The Bible is a Catholic Document

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
La Chiara:
Becky–There is a thread under “Non-Catholic Religions” thread called “Is the Catholic Church Today the Same Church that Codified the Bible?” Your questions on that topic should be addressed there.
Click to expand...
I apologise, I did not see the other thread until several minutes ago 🙂
Besides, you provide no proof to support your opinions though you have asked for and received excellent proof to support the fact that the Bible IS a Catholic document.
Click to expand...
Sis, I do not desire to try to change opinions, and I know my limitations. I also did not ask others to support LM’s claim-I do not concern myself with what others bring to the table, for they did not make the claim in the OP. Having said that I know of several theologians and scholars such as Norman Geisler, RC Sproul, Josh McDowell, etc., etc. that make a strong case for my position. If you would like to know why I do not agree with the majority opinion here then I suggest to read those authors 🙂

If you believe that the Bible is a RC document then great, more power to you.

In closing, the Early Church Ecumenical (key word: “Ecumenical”) Councils did not list the canon of books. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent was the first council to list the canon, and Trent is not binding upon non-RCs. I already gave you the proof that Trent was the Council that defined your canon. I’ll offer it again: click here.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing you in Heaven 🙂

Becky
 
La Chiara:
Perhaps you missed posts # 105 and 106.
Click to expand...
Ahh I see…church history…for those that believe that the church is corrupt, and has rewritten true history so that it benefits the catholic church, these are not actually historically relevant citations.

I assume that there is no truely historic proof other than church ‘provided’ teachings that can substantiate these claims.

Personally I find it interesting that when someone asks for proof of a claim that someone would provide “proof” that is actually written/provided by the group making the claim. That seems like a weak method for actually supporting claims with generally accepted facts…it certainly isn’t independant data.
 
realityofitall–And someone who is not Catholic but writing about Catholic Church history is NOT biased? But maybe that kind of bias is okay with you because it is bias against the Catholic Church.

And maybe there is no “truely [sic] historic proof other than church ‘provided’ teachings that can substantiate these claims” because Christians from the time of Christ until Martin Luther were what are today called Catholic Christians (or they were heretics). Which is just further proof that indeed the Bible IS a Catholic document–a point that you will never concede because you are unwilling to OBJECTIVELY consider the evidence.
 
La Chiara:
realityofitall–And someone who is not Catholic but writing about Catholic Church history is NOT biased? But maybe that kind of bias is okay with you because it is bias against the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see some independant data…if that proved that the catholic church is right, so be it, if it proved that the catholic church is wrong so be it. I have seen enough facts that I believe that catholich history isn’t accurate, so that’s what I believe. If you choose to ignore all of the independant data that shows that true history isn’t really what the catholic church says, then that’s your perogative…although it doesn’t change the fact that what they say is false.
And maybe there is no “truely [sic] historic proof other than church ‘provided’ teachings that can substantiate these claims” because Christians from the time of Christ until Martin Luther were what are today called Catholic Christians (or they were heretics). Which is just further proof that indeed the Bible IS a Catholic document–a point that you will never concede because you are unwilling to OBJECTIVELY consider the evidence.
Click to expand...
But there is plenty, that catholics have to dismiss it since it clearly contradicts centuries of false teachings is unfortunate, and allows the fallacy to grow in scope and size.
 
40.png
realityofitall:
I’d like to see some independant data…if that proved that the catholic church is right, so be it, if it proved that the catholic church is wrong so be it. I have seen enough facts that I believe that catholich history isn’t accurate, so that’s what I believe. If you choose to ignore all of the independant data that shows that true history isn’t really what the catholic church says, then that’s your perogative…although it doesn’t change the fact that what they say is false.

But there is plenty, that catholics have to dismiss it since it clearly contradicts centuries of false teachings is unfortunate, and allows the fallacy to grow in scope and size.
Click to expand...
Then for heaven’s sake, please, provide us with the post-Apostolic writings from the first, say, eight Christian centuries that back up your claim. Make sure to cite your sources.

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
Then for heaven’s sake, please, provide us with the post-Apostolic writings from the first, say, eight Christian centuries that back up your claim. Make sure to cite your sources.

Justin
Click to expand...
As soon as someone provides independant sources to support the opinion stated…that the bible IS a catholic document, I’ll refute it with independant cited sources…but until there is a factual position to refute, there is nothing for me to respond to.

The person who started this thread offered their opinion on a topic, there are a lot of opinions stated throughout the thread, but NO factual information except church teachings o support a church claim…that’s not factual proof, that’s marketing. Just like a company making claims about it’s products…

When someone makes a claim that is not generally accepted, it is that person’s responsibility to offer proof to substantiate the claim. The burden of proof does not fall on me to prove it’s not true, it falls on the original claimant to prove it IS TRUE…to date that has not been accomplished.
 
Codex Vaticanus

This codex is a quarto volume written in uncial letters of the fourth century, on folios of fine parchment bound in quinterns.
 
40.png
realityofitall:
Personally I find it interesting that when someone asks for proof of a claim that someone would provide “proof” that is actually written/provided by the group making the claim. That seems like a weak method for actually supporting claims with generally accepted facts…it certainly isn’t independant data.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Just more denial. It’s very easy to do. See evidence. Deny. Very simple. Not even worth our time.

Next. Bring on some Protestants or non-Catholics who can at least discuss things sincerely. Actually, many of those have already come back to the Church - because they are*** sincere*** and they do not deny what is put right in front of them.
 
40.png
realityofitall:
As soon as someone provides independant sources to support the opinion stated…that the bible IS a catholic document, I’ll refute it with independant cited sources…but until there is a factual position to refute, there is nothing for me to respond to.

The person who started this thread offered their opinion on a topic, there are a lot of opinions stated throughout the thread, but NO factual information except church teachings o support a church claim…that’s not factual proof, that’s marketing. Just like a company making claims about it’s products…

When someone makes a claim that is not generally accepted, it is that person’s responsibility to offer proof to substantiate the claim. The burden of proof does not fall on me to prove it’s not true, it falls on the original claimant to prove it IS TRUE…to date that has not been accomplished.
Click to expand...
The claim is accepted by about 90% of the people on this thread. Even some protestants accept it, because they see the fact.
 
40.png
Becky:
I apologise, I did not see the other thread until several minutes ago 🙂
Sis, I do not desire to try to change opinions, and I know my limitations. I also did not ask others to support LM’s claim-I do not concern myself with what others bring to the table, for they did not make the claim in the OP. Having said that I know of several theologians and scholars such as Norman Geisler, RC Sproul, Josh McDowell, etc., etc. that make a strong case for my position. If you would like to know why I do not agree with the majority opinion here then I suggest to read those authors 🙂

If you believe that the Bible is a RC document then great, more power to you.

In closing, the Early Church Ecumenical (key word: “Ecumenical”) Councils did not list the canon of books. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent was the first council to list the canon, and Trent is not binding upon non-RCs. I already gave you the proof that Trent was the Council that defined your canon. I’ll offer it again: click here.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing you in Heaven 🙂

Becky
Click to expand...
Your link offers no proof, we could give you links to the council of Hippo, Rome, Carthage, Florence, Trullo, Laodicea which ALL define the canon of the OT and the NT.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Your link offers no proof, we could give you links to the council of Hippo, Rome, Carthage, Florence, Trullo, Laodicea which ALL define the canon of the OT and the NT.
Click to expand...
Take a big breath, she’s banned.
 
Psalm45:9:
Take a big breath, she’s banned.
Click to expand...
It is a little more peaceful now. I just feel that I have to respond for those that will look at this thread and think she is telling the truth and believe that there is actual support for her ideas.🙂
 
Becky,

Pardon me if I give a reply to your so many objections about the Catholic Church. It seems to me that you are very much misinformed of the very term “Roman Catholic” which, sad to say, have been the object of the many objections of non-catholics, especially those who have their hatred or dislike against the Catholic Church. Your use of the term “Roman Catholics” is, indeed, a crafty term that was used by the early Reformers and Anglicans who didn’t like the authority of the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Pope and the teaching office of the Church which is the Magisterium. I would advise that you carefully, without bias, read the Catholic Church documents that comes from the Catholic Church herself–not from the one who opposes her, so that you will have the balance of opinions that will eventually lead you to the discovery about the truth of the Catholic Church–especially her origins. You cannot know the good stuff about Catholicism from Protestants and other Catholic haters–they already hates the Catholic Church so all you can get from them are bad and fabricated stuff that will oppose the Catholic Church. Get the truth from the source itself.

Now, this term “Roman Catholic” which you love to use against the Catholic Church, is not the offical title of the Catholic Church. The term “Roman” that was added to the Catholic Church that the reformers used had indeed penetrated well to the hearings of Catholic haters, and they use this very term over for centuries beginning from the time after the reformation to distinguish themselves from the Catholic Church. However, and thanks be to God, despite this crafty use of term, no one ever dared to adopt the term “Catholic” by any large group of Christians (and even heretics)–Reformers/Anglicans/Orthodox-- except by the true Catholic Church, which is existing in the “Roman” Catholic Church. As Catholics, we would only love to hear the term “Catholic Church” but if anyone would loves to add the term “Roman” is fine with us. It will only bolster our faith in the Catholic Church which from the very beginning of its existence was governed by the the Apostles, with Peter as their leader, and down thru the ages by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in union with him. This same Catholic Church is carefully teaching the same sacraments and doctrines that was handed down by the apostles and their successors down to our present time. We don’t devise new doctrines just to suit the hearings of people today and even until the end of time. And lastly, and the most important of all, is that we celebrate the same sacrifice of the Mass and believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, which sadly is now denied by almost all of Protestants but was, thanks be to God, well kept by the Orthodox Churches.

Pio
 
40.png
Becky:
I know of several theologians and scholars such as . . . RC Sproul . . . that make a strong case for my position.

If you believe that the Bible is a RC document then great, more power to you.

In closing, the Early Church Ecumenical (key word: “Ecumenical”) Councils did not list the canon of books. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent was the first council to list the canon, and Trent is not binding upon non-RCs. I already gave you the proof that Trent was the Council that defined your canon. I’ll offer it again: click here.
Click to expand...
Becky, look again. I am a great admirer of R.C. Sproul, who is always honest in presenting teachings of the Catholic Church, even when he disagrees. He makes an outstanding case for the canonicity of Scripture as established by the early Church and stoutly defends its origin in the pre-schismatic, pre-reformation Church. Where he parts company with the Catholic Church is in assessing its authority. He states that for Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books, but that for Protestants it is a fallible collection of infallible books. This derives from his Protestant inability to accept the infallibility of the Church.

Your point about ecumenical councilsdoes not change the fact that the canon of scripture was unchallenged before the Reformation. As with so many things Protestants claim were “invented” by ecumenical councils (e.g., Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption), the Council of Trent affirmed the long-accepted canon first agreed-upon in the late 4th Century; Trent did not create the canon.
 
Tantum ergo:
Hmmm, I think I see where you’re coming from, but the fact remains that the WAY in which Scripture was identified, codified, and taught for the 15 centuries prior to the Reformation was brought about by the Catholic Church.

If we go along with, “God must have known that passage X from book Y would be inspired Scripture”, we also have to acknowledge that God would ALSO have known that the Catholic Church–which HE instituted–would be the vehicle through which inspired Scripture in the form of the Bible, known in its written form for 16 centuries, would be compiled, and IDENTIFIED, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit.

And, since we also believe that “all scripture is the Word of God”, then we also have to believe that Jesus’s words about His church–that the “gates of hell would not prevail against it”–were true.

The Catholic Church–which we acknowledge was the vehicle which brought forth into WRITTEN form the Bible–was also the ONLY Church during that time.

The books which you acknowledge as “inspired scripture” were revealed by the Holy Spirit to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

How, then, can this church of Christ’s NO LONGER be His church, and how then can any “denomination” of any particular Protestant church claim that IT is the church of which Jesus spoke in the Scriptures?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the Catholic Church–which gave the world, through its cooperation with and bestowal of the guidance of the Spirit, the Bible–is the church of Christ on which he said “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. . .or, the Scriptures themselves are WRONG. Because, if the Catholic Church is NOT that church instituted by Christ, then the “gates of hell DID prevail”, and with that scripture passage proved FALSE, the entire Biblical structure collapses. If the Bible was WRONG on THAT passage, it could be wrong anywhere and everywhere. Look around at the various Protestant denominations. Some say “yes, abortion is Ok according to the scriptures” and some say, “no, it’s not OK”. Well, how can scripture stand AGAINST ITSELF? ONE of those claimers MUST be wrong, and one must be RIGHT. But if the Holy Spirit guides us, HE can’t be against himself EITHER. He can’t give ONE group ONE interpretation and ANOTHER group another, can He?

There are just too many little things that have to be “strained out” to allow for any other interpretation than that the Catholic Church is the Church instituted by Christ, IMO. There are too many discrepancies, too many “interpretations”, too much emphasis on a “single aspect”–whether it’s sola scriptura, “faith not works”, tithing, baptism–yea or nay, “real presence vs. fellowship meal”, and “private interpretation” (which you’ll remember was a big no-no according to St. Peter himself)–to make Protestantism (again, this is my OPINION) viable or valid as “Christ’s TRUE Church.” That any given Protestant denomination has at least SOME aspects of true Christianity I do not deny, but only the CATHOLIC Church, IMO, has ALL the aspects of true Christianity.
Click to expand...
Good Day, Tantum ergo

Do you happen to have an offical Church document that will back up your assertions here? I am sure that I could find some catholic historians that would strongly disagree with the misrepresentations you put forward. Most Historians will tell you that the contents of the bible are derived from the historical records of the writings, now it may be true that the Church attests to that history in some manner, but it is hostorical none the less.

IMHO, The bible is Gods word that was dictated to the Apostles by God and was recorded for His purpose, and is to be proclaimed and upheld by the church much like the town crier as he proclaimed the Kings words “decree” as they were written, in the streets for the people to hear and understand the words of thier King.

Peace to u,

Bill
 
40.png
mercygate:
Becky, look again. I am a great admirer of R.C. Sproul, who is always honest in presenting teachings of the Catholic Church, even when he disagrees. He makes an outstanding case for the canonicity of Scripture as established by the early Church and stoutly defends its origin in the pre-schismatic, pre-reformation Church. Where he parts company with the Catholic Church is in assessing its authority. He states that for Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books, but that for Protestants it is a fallible collection of infallible books. This derives from his Protestant inability to accept the infallibility of the Church.

Your point about ecumenical councilsdoes not change the fact that the canon of scripture was unchallenged before the Reformation. As with so many things Protestants claim were “invented” by ecumenical councils (e.g., Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption), the Council of Trent affirmed the long-accepted canon first agreed-upon in the late 4th Century; Trent did not create the canon.
Click to expand...
Good Day, Mercygate

What would in you mind consitute a challenge, what would not ?

Peace to u,

Bill
 
bbas 64:
Good Day, Mercygate

What would in you mind consitute a challenge, what would not ?

Peace to u,

Bill
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you are asking, Bill. Are you aware of a proposed canon of Scripture between the late 4th-early 5th centuries and the sixteenth century which differs from that of the African councils and that of the Tridentine affirmation?
 
40.png
mercygate:
I am not sure what you are asking, Bill. Are you aware of a proposed canon of Scripture between the late 4th-early 5th centuries and the sixteenth century which differs from that of the African councils and that of the Tridentine affirmation?
Click to expand...
Good day, MercyGate

I would assert more than proposed ,but used with in the time frame of his life.
John of Damascus (about 730)

Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XVII.

Concerning Scripture
… Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.

The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.
Click to expand...
Peace to u,

Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top