The Bible is Catholic -

[JRKH]

someotherguy,
You will note that the title and purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that the Bible, that glorious book you hold in your hands, came to you through the Catholic Church. This is an historical fact seperate and apart from the religious aspects of the issue.
I post below my initial question and your initial response and ask you if you feel this is, in any way, a well thought out and intellecually honest response.

Originally Posted by JRKH
To our Protestant Brethren I offer the opportunity to explain how you feel it is possible to accept and use the Bible apart from the Church that wrote, compiled, taught, interpreted, translated, protected and defended the Holy bible 1500 years.

Probably the same as Roman Catholics feel it’s OK to support Roman Catholic doctrines that go against the same Bible they constantly brag that God gave them.

You have followed this up with nothing more than wisecracks such as this about the Church and the Bible.

I see. So Roman Catholicism is excluded from “all things”? What in the Bible tells us that Roman Catholicism is exempt from Biblical scrutiny?
QUOTE]

I will remind you charitably that you have come to a Catholic Forum. We assume for the purpose of engaging in dialog and learning. Therefore I am going to forgive and forget the snitty comments above and ask you to elaborate on two questions:

1. How can you accept and use the Holy Bible seperate and apart from the Church which God used to compile, copy, and defend it for 1000 years.
2. Please provide specifics regarding your comment above about the Church being exempted from Bible Scrutiny.

If you answer the questions honestly and fairly, I will read them in the same spirit and respond accordingly.

Peace
James

 

[someotherguy]

You have followed this up with nothing more than wisecracks such as this about the Church and the Bible.

Really? I’d be curious to see you back that one up because anyone who knows me knows that I have too much reverence for the word of God to make “wisecracks” about it.

I will remind you charitably that you have come to a Catholic Forum. We assume for the purpose of engaging in dialog and learning. Therefore I am going to forgive and forget the snitty comments

Gee, that’s mighty white of you.

1. How can you accept and use the Holy Bible seperate and apart from the Church which God used to compile, copy, and defend it for 1000 years.

The Bible is the word of God. That the Roman Catholic church went off the doctrinal tracks in no way diminishes the authority or truth of the Bible.

1. Please provide specifics regarding your comment above about the Church being exempted from Bible Scrutiny.

I didn’t make a comment. I asked a question.

 

[JRKH]

Really? I’d be curious to see you back that one up because anyone who knows me knows that I have too much reverence for the word of God to make “wisecracks” about it.

Gee, that’s mighty white of you.

The Bible is the word of God. That the Roman Catholic church went off the doctrinal tracks in no way diminishes the authority or truth of the Bible.

I didn’t make a comment. I asked a question.

OK let us break this down to one simple thing here. I have bolded a statement you made above. And I am going to ask you to do one thing for me.
Prove to me, without using a Bible Quote, that the Bible is the Word of God.

Peace
James

 

[Stephen168]

Gee, that’s mighty white of you.

Very telling

 

[someotherguy]

OK let us break this down to one simple thing here. I have bolded a statement you made above. And I am going to ask you to do one thing for me.
Prove to me, without using a Bible Quote, that the Bible is the Word of God.

Peace
James

Are you familiar with the account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness? What is it that Jesus referred to as the “word of God”? The scriptures!

 

[ibkc]

Are you familiar with the account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness? What is it that Jesus referred to as the “word of God”? The scriptures!

Which scriptures?

 

[someotherguy]

Which scriptures?

The scriptures He quoted and, by extension, the rest of the scriptures.

 

[JRKH]

I found this Chesterton quote in the Afterward of the book, “Four Witnesses” and wanted to share it with you all. It really spoke to me about trying to separate the Bible from the Church:

The ordinary skeptic, or pagan is standing in the street…and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”;… I can understand his saying, “Your crosiers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it is bosh,” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man on the street.

• The collected works of G. K. Chesterton, Vol. 3 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990) pg 73

Chesterton has a way of getting at the heart of things.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The scriptures He quoted and, by extension, the rest of the scriptures.

1. Your trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible.
   Remember my question was to prove the Bible is the Word of God without quoting the Bible.
2. I have never seen “By Extension” anywhere in the Bible.

Peace
James

 

[someotherguy]

1. Your trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible.
   Remember my question was to prove the Bible is the Word of God without quoting the Bible.

OK. Let’s say that you’re a police officer and you want to know if your suspect is inside a house. How would you do this without examining the house?

About three years ago, I sat on a jury where we were asked to judge the validity of a patent. Funny, but nobody ever suggested that we shouldn’t examine the patent.

To the contrary, we were ordered to judge the validity of the patent by examining the patent.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

OK. Let’s say that you’re a police officer and you want to know if your suspect is inside a house. How would you do this without examining the house?

About three years ago, I sat on a jury where we were asked to judge the validity of a patent. Funny, but nobody ever suggested that we shouldn’t examine the patent.

To the contrary, we were ordered to judge the validity of the patent by examining the patent.

You’re not being asked to not examine the Bible, rather to not use the Bible as the source of validating the Bible.

In logic, this is called “circular reasoning”.

You should examine the Bible, but that which you examine should be validated not by the examination, but from the Spirit.

If you receive such a validation then this brings us back to the point of this thread: What does such a validation indirectly say about the authority of the church that produced that which you examined?

 

[Stephen168]

OK. Let’s say that you’re a police officer and you want to know if your suspect is inside a house. How would you do this without examining the house?

How did you know which house to examine?

 

[JRKH]

OK. Let’s say that you’re a police officer and you want to know if your suspect is inside a house. How would you do this without examining the house?

About three years ago, I sat on a jury where we were asked to judge the validity of a patent. Funny, but nobody ever suggested that we shouldn’t examine the patent.

To the contrary, we were ordered to judge the validity of the patent by examining the patent.

OK, now you are on the Jury again:
The Bible contains a set number of Books.
The NT, which is the focus of our Christian Faith, contains 27 books.
These were selected from 200 or more writings which all claimed apostolic authority.
These 27 books were selected by a group of men to be included in the canon of Holy Scripture while the other books, were not.

Your task as a juror is twofold.

1. Determine if this Group of men had the Authority to select the Books, and
2. Prove to the court that they selected the correct books out of the 200 or more available at the time.

It is obvious that the Bible itself will be self supporting, afterall what book wouldn’t be, therefore what other arguments or evidence should you consider in making your determination?

Peace
James

 

[someotherguy]

You’re not being asked to not examine the Bible, rather to not use the Bible as the source of validating the Bible.

In logic, this is called “circular reasoning”.

But it isn’t circular reasoning. It’s the only way to determine whether or not the claims of the Bible are valid.

You should examine the Bible, but that which you examine should be validated not by the examination, but from the Spirit.

And by what authoritative, objective standard do you judge this “spirit”?

 

[Ronald_E]

Back for a quick lunch. The Spirit Who directed those men to put the bible together.

 

[Stephen168]

But it isn’t circular reasoning. It’s the only way to determine whether or not the claims of the Bible are valid.

Not until we judge the bible to be vaild can we consider the claims contained in it.

 

[someotherguy]

Not until we judge the bible to be vaild can we consider the claims contained in it.

Now *that *is circular reasoning.

 

[someotherguy]

Back for a quick lunch. The Spirit Who directed those men to put the bible together.

Anyway, back to my question: what authoritative, objective standard do you have by which to judge?

 

[Ronald_E]

Anyway, back to my question: what authoritative, objective standard do you have by which to judge?

Objectively recorded history.

 

[Stephen168]

You’re not being asked to not examine the Bible, rather to not use the Bible as the source of validating the Bible.
someotherguy;3680403:

But it isn’t circular reasoning. It’s the only way to determine whether or not the claims of the Bible are valid.

The Bible is true because it claims to be true is circular logic or begging the question.

Not until we judge the bible to be vaild can we consider the claims contained in it.
someotherguy;3680670:

Now *that *

is circular reasoning.

Of course, I really didn’t expect him to understand circular logic from the following statement:

Gee, that’s mighty white of you.