SPLIT: Which came first the Bible or the Church?

[Church_Militant]

Could you point to where the bible states that Peter was in Rome?
I am always willing to learn. Thanks

Does the Bible speak of the atomic bomb? No.

Does the Bible speak of abortion? No.

Does the Bible mention the Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God, or non-denominational churches? No.

Does the Bible tell us where most of the apostles went and how they died and where? No.

History does all of the above however.

Just because something is not in the Bible does not mean that it did not occur.

 

[Church_Militant]

This tells you Peter was in Rome?

You actually believe it or are you getting the quote from an apologists website?
Anyway this is off topic.

Yeah it is, but his source is accurate and yours is some anti-Catholic apologist. I recognize the rhetoric.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Does the Bible say that there are pyramids in Egypt? No. So all those tall triangular buildings people keep coming over to see must be some figment of everyone’s imagination.

Why is it that anti-Catholics are so quick to say that the RCC is the whore of Babylon, then do an about face when it’s used as proof that Peter was in Rome?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am a new particapant in this forum. I was just browsing around and I noticed Herman Figueira’s posting #332 in which he asks which came first the bible or the church Catherine S. responded that the church came first. Well doesn’t it say in Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Wouldn’t that make the bible first. Sincerly, Richard

The Catholic Church came first. The Bible is a collection of Books containing both Old Testament and New Testament.

I like to make the following points.

In Acts when Paul was Saul and persecuting the Church. Jesus came to him and ask. Saul, Saul? Why are you persecuting me?"

Who is Paul persecuting the Church. The writing of Acts was written after the event that took place. The point I like to say that the 27 NT text were canonized by the Catholic Church as canonical. There was no close canon during Apostolic times. It was not until 300 yrs after the Church decided what part belongs in the Bible.

 

[Church_Militant]

So your position is that the church came first.

Did the church also write the bible?

The Church wrote the New Testament and by it’s own authority made the discernment as to what writings are inspired and included them in the Canon.

I was taught that the bible is the inspired Word of God.

No really? Me too!

The whole thing was written from the beginning.
God knew the ending at the beginning.
God knew of the fall of Satan and the redemption of man and the new Jerusalem and all the rest, BEFORE Genesis was ever written on papyrus.
God knew Jesus would redeem man in Gen 3:15.

Yet foreknowledge does not change the fact that God used His church to assemble and discern what belonged in that inspired canon.

If you think any man, church, or papal council has any influence on God’s Word you are mistaken.

Then you are grossly ignorant of the facts of Christian history dear lady. Someone has taught you wrong, either from the pulpit or in your own reading and study.

Wow you told me!

It is evident that we are not on the same page.

From what you have posted so far that is self evident.

You feel that your church had something to do with God’s word.

Go back and look up the early church fathers who wrote about the inspired canon before 382 and then some talk to us.

So if they decided to leave out Revelation, there would be no second coming or tribulation.

You’ll have to take that up with Martin Luther, since he removed 7 Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament that had been part of the canon from its inception. He also wanted to remove several New Testament books from his canon, among them James, Jude, and Revelation. The Catholic Church has never had such an issue.

My point is that God had the whole thing planned from the foundation of the world.

Agreed. And in the 16th century some rebel reformers messed with it.

Man has nothing to do with it.
Every book in the Bible was planned from the beginning.
Every jot and every tittle was planned by God.
Man has nothing to do with it.
The more you read it the more evident this will become to you.
Study the Bible and you will see it is Divine.

The Bible is divine? So now you are preaching that it too is God incarnate and therefore we can worship a book? That is the logical conclusion from your statement, and I’m fairly sure that you don’t intend it. Man had nothing to do with it? Really? Who then was inspired by God to write it? Is the table of contents inspired? Who decided that table of contents? Who inserted the verse numbers and chapter divisions? Are they inspired as well? Is the inclusion of the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 ("For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. ") in the KJV inspired or the work of men?

So you also believe the church came before the bible?

Indeed I do…

The apocrypha does not belong in God’s word. It is contradictory to God’s word. But that is another topic.

The Apocryphal books do not. The Deuterocanonical books were and do belong where they are. In the 73 book canon of scripture. If you do your own homework, you’ll find that they are listed as inspired in the earliest church discussions of the OT canon.

The KJV is complete as God’s word.

Really? The 1611 edition contained all the DCs and can still be purchased that way. It did so until about the mid 1800s when some Bible society took it upon itself to change that for financial reasons. Check your history again.

No Gospels of Thomas, no Gospels of Judas, no Apocrypha

Funny, we said the very same thing, even when they were first put forward centuries ago. Glad you’re finally catching up a little…

The church didn’t write the bible.

Wrong…

The Bible was not dropped from Heaven either.

What is it they say about a stopped clock?

The wisdom of Romans did not come from Paul but from the Holy Spirit.
Prophecy from the OT and the NT did not come from any man but the Holy Spirit.
Not one iota of man’s intellect was needed to create the bible.
Men needed to write it down. God created it.
It doesn’t matter how many years it took men to ‘decide’ which books should be included in the canon. God had the whole thing completed before the foundation of the world. Whatever the councils decided would have to line up with Gods plan.
All 66 books were in Gods plan from the foundation. Man cannot do anything to change that.

If that were true then all Bibles would have all 73 books, as the early church points out in its writings concerning it.

Facts of history Daisy, not propaganda from some modern post reformation pulpit or preacher.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Could you point to where the bible states that Peter was in Rome?
I am always willing to learn. Thanks

In 325 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea, writes The History of the Church and quotes St. Irenaeus’ list (V, 6). Eusebius also cites 1 Peter 5:13 as proof that St. Peter was in Rome, a.k.a. Babylon (II, 15).

*By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it. 13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with the kiss of love.*1 Peter 5:13

Babylon in Biblical times is refer to Rome.

Peter’s primacy is evident from the Bible; his name is always first in the lists of the Apostles (Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Apostolic Succession was a fact of life in the early Church, as witnessed by the early Christian writings. The primacy of the present Pope is based on faith in Christ’s promise, that His Church built on Peter will not be overcome by the power of death (Matt. 16:18; 7:25).

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Well doesn’t it say in Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Wouldn’t that make the bible first. Sincerly, Richard

The Word of God is Jesus, not a book. My signature has a link to a definition of the Word of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Word of God is Jesus, not a book. My signature has a link to a definition of the Word of God.

Protestants always use that. If you use that logic.

It would be like saying.

In the Beginning there the Bible. and the Bible was God, and the Bible is God. LOL

Well, Jesus is the Word. He was in the Beginning, and the Word became Flesh.

Indeed the Bible in a sense is the written word of God produce by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

For 275 years there were efforts to purge the apocrypha from the Bible:

1880: The American Bible Society voted [to] remove the “Apocrypha” Books from the King James Version. These 14 Books… of the Apocrypha had been part of the King’s bible since 1611.

1885: The “Apocrypha” was officially removed from the English printings of the KJV by the Archbishop of Canterbury leaving only 66 books.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…It would be like saying.

In the Beginning there the Bible. and the Bible was God, and the Bible is God…

Yeah, you’re right. I hadn’t thought of it that way. There is another thread on the subject which you raise:

Is Sola Scriptura idolatry?

And a few other threads on removing books from the Bible:

Rewriting Scripture: Authorship, authority, and the elephant in the room

Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical (start at the end of this thread)

 

[paarsurrey]

This isn’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t already believe it. Again, you haven’t shown that John 6 is talking about the Bible–you just assume this because your tradition tells you to. That would be appropriate if you had orthodox tradition
Edwin

Hi

I think you are right there, sometimes I am amazed my Catholic friends seem so sure about a thing is in a verse, while it is not even remotely mentioned there. They assume a thing just because it has been mentioned by the Clergy.

Thanks

**A Revealed Book must have straight passages **on every important Religious issues; of course I agree that we are not supposed to find teachings of Sciences and Arts included in the Revealed Books; rather we are mostly concerned with the every day moral, Spiritual and religious issues, and a religious worthwhile book must resolve such issues, if it is for guidance of the common people and truthful to its purpose. If it does not provide guidance on such issues; then what it is for?

The Revealed Book must have straight passages for the Claim on a issue and also the **Reason **to guide the ordinary reader properly, and must not leave the common reader to the mercy of the Clergy to interpret the verse as he like, and who is excessively obsessed with the religiosity .

 

[Contarini]

Hi

I think you are right there, sometimes I am amazed my Catholic friends seem so sure about a thing is in a verse, while it is not even remotely mentioned there. They assume a thing just because it has been mentioned by the Clergy.

Actually, my point was that Catholics can legitimately say this sort of thing because of their (reasonable) claims about tradition.

Furthermore, your own version of Islam does not appear to me to rely on anything like a straightforward, literal interpretation of the Qur’an (if this is possible with regard to any religious text, which I don’t think it is). We all read our sacred writings through the lens of various traditions. The problem with certain forms of Protestantism is that they refuse to admit this.

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, my point was that Catholics can legitimately say this sort of thing because of their (reasonable) claims about tradition.

Furthermore, your own version of Islam does not appear to me to rely on anything like a straightforward, literal interpretation of the Qur’an (if this is possible with regard to any religious text, which I don’t think it is). We all read our sacred writings through the lens of various traditions. The problem with certain forms of Protestantism is that they refuse to admit this.

Edwin

Ed,

I think most of us, Christians do not find the Muslim Quran as the word of God… Many of its writings are contrary to the Gospels and Scripture we have.

 

[Contarini]

Ed,

I think most of us, Christians do not find the Muslim Quran as the word of God… Many of its writings are contrary to the Gospels and Scripture we have.

What does that have to do with my post?

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

What does that have to do with my post?

Edwin

Quran isn;t straight forward as the Bible. But that is another topic of discussion.

 

[DaisyD]

In Babylon (II, 15).

Peter’s primacy is evident from the Bible; his name is always first in the lists of the Apostles (Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Apostolic Succession was a fact of life in the early Church, as witnessed by the early Christian writings. The primacy of the present Pope is based on faith in Christ’s promise, that His Church built on Peter will not be overcome by the power of death (Matt. 16:18; 7:25).

Check acts8:14.
If Peter had primacy why would the apostles send him out?
If he was in charge, he would be sending the apostles out.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

One was the rock upon the Church was built, and held the keys.

The other was the beloved of Christ.

If you were to send representatives of the Faith, wouldn’t you send the people the Samaritans have heard the most about, the ones they held in the highest regard, possibly the most esteemed? Not some comparatively less-known apostles?

Even back then marketing comes into play. Celebrity status is nothing to be sneezed at.

 

[Stillkickin]

For what it is worth – here is my two cents worth on Peter and the Bible.

Peter:
The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose on earth were given by Our Lord to St. Peter. (St. Matt. 16, 19)

St. Peter’s name is listed first when he, St. James and St. John are mentioned as being with Our Lord at the Transfiguration (St. Matt. 17, 1)

As far as the Apostles the resurrection of Christ was first pronounced by the angel to St. Peter, then the other Apostles (St. Mark 16, 7)

Our Lord prayed for St. Peter alone and instructed him to “strengthen your brethren” (St. Luke 22, 31-32)

After His resurrection, of all the Apostles Our Lord first appeared to St. Peter (St. Luke 24)

At His first meeting with St. Peter, Our Lord gave him the new name of “Cephas” (Rock) (St. John 1, 42)

It was to St. Peter that Our Lord entrusted the care of His flock, lambs and sheep (St. John 21, 15-17)

The election that chose St. Matthias as the replacement for Judas was conducted by St. Peter (Acts 1, 25)

The first miracle at the Temple was performed by St. Peter (Acts 3)

St. Peter replied to the Sanhedrin on behalf of the Church (Acts 4)

The case of Ananias and Saphira was judged by St. Peter (Acts 5)

St. Peter was the first to preach to the Jews (Acts 2, 14) and to receive Gentiles into the Church (Acts 11)

At the Council of Jerusalem, the multitudes “kept silence” after St. Peter rose up and spoke (Acts 15, 12)

After his conversion St. Paul first went to St. Peter (Gal. 1, 18)

The lists of Apostles in St. Matt. 10; St. Mark 3; St. Luke 6; Acts 1, all place the name of St. Peter first

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, ST. PETER IS MENTIONED 195 TIMES. ST. JOHN IS THE NEXT HIGHEST, ONLY 29 TIMES.

The Bible
The name is derived from the Greek expression biblia (the books), which came into use in the early centuries of Christianity to designate the whole sacred volume.
The “Old Testament” were books of Israel written before the coming of Christ.
The “New Testament” were written by early Christian (Catholic) writers who were inspired by God.

The “Bible” became the Bible as follows:

• St. Athanasius in 367 AD, published a list of books suitable for reading during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a regional canon for the Eastern Church.
• Pope St. Damasus I in 382 AD approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired.
• Then the Council of Hippo, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus.
• The third Council of Carthage in 397 AD reaffirmed.
• The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.
• And once again reaffirmed at the Council of Trent in 1545

There was no “bible” before this time. There were many books and letters that were considered and determined not to be the inspired word of God and are not part of the bible. It was the Catholic Church who determined what the Canon of the bible would be.

Stillkickin

 

[Contarini]

The “Bible” became the Bible as follows:

• St. Athanasius in 367 AD, published a list of books suitable for reading during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a regional canon for the Eastern Church.
• Pope St. Damasus I in 382 AD approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired.
• Then the Council of Hippo, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus.
• The third Council of Carthage in 397 AD reaffirmed.
• The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.
• And once again reaffirmed at the Council of Trent in 1545

There was no “bible” before this time.

Before what? Before 1545? This makes no sense. There are canonical lists from the second century. 2 Peter talks about Paul’s letters as Scripture. Irenaeus talks about the Four Gospels as canonical. And this is without even mentioning the Old Testament! The argument that there is no “Bible” until the canon is wholly fixed is a bogus argument. It falls apart as soon as you start thinking about it, and use of it makes the Catholic position look a lot weaker than it is.

You really hurt a good cause when you use such incredibly bad arguments for it.

Edwinm

 

[Mannyfit75]

Check acts8:14.
If Peter had primacy why would the apostles send him out?
If he was in charge, he would be sending the apostles out.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14

Peter and John are part of Jesus’ big three, Peter, James, and John. They have seniority over all the Apostles. Just because Peter was send does not negate the fact he isn’t in charge.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html