Where do Protestants think the Bible came from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter exoflare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrianH, I may not actually answer your question but maybe this explanation will help.

When did Jesus die? 30 AD

When did John write his Gospel? Most Protestant Scholars say in the 90’s

John evangelized the masses and taught other disciples under him. John did this for more than 60 years.

What source did John use to spread and teach the word? NOT ANYTHING WRITTEN AFTER THE DEATH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST!

John taught by the memory of Oral Tradition.

Here would be a challenge to any Protestant Pastor: Take a Sabbatical for 3 years(the time that Jesus taught the Apostles) and study from sun-up to Sun-down the Bible, then throw it away and go preach the Word of the Lord without any written source using only memory as John did for sixty years.

For physical proof, I will have to rely on the Senior Members for that, since my knowledge is still in some of it’s infancy…

<><
 
On second thought…

BrianH, have you ever attended a Catholic Service? If not, you should at least once.

And if you have attended a Catholic Service then I ask if you have ever attended a Jewish Service?

I had the opportunity to attend a Jewish service Dec 10th, 2005. Our own service is a continutation of the Jewish service with a few minor changes and the addition of the Eucharist at the end.

When Jesus said he was the FULLFILMENT OF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS, he was not jesting, Part of that law that Jesus was fulfilling was the Priesthood established in the Law. Our own priesthood is the continuation, fulfillment, and the perfection of the priesthood established by God to Moses.

Good day and God bless <><
 
Thank you Joey.
I have attended a Catholic services but not a Jewish service persay…I did attend 6-8 courses(can’t recall exactly) from a Rabbi on their faith. I find your contention that the Catholic service is a continuation interesting and will look into that when I have some time. Thanks for your response.
BrianH
 
Makes sense to me that God is the one to give credit to when it comes to the Bible being here today.

“Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My Words shall not pass away” (Mark 13:31) So I give credit to Him, on that account.
 
40.png
ReflectHim:
Makes sense to me that God is the one to give credit to when it comes to the Bible being here today.

“Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My Words shall not pass away” (Mark 13:31) So I give credit to Him, on that account.
Click to expand...
sigh That’s NOT the issue…
 
**Hi all, 🙂 **
Please know that everything I have written is done with the utmost respect; with no intention of offending anyone. This will be my last post on this thread, because I feel this has the potential to go around in circles, and I believe I have answered the question to the best of my ability (however unsatisfactorily that may be for others).
**Hi Robert in SD, 🙂 **
I apologise for not getting back to this thread sooner with a reply.
As a point of edification please allow me to disabuse you of an infered belief that I belong to a Sola Scripture / Reformed Church.
As Lutherans we believe in retaining the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church, provided we don’t believe they conflict with Holy Scripture. (I know this might be a bone of contention and respectfully request you address it in another thread if so desired). Neither do we belong to the Reformed Churches who hold to Sola Scriptura, OSAS and whose traditions / rituals are almost non-existent.
Getting back to the point…I agree that some of the reformed churches rejected the deuterocanonicals as inspired; however I never said, or meant to imply, that the Catholic Church ever rejected them out of hand. Despite the debated which simmered within the Church over centuries, the Deutero’s were considered good for edification, but until being canonized, they were not to be used to promulgate dogmas of the Church.
**In view of history, I appreciate both sides of the debate. **
The deuterocanonicals today were among the books of the Septugint, which was used by Jesus and the Apostles. References throughout the NT from these books make a good argument for their inclusion in the Bible, despite the Rabbinical Council of Jamnia’s refutation of their authority. It can be satisfactorily argued that this was a Jewish council determined to refute those teachings which the Christians had embraced. (Now this was definitely a case of ‘sour grapes’)
Martin Luther was in good company when he was claiming certain books should be either removed or appendixed. Jerome, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, just to name a few had all claimed certain books unauthoritive. From what I have read, the books he had the most trouble with, had all been deemed unauthoritive in the first few centuries of Christianity, by various Fathers. I can therefore appreciate why Protestants sometimes deem the Council of Trent as a knee-jerk reaction to Martin Luther, and therefore the ruling on the Deuterocanonicals as non-binding on Christianity.
From a personal standpoint, I think it is a shame that the deutero’s were completely removed from non-Catholic Bibles in the 1800’s.
In regard to your question about my use of the term ‘Latin Rite Church’; I use it to differentuate between the Church in Rome and the Eastern Churches. I have often seen posters use the term Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church, when they were trying to be specific about something, only to be told the correct term for the Church in Rome, is the Latin Rite Church.
Ok, last concession / comment…
I believe, by the grace of God, the Scriptures as handed down by Jesus and the Apostles, were entrusted into the care of the Catholic Church; with an obligation to spread the Word of God to the World…As Christians we now have to take those scriptures and continue to spread the Word to those who may not have had the opportunity to hear them, or have stepped away from God and need a little help returning to the flock.
In much Christian love and respect.
 
Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings. "
Wikipedia.

So this wouldn’t these fly in the face of Sola Scriptura or Bible only? And give credence of Tradition AND Bible.
 
40.png
palmtopper:
Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings. "
Wikipedia.

So this wouldn’t these fly in the face of Sola Scriptura or Bible only? And give credence of Tradition AND Bible.
Click to expand...
Not all Protestants are sola scripture, on the wall of the church I belong to, but do not attend the services of, it says:
Scripture
Tradition
Reason
Holy Spirit

BrianH
 
Ok fair enough. I only say this because most Protestants believe for in Sacred Scripture only and some Faith only. Which came from Luther and Calvin. Now I don’t claim to know to much just the basics.

Where would you classify yourself? Thanks.
 
I would say those four are fine. I go to house church that has shared responsibilities. some of the people at the house church are sola scripture though. I am…an official United Methodist, by membership(all five kids go to Sunday School at the UM church), and a Christian by my profession of faith and baptism.
BrianH
 
Thanks for the background. I grew up Methodist and was a member until this year when I entered the Catholic Chuch.

Sorry for those who are reading this thread if I deviated from the orgininal thread.
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Here’s what a Protestant might say:
  1. The Christian community, when it decided on the canon, acted without error.
  2. There is no reason to assume that a particular portion of that Christian community (especially after 1054) necessarily still maintains the possibility of acting without error, at least because the Eastern Churches did not take part in the post-1500 A.D. councils.
  3. The similarity with papal infallibility doctrine is this: Protestants might say that they accept the Christian community’s acting without error in the limited circumstance of pre-1054 A.D. Likewise, Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible, in the limited circumstance of speaking ex cathedra.
Click to expand...
Poor logic. This protestant that gave you these needs to think about it more. If the subsequent decisions of the Church are error there is nothing to say that the Church acted without error when it decided the canon. The only thing that is saying that is the hope of this protestant. If they can’t be trusted defining the Eucharist then they can’t be trusted defining the canon.

It doesn’t matter whether the east participated in the post 1500 councils. That is actually false though. The byzantine churches have participated. The Eastern Orthodox seperated themselves from the Church so they have not participated but the ones who are in communion did.

To say that the pre 1054 decisions were good but the post 1054 decisions were bad is poor thinking. If you say that then you must discount all of Christianity because you are saying that they Church was conciliar before the great schism but after it somehow loses its conciliarness and suddenly protestantism is fine. To say that the Church changed like that is the same as to say it failed. If it failed then Christs protection means nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top