The Bible is Catholic -

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The central teaching of the Bible is not the Church; it is of Jesus who is Head of the Church.
Of course the Bible is not “About the Church”, and there is a simple reason for that. It was never intended to be. It was intended to be used as a teaching tool within the Church
The Bible has not been separated from any Church by Protestants; rather, Catholics have separated themselves from the Bible; by adding Traditions and Magisteriums that are not contained therein.
I won’t argue specifics with you simply because that is not the point of the thread, nor is it the point of the Bible.

The main question is, outside of the bible itself, how does one “prove” the authority of the Bible. I posted this a ways back but will repost it and ask if you can give me an answer for it.

*Say you are working with me and sharing the Gospel, and I go and get a Bible from a good friend of mine who is a committed Christian.

You and I are looking through the Bible and studying when I realize that the bible my friend gave me has more books in it than yours does. Seven of them to be exact. In addition, this Bible has a longer version of the Book of Daniel in it.

So now I look at you and ask, "How can you tell me that the Bible is the True and inerrant word of God and the Bible alone is sufficient, when these two “Holy Bibles” have different numbers of books and different, versions of books in them?
If God is providing this “Perfect Book” for us, how can there be this difference? *
 
Of course the Bible is not “About the Church”, and there is a simple reason for that. It was never intended to be. It was intended to be used as a teaching tool within the Church

I won’t argue specifics with you simply because that is not the point of the thread, nor is it the point of the Bible.

The main question is, outside of the bible itself, how does one “prove” the authority of the Bible. I posted this a ways back but will repost it and ask if you can give me an answer for it.

Say you are working with me and sharing the Gospel, and I go and get a Bible from a good friend of mine who is a committed Christian.

*You and I are looking through the Bible and studying when I realize that the bible my friend gave me has more books in it than yours does. Seven of them to be exact. In addition, this Bible has a longer version of the Book of Daniel in it. *

*So now I look at you and ask, "How can you tell me that the Bible is the True and inerrant word of God and the Bible alone is sufficient, when these two “Holy Bibles” have different numbers of books and different, versions of books in them? *
*If God is providing this “Perfect Book” for us, how can there be this difference? *
The “authority” of the Bible is Itself; for it is God’s Word, not the Church’s word. And certainly not a specific denomination’s word. There is nothing in the Protestant Canon which you could prove insufficient, or in error, as is, without anything else added.
 
The central teaching of the Bible is not the Church; it is of Jesus who is Head of the Church. The Bible has not been separated from any Church by Protestants; rather, Catholics have separated themselves from the Bible; by adding Traditions and Magisteriums that are not contained therein.
What are “Magesteriums”?
 
The “authority” of the Bible is Itself; for it is God’s Word, not the Church’s word.
Although much of the validity of WHAT Scripture tells us can be validated by referring to the manuscript evidence, the Bible itself cannot authorize itself. In fact, manuscript evidence is “outside” evidence.
And certainly not a specific denomination’s word.
The Catholic Church is NOT a “denomination.”
There is nothing in the Protestant Canon which you could prove insufficient, or in error, as is, without anything else added.Nobody claims that the content of the protestant Canon is in error. We claim that the deletion of seven books from the canon was to truncate the Word of God.
 
Although much of the validity of WHAT Scripture tells us can be validated by referring to the manuscript evidence, the Bible itself cannot authorize itself. In fact, manuscript evidence is “outside” evidence.
The Catholic Church is NOT a “denomination.”
There is nothing in the Protestant Canon which you could prove insufficient, or in error, as is, without anything else added.Nobody claims that the content of the protestant Canon is in error. We claim that the deletion of seven books from the canon was to truncate the Word of God.

But the Catholic Church is indeed a denomination - amongst many. And yes, you do say that the Protestant Canon is in error by your insistence that it needs other writings to avoid being labelled as “truncated.” (insufficient). Show us one thing in the Protestant Canon which is NOT complete, without the apocrypha.
 
And yes, you do say that the Protestant Canon is in error by your insistence that it needs other writings to avoid being labelled as “truncated.” (insufficient). Show us one thing in the Protestant Canon which is NOT complete, without the apocrypha.
What *is *in your Bible is not in error. However, it does not include *all *of the inspired books. It would be the same if I had a book that contained only the Gospels.
 
And yes, you do say that the Protestant Canon is in error by your insistence that it needs other writings to avoid being labelled as “truncated.” (insufficient). Show us one thing in the Protestant Canon which is NOT complete, without the apocrypha.
Daniel.

Yes, your version of the Bible is truncated. The Bible was one way for over a thousand years before Protestants removed things that interfered with their ideas about salvation. Your version of the Bible has been tampered with by men of pride, who were not guided by God. You are missing pieces of the truth.
 
Show us one thing in the Protestant Canon which is NOT complete, without the apocrypha.
Well, if pressed, I could show you the complete plan of salvation in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. So should we throw out the rest of Scripture. Maybe keep the Gospel of John?

Without the Deuterocanonical books and the portions of Daniel and Esther that are missing, you have an incomplete Bible. That’s not even an argument.

Without those books, the history of the so-calld “silent” period is missing. It wasn’t silent at all. Indeed, the Deuterocanonical books give warrant for a fully fleshed-out concept of the Communion of Saints. The context of the expectation of Resurrection vigorously illumnates certain New Testament passages.
 
But the Catholic Church is indeed a denomination - amongst many.
Many people do not understand the difference between a Church and a denomination.

A Church (as defined by the Churches who were here long before the word “denomination” was needed) is:

"a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.” (par. 833 of the Catechism*. *Emphasis added)
 
The “authority” of the Bible is Itself; for it is God’s Word, not the Church’s word. And certainly not a specific denomination’s word. There is nothing in the Protestant Canon which you could prove insufficient, or in error, as is, without anything else added.
So you have a Volume containing 66 Books and I have a Volume containing 73 Books and your response to my query about the discrepency is:
The “authority” of the Bible is Itself; for it is God’s Word

So here I sit in front of two “Holy Bibles”, with differing numbers of books and entire passages missing form one that are included in the other and you just tell me to accept the Bible “on it’s own Authority”, and that, “There is nothing in the Protestant Canon which you could prove insufficient, or in error, as is, without anything else added.”

What kind of sense does that make? You’ve been telling me how the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Not the “Protestant Bible”, but the Bible period, and now you can’t tell my WHY there is this discrepency.
If you want me (as an outsider) to join this thing you call Christianity, you’re going to need a better explanation than that.

Peace
James
 
The central teaching of the Bible is not the Church; it is of Jesus who is Head of the Church. The Bible has not been separated from any Church by Protestants; rather, Catholics have separated themselves from the Bible; by adding Traditions and Magisteriums that are not contained therein.
So are you saying, all I need is the bible?:confused: If so, why would you say Jesus is head of the church, and—where is this church located and what name does it go by?

OR

are you saying the C.C. failed miserably, which of course paved the way for the ultimate panacea—PROTESTANTISM??? :eek: :eek:
 
So you have a Volume containing 66 Books and I have a Volume containing 73 Books and your response to my query about the discrepency is:
The “authority” of the Bible is Itself; for it is God’s Word

So here I sit in front of two “Holy Bibles”, with differing numbers of books and entire passages missing form one that are included in the other and you just tell me to accept the Bible “on it’s own Authority”, and that, “There is nothing in the Protestant Canon which you could prove insufficient, or in error, as is, without anything else added.”

What kind of sense does that make? You’ve been telling me how the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Not the “Protestant Bible”, but the Bible period, and now you can’t tell my WHY there is this discrepency.
If you want me (as an outsider) to join this thing you call Christianity, you’re going to need a better explanation than that.

Peace
James
To me, the “Bible” as referred to here in my posts, refers to the Protestant Canon. Therefore it makes perfect sense.
 
To me, the “Bible” as referred to here in my posts, refers to the Protestant Canon. Therefore it makes perfect sense.
Please keep in mind that, in the proposed scenerio, you are not talking to JRKH the poster on CA, but rather a friend and/or co-worker who has expressed an interest in Christianity but has absolutely NO backgound in Church or Bible.

So I look across the table and say to you, "I cannot accept your assertion that ‘The Bible’ is the Word of God, when there are different Bibles with different numbers of Books. My friend who gave me this Bible is just as committed to his faith as you are, yet his Bible is different than yours. Why?

Peace
James
 
Please keep in mind that, in the proposed scenerio, you are not talking to JRKH the poster on CA, but rather a friend and/or co-worker who has expressed an interest in Christianity but has absolutely NO backgound in Church or Bible.

So I look across the table and say to you, "I cannot accept your assertion that ‘The Bible’ is the Word of God, when there are different Bibles with different numbers of Books. My friend who gave me this Bible is just as committed to his faith as you are, yet his Bible is different than yours. Why?

Peace
James
So far you have not managed to give a substantiated reason.
 
So far you have not managed to give a substantiated reason.
In this scenerio - I’m ignorant - I can’t give a substantiated reason, because I DON’T KNOW.
All I do know is I have one friend who uses one Bible and another Friend who uses another Bible. These Bibles are not just different translations they are DIFFERENT BOOKS.
You expect me to believe that the Bible is THE Word of GOD but you cannot explain to me why one version of THE WORD has 66 books and another has 73?
I’m sitting across a table from you asking you to explain this so I can believe and give credence to this “Christianity” thing, and all you can say is:
I HAVE NOT MANAGE TO GIVE A SUBSTANTIATED REASON?

Peace
James
 
So far you have not managed to give a substantiated reason.
So if a non-Christian asked that question of you, in the spirit of trying to learn and perhaps to become Christian, that would be your answer? You’d sneer at him and brush off his question? 🤷 That’s not a very good way to witness.
 
To me, the “Bible” as referred to here in my posts, refers to the Protestant Canon. Therefore it makes perfect sense.
Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible

Pentecost (30/33AD)

The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; “Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority.” The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.
Vatican I Council (1869-1870)
Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because “having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself.”
Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903
Code:
What books are not found in Protestant Bible?
They are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the two Books of Machabees, together with fragments of Esther (x.4; xvi, 24), and Daniel (iii, 24-90; xii., xiv). These books were contained in the Alexandrian list or Canon of Books which was used by Greek-speaking Jewsof Alexandria, Asia Minor, Greece and Italy.

Why did Luther reject 7 books from the Bible?

**Because they did not suit his new doctrines. **He had arrived at the principle of private judgement - of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whenever any book, such as the book of Machabees, taught a doctrine contrary to his taste he rejected it overboard and overboard that book went because it says: 2 Mach. xii 46, “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins.” He not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, “we are justified by faith,” Luther added the word “ALONE” to make the sentence read: “We are justified by faith alone.” His explanation of this insertion is found in his own words, "I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. " HMMM… i THOUGHT AUTHORITY WAS BAD:confused: St. Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Luther creates a Lutheran Bible under his own audacity. He shows little respect for the Bible when he calls the Epistle of St. James “an Epistle of straw with no character of the Gospel in it.” He spoke disparagingly about the Epistle of St. Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John.

The Lord’s Prayer or the Our Father is in the Bible, but Catholic prayer differs from the Protestant. Protestants use a conclusion which was not in the original Greek copies of the New Testament, namely, “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen.” Catholics say the Lord’s Prayer properly. Before the last book in the New Testament was written the Catholic Church celebrated her golden jubilee; 11 of the Apostles had died.

Hence, THE BIBLE CAME FROM THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH DID NOT COME FROM THE BIBLE. Christianity existed over 300 years without one single Bible Christian.

Hey prot. 101 time to get your facts right!!!👍
 
Why did Luther reject 7 books from the Bible?

**Because they did not suit his new doctrines. **He had arrived at the principle of private judgement - of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whenever any book, such as the book of Machabees, taught a doctrine contrary to his taste he rejected it overboard and overboard that book went because it says: 2 Mach. xii 46, “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins.” He not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, “we are justified by faith,” Luther added the word “ALONE” to make the sentence read: “We are justified by faith alone.” His explanation of this insertion is found in his own words, "I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. " HMMM… i THOUGHT AUTHORITY WAS BAD:confused: St. Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Luther creates a Lutheran Bible under his own audacity. He shows little respect for the Bible when he calls the Epistle of St. James “an Epistle of straw with no character of the Gospel in it.” He spoke disparagingly about the Epistle of St. Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John.

Hence, THE BIBLE CAME FROM THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH DID NOT COME FROM THE BIBLE. Christianity existed over 300 years without one single Bible Christian.

Hey prot. 101 time to get your facts right!!!👍
Actually; Luther reclaimed some old doctrines; doctrines that existed before Catholics; he did not invent the “new” doctrines such as “purgatory” and several others. My facts are not the ones which need “straightening” here.
 
I dont have time to read 24 pages of posts but after reading the first page, I must say this whole idea smacks of elitism the very same elitism that forbade the common people from owning and reading their very own scriptures. I pity my Catholic brethern that are trapped in this gnostism.h
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top