostic gospels that perhaps they had referenced, but not completely or even accurately.

I don’t believe there is any truth to it, but could you maybe help me in how to defend the scripture against such attacks. I suppose I find so bothersome bc I have never seen anything in support of this stance, not to mention a great majority of it comes from family members who are supposedly Catholic.

Thank you, Peace in Christ

 

[YADA]

You do not say who is challenging you … Family, others …

My Advice: Read Henry Graham’s book “Where We Got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church” …

You can probably get it at a library but here is the link to amazon where you get it.

It is not a huge book and though it has been years since I read it - I recall it as very interesting and an “easy, fast read” Its a good basic history of the Scriptures - not too scholarly … but well researched IMHO It is a great start for your inquiry.

amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895551373

May God Bless you during this Journey to deepen your faith

 

[almosthome1]

yes, sadly it is mostly from within my own family. Thanks for the book.

 

[Cachonga]

Sadly there is a great attack against the Word of God. This has been going on from the very beginning (the serpent asked Eve, “Did God really say…”), but it is becoming much more blatant in our day. I hae even encountered someone who was getting highly questionable notes within his own Catholic Study Bible (things like creation did not really occur in 7 24 hour days). I think the biggest attack is coming from people like Bart Ehrman (author of “Jesus Interrupted”). I know that he was debated earlier this year on the subject “Did the Bible misquote Jesus”. You can order a copy at aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=869&osCsid=2513531f5a139b396669a2af9a7d4c98 (Yes, it is considered an anti-Catholic site, however, James White has also debated JW’s, Mormons, athiests, muslims and others, and the link will take you directly to this debate, so you won’t be exposed to any anti-catholic material).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

almosthome1

I second the Where we got the Bible recommendation. It is a short read which will open up avenues of further and more in depth research if need be.

(Yes, it is considered an anti-Catholic site, however, James White has also debated JW’s, Mormons, athiests, muslims and others, and the link will take you directly to this debate, so you won’t be exposed to any anti-catholic material).

I don’t trust Mr. White to teach me about Catholicism in any way shape or form due to his anti-Catholicism, so why should I trust him to speak about Mormons, atheists or even today’s weather?

God bless

 

[Linda_Marie]

I think that when confronted with accusations such as ‘someone altered the Bible’ the burdon of proof rests on them. They made the assertion. Let them prove it. Don’t just accept their pronouncement or try to prove them wrong. Make them back it up.

 

[BrianLC]

I think the reason people atack the Bible is because if they dont then they have to stand face to face witht the fact that it really does confirm itslef and then combibned with Sacred Tradition even more so. people seem to go so far out of their way to disprove Christianity because if they dont then they are responsible it means they have to rpent and people are lovers of the world (I just read James last night). I have read some excluded books from the Bible such as the gnostic gospels and there is a Gospel of Thomas I think. the reason these are not in the Scriptures is because they wehere written very far after the fact and contain doctrines that are heretical and contradict the established canon. Thomas was not even written by Thomas, there are document s of a first century bishop warning against the false authorship of this book. The only time I have ever heard of altering the scriptures is when Martin Luther removed the “Catholic” books such as 1 2 Maccabees and Judith, etc.

 

[Evan]

I think that when confronted with accusations such as ‘someone altered the Bible’ the burdon of proof rests on them. They made the assertion. Let them prove it. Don’t just accept their pronouncement or try to prove them wrong. Make them back it up.

We have more copies of the bible and bible fragments from the time of the roman empire than any other book written at that time. They all agree, for the most part, with each other. There are no fragments that are blatently different. No hints in other writings that there once was a 1st century bible that taught something different that the canonical gospels.

 

[juliamajor]

They were not so much removed as- never was part of the canon. NT Canon was based on a certain criteria.
Apostolic Origin-Attributed to apostles or companions preaching and teaching
Universal acceptance Acknowledged by majority of hristian Communities
Liturgical Use-Read with OT At Lord’s supper
Consistent Message-theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings.

 

[shadow21084]

almosthome1,
Despite what the other members have posted, much of what you are being told by your family members is actually true. In the second century the Bible (Old and New Testament) was compiled. The texts which were accepted were chosen not because they were considered to be the authentic “Word of God”, but because they supported the established teachings of the church. Texts such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary were excluded because they challenged the very existence of a church. Many theologians would tell you that those texts were excluded because they may have been written by a sect called the Gnostics, but there is NO evidence that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were NOT written by Gnostics. Also, the Gospel of Thomas was originally written during the same period as the four accepted Gospels.

 

[shadow21084]

I think the reason people atack the Bible is because if they dont then they have to stand face to face witht the fact that it really does confirm itslef and then combibned with Sacred Tradition even more so. people seem to go so far out of their way to disprove Christianity because if they dont then they are responsible it means they have to rpent and people are lovers of the world (I just read James last night). I have read some excluded books from the Bible such as the gnostic gospels and there is a Gospel of Thomas I think. the reason these are not in the Scriptures is because they wehere written very far after the fact and contain doctrines that are heretical and contradict the established canon. Thomas was not even written by Thomas, there are document s of a first century bishop warning against the false authorship of this book. The only time I have ever heard of altering the scriptures is when Martin Luther removed the “Catholic” books such as 1 2 Maccabees and Judith, etc.

Brian, I like the fact that you mentioned the Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas because none of the Gospels were written by the people they are named after. In fact, most of the Gospels and other texts were written approximately 100-200 years after the Apostles lived. Prior to that the information was passed orally. The names may have been applied to the texts to give them validity.

 

[YADA]

almosthome1,
Despite what the other members have posted, much of what you are being told by your family members is actually true. In the second century the Bible (Old and New Testament) was compiled. The texts which were accepted were chosen not because they were considered to be the authentic “Word of God”, but because they supported the established teachings of the church. Texts such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary were excluded because they challenged the very existence of a church. Many theologians would tell you that those texts were excluded because they may have been written by a sect called the Gnostics, but there is NO evidence that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were NOT written by Gnostics. Also, the Gospel of Thomas was originally written during the same period as the four accepted Gospels.

Actually, what you have stated here is not accurate … do have sources or links for your assertions …

The writings included in the NT are not gnostic in origin …

The Gospels of Thomas [there are two] were written later in time then the Four Gospels.

It is reasonable for the Church to include writings that represent the beliefs of the Christian Community… that is why they call it a “Cannon” … the writings included encapsulated the core teachings and faith of the Church …

Are you really a catholic?

 

[nordskoven]

Wonderful! Reincarnation was taken out of the bible…along with karma and nirvana, that extinguishing of individuality within the void of one-ness.

Look, Gnosticism is just warmed-over Satanism as defining “satan” as “adversary.” In a nutshell, if God says, “Yes,” Gnostics say, “No.” Eat apple, be gods; you shall not die.

Jews had emphatic curses on scribes who would dare to tinker with texts. The last section of John’s Apocalypse contains one such curse. Change content and die, by God.

There is one God Who has revealed His nature and His will freely to all beings. Then there’s the fallen angels and their ilk. Mercifully, Adam and the Woman repented and were reconciled with God. Rebellion continues, however, and it is this same pecking away at all God says. Sure, there are un-Catholic Catholics, even wolves in the sheepfold as Jesus Christ warned. Steady on. Do not doubt! Question, yes, do not doubt. Pray for your family and all lukewarm souls.

There are scads of Babylonian Mystery Religions/Gnostics/Luciferians and other God wannabe’s, including Hinduism and Mormonism. There is what I call orthodoxy, that revealed by God, and everything else is an unfailing, relentless contradiction of all God revealed from long ages back. Nothing new here.

Gnostic literature, like Luther’s writings (Melancthon called Luther a “gnostic” and he was his best bud) is rank and highly hidden, like the Gnostic “gospels” that tell of Jesus Christ raising a boy from the dead and having sex with him; and there is of course the “Laughing Jesus” Gnostic writings. Laughing Jesus would be asked a question by an apostle and respond by laughing. This was central to Umberto Eco’s novel made into a film starring Sean Connery as a wise monk.

Here’s the punchline. If anybody has been “hiding” scripture, it’s the Gnostics. They unfailingly have dirty, dark secrets–like Hindu human sacrifice–that they don’t want unearthed. Your family is trying to plant doubt. Read Genesis 3. Do the opposite of Lucifer says. This applies to all Gnostics.

 

[garysibio]

First, I’m new, and I’m not certain that this is the appropriate section for my question, so if not please let me know.

I had fallen away from my Catholicism, in large part I suppose now to heresy. My family is “Catholic” (in quotes bc for the majority it is only in name), but semirecently I have felt a huge pull within myself to be an actual Catholic, and have been reading the Holy Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

My question is, very frequently, I am confronted with accusations that the Bible is not authentic, that way back when someone had alterned it, specifically in taking out passages of reincarnation and adding stuff to make God sound mean, that in the original He was the most peaceful loving being and that hell is a figment of someone’s imagination. At first simply redirecting the accusers to the Catholic Bible or if they were super persistent to the Orthodox Bible as it has the 3rd Macabees, but that doesn’t seem to work either now.

They have never told me who this someone is that changed things, google has been not help, although I did see few gnostic gospels that perhaps they had referenced, but not completely or even accurately.

I don’t believe there is any truth to it, but could you maybe help me in how to defend the scripture against such attacks. I suppose I find so bothersome bc I have never seen anything in support of this stance, not to mention a great majority of it comes from family members who are supposedly Catholic.

Thank you, Peace in Christ

No evidence will ever convince a person who believes in a conspiracy such as “the Church pulled stuff from the Bible.” In trying to convince them otherwise, you usually only strengthen their belief. A better approach is to make them prove their position.

Gary

 

[juliamajor]

Brian, I like the fact that you mentioned the Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas because none of the Gospels were written by the people they are named after. In fact, most of the Gospels and other texts were written approximately 100-200 years after the Apostles lived. Prior to that the information was passed orally. The names may have been applied to the texts to give them validity.

Actually your wrong. Dates of Gospel and letters vary but the vast majority of biblical scholars date Gospels from the earliest (Mark 60-70 AD) to John 90-100 AD with earliest Pauline letters about 40-45 ad.
Most books of the Bible had no ‘authors’ to speak of. Their are hints and traditions that gives us attached authors. As far as the so- called gospel of Thomas again , most scholars date it way after Gospel Bible material. Many Gnostic documents are dated in the AD 200’s and later. There are exceptions in the Thomas dating primarily from the Jesus Seminar and (surprise, surprise) they wrote a book on it marketing it as the 4th Gospel

 

[shadow21084]

Actually, what you have stated here is not accurate … do have sources or links for your assertions …

The writings included in the NT are not gnostic in origin …

The Gospels of Thomas [there are two] were written later in time then the Four Gospels.

It is reasonable for the Church to include writings that represent the beliefs of the Christian Community… that is why they call it a “Cannon” … the writings included encapsulated the core teachings and faith of the Church …

Are you really a catholic?

First of all YES I am a Catholic. I do fully accept the Church’s teachings. I am merely suggesting that if the Four Gospels are not authentic and were written by Gnostics, then there is no reason why the Gospels of Thomas, Mary or Peter should not be included in the Canon. Also, the dates of the Gospels are highly controversial. There is no consensus. Do YOU have proof that the NT writings were NOT written by Gnostics?

 

[diggerdomer]

First of all YES I am a Catholic. I do fully accept the Church’s teachings. I am merely suggesting that if the Four Gospels are not authentic and were written by Gnostics, then there is no reason why the Gospels of Thomas, Mary or Peter should not be included in the Canon. Also, the dates of the Gospels are highly controversial. There is no consensus. Do YOU have proof that the NT writings were NOT written by Gnostics?

The Tradition of the Church would not have maintained using and considering writings as Scriptural if the writings weren’t.

That may not be proof in the sense you’re looking for it, but it’s what the Catholic faith is based on. In the later 2nd century, St. Irenaeus’ primary opponents were the Gnostics, and he refuted their views by appealing to Apostolic Tradition and authority, and referred to Scripture (specifically the 4–no more and no less–Gospels) as part of his refutation.

I’m confused, if you accept Church teaching why would you suggest the Gospels are not authentic? Or am I missing something?

 

[Scoobyshme]

You might enjoy learning about the Origins of the Bible from a three part series of videos that you can view from the following website:

alabamacatholicresources.com/bible.html

 

[shadow21084]

Actually your wrong. Dates of Gospel and letters vary but the vast majority of biblical scholars date Gospels from the earliest (Mark 60-70 AD) to John 90-100 AD with earliest Pauline letters about 40-45 ad.
Most books of the Bible had no ‘authors’ to speak of. Their are hints and traditions that gives us attached authors. As far as the so- called gospel of Thomas again , most scholars date it way after Gospel Bible material. Many Gnostic documents are dated in the AD 200’s and later. There are exceptions in the Thomas dating primarily from the Jesus Seminar and (surprise, surprise) they wrote a book on it marketing it as the 4th Gospel

Actually only one copy of the Gospel of Thomas has been located so far, 65 years ago. Research the Nag Hammadi Library for more information. Many of the earliest copies of the NT, the dates of which you mentioned, were not discovered until the late 19th century. Therefore, discrediting Thomas simply because the only discovered copy is dated less than a hundred years after the other Gospels is not really a valid argument. There probably are copies which have not yet been discovered which were written earlier. The real question that needs to be answered is who actually wrote the accepted writings of the New Testament, not the dates of the non-Canon documents.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually only one copy of the Gospel of Thomas has been located so far, 65 years ago. Research the Nag Hammadi Library for more information. Many of the earliest copies of the NT, the dates of which you mentioned, were not discovered until the late 19th century. Therefore, discrediting Thomas simply because the only discovered copy is dated less than a hundred years after the other Gospels is not really a valid argument. There probably are copies which have not yet been discovered which were written earlier. The real question that needs to be answered is who actually wrote the accepted writings of the New Testament, not the dates of the non-Canon documents.

I didn’t read juliamajor to be basing the post on the discovered copy’s of a text date, but rather on the best actual date reasonably known. So I didn’t read it as discrediting Thomas on the basis of a discovered copy’s date, but on the actual date of when it might have been composed. I think that’s a legitimate criteria for canonicity.

So, also, I think the dating is a real question. So is the one you note regarding authorship. They are both essential criteria the Church used for determining what writings were in the canon of Scripture.