Who gave the world the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Christalone said:
Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.

Please notice the following from Catholic sources:
"If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.
"If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
“The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church.” (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
“It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible.” (The Question Box, p. 46)
“It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament…If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is.” (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).
The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. “All scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16). “…Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet. 1:21). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35). “The grass withered, and the flower has fallen–but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn’t that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their “circle reasoning.” They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible (“has ever grounded her doctrines upon it”). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament. bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm
Click to expand...
 
sambos671 said:
Oh no. I just re-read your post and your an AV 1611 KJO person! Well at least KJO. So you adhere to the “inerrant” Textus Recepticus! Whom we know that Stephanus And Erasimus working with an incomplete Byzantine text used the Vulgate to translate back into Greek texts that were missing! Are you going to show me how superior the TR is to the CT?
Click to expand...
No I am not a KJO person. Simply another false assumption on your part.
 
Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.
Click to expand...
The Church has been an authority for a long, long time. It was the Protestant reformers who decided to do away with the authority of the Church.
It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church.
Click to expand...
Jesus founded the Church, not man.
If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn’t that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe.
Click to expand...
Frankly, this is a lie, and there is not much more to be said for it.
 
Christalone said:
Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.
Click to expand...
Jesus founded a Church, rather than a bible, correct? He gave that Church authority. The proper exercise of that authority is why you have a bible. Christ’s Church, which is the universal Church, called a council and compiled the bible from the myriad of alleged scriptural writings that existed. Some of them were inspired - many were not. How were they to know which? The Holy Spirit, which Jesus Christ sent to the Church, lead them into the truth. Every word in the bible you hold was approved by Pope Damasus and he, by God-given authority, declared the canon closed.

I suggest that Protestants who think otherwise should call their own Protestant Council and compile their own bible, since they spend so much time tearing the authority of the Catholic Church down. Let’s see Protestant unity in action! Of course, we know that this is impossible, since “sola scriptura” leads to endless division. Why not just give thanks that there was one Church with the authority to compile the bible and leave it at that?
 
Christalone said:
No I am not a KJO person. Simply another false assumption on your part.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry thats how I understood what you said here to mean
The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God’s Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction
Click to expand...
However, I note how you still have not challenged what I’ve said. You haven’t really debated.
 
Christalone said:
What one claims to be the truth is not always the truth, and more specificly just because one claims it to be.
Click to expand...
Yet here you are making a claim about the truth that isn’t the truth. YOu do not want us to believe in a “Man Made religion” but here you are a “Man” making up a religion for us to follow… you are a walking contradiction!

Peace:thumbsup:
 
Christalone

You are so full of yourself… Read the Bible, You are speaking of the Bible as if you and only you have been gifted with the truth. Wow, am I glad to meet you, Truth.

Rhetoric, Rhetoric Rhetoric. You’re off-base on everything that the Church (the Body of Christ) teaches. We did not give ourselves the authority. I am but a sinful believer in Jesus Christ. Intelligence and book smart does not save you. Following as best one can saves you. Get off your high horse and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you to the one truth. You must be humble first. remember that one cannot learn anything if they already believe they know it.

The Church takes the credit. What does that mean. The Church speaks the truth through the Vicar of Christ, first known to us as Peter , who used to be Simon son of Bar Jonah. If Christ had already returned we would need no additional Vicars. None of you who know everything even come close to comprehending Matt 16:13-20. Not even close. There are no winners here. This is not a competition. We are talking about salvation. If you believe in Jesus Christ, you too are a Catholic, whether you like it or understand it or not.

Many Protestants seem to read the bible to find fault in the Church. Why? Because I guess it makes them feel special. Us Catholics are failures and you’all are passers. What does Protestant mean. It means protester. And protesters of what… Of the Church. Why because there were sinful men in the Church at the time who had lots of power, no humility there. So, they were slamdunked by protesters. There are now somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000+ denominations, but only one Roman Catholic Church.

WHY? Because it is the Church, not a denomination. May the Holy Spirit guide all of us on our journey to Sainthood.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Interesting question. The facts are that there were several competing sects of Christianity or Jesus followers that argued about the canon for a couple of hundred years. When the canon was finalized at Nicea, the Roman church had suppressed all the other sects. It thus declared the canon. Other groups were declared by definition as heretical. But it is well known historically that for decades if not hundreds of years afterward, some books were ignored and others added into the canon of various churches. I’m thinking of the Syrian church for sure, and there were others. Actually, some of the Eubonites and various Gnostic groups were the majority groups in some places.

Archaelogy confirms that the groups declared heretical were much larger and more widespread than previously known. Eusebius of course wrote the history of the winners of the internicine wars of early Christendom. That is why we find more and more of this “heretical” material today. It was suppressed by the orthodox and thus hidden away for safe keeping. It is now coming to light in various digs in Egypt and the region.

There are extant dozens of apocraphyal books, some written by Peter, and so on. There are dozens of gospels, and dozens of other epistles. Most were adjudged “heretical” because they did not conform to the group that was judging them, because they had a different theology. That in essence is the definition of heretical—the winner becomes orthodox and the loser becomes heretical. Some of course were adjudged as not “apostolic” having clearly been written in the 2-4 centuries CE. But even one or two of them crept into the canon as I understand. Especially those denoted as Timothy Titus, Peter and such were almost certainly not written by any apostle but were constructed sometimes long after their deaths.

So it’s pretty hard to determine witch of the two Catholic churches is the “compiler” of the resulting canon it seems to me. Both claim to be the “true” church, and both it seems have equally good arguments. There is no “superiority” in that one remained in Rome, the fallen center of Roma as apposed to Constantinople the "new Capital.
Click to expand...
SO I quess from your point of view there is no reasonable way of knowing which bible is the correct one or if there is any truth what so ever to Christianity. Jesus lied to us! We as mere mortals can not know the real truth because there is way to many truths out there and nothing is reliable. Your words certainly are not reliable, none of what you say makes sense. If I were to follow your logic to the end I could not possibly believe in Christ and the Holy Bible as truth.

👍
 
sambos671 said:
I’m sorry thats how I understood what you said here to mean

However, I note how you still have not challenged what I’ve said. You haven’t really debated.
Click to expand...
My intention here is not to debate. There is no I’m right you’re wrong, as we both are fallible, and a debate would prove nothing.

And speaking of nothing, I have yet to see scripitural proof that claims your claim of the bible coming from any church.
 
prodigal-sun said:
SO I quess from your point of view there is no reasonable way of knowing which bible is the correct one or if there is any truth what so ever to Christianity. Jesus lied to us! We as mere mortals can not know the real truth because there is way to many truths out there and nothing is reliable. Your words certainly are not reliable, none of what you say makes sense. If I were to follow your logic to the end I could not possibly believe in Christ and the Holy Bible as truth.

👍
Click to expand...
Thumbsup makes more sense than you. Remember the saying:'For those who believe there is no explanation necessary. For those who don’t believe there is no explanation possible".

If you haven’t felt the Holy Spirit you basically are only half way there.
 
How could the Bible show that the Bible came from the Church? I thought you understood the fallacy of circular reasoning…
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Eleve said:
How could the Bible show that the Bible came from the Church? I thought you understood the fallacy of circular reasoning…
Click to expand...
 
jpaul1953 said:
Thumbsup makes more sense than you. Remember the saying:'For those who believe there is no explanation necessary. For those who don’t believe there is no explanation possible".

If you haven’t felt the Holy Spirit you basically are only half way there.
Click to expand...
??? huh ??? so I guess my sarcasm didn’t come out in the post you replyed to huh!👍
 
The 'self-explaining" bible has lead to 30,000+ denominations, all of which disagree with one another on various doctrines. Thus, there must be a unifying authority to properly interpret the bible. That would be the very same Church which Christ gave the authority to. To argue otherwise is to ignore reality.

All Christian Churches have truth in them, but not ALL revealed truth. Only one possesses that.
 
po18guy said:
The 'self-explaining" bible has lead to 30,000+ denominations, all of which disagree with one another on various doctrines. Thus, there must be a unifying authority to properly interpret the bible. That would be the very same Church which Christ gave the authority to. To argue otherwise is to ignore reality.

All Christian Churches have truth in them, but not ALL revealed truth. Only one possesses that.
Click to expand...
Please prove your last remark.

And FYI there is no 'self-explaining" bible. The Holy Spirit guides Christians to the truth, not man nor a man’s church. If this is believed then it is placed above God.
 
Christalone said:
Please prove your last remark.
Click to expand...
Well, for 1,054 years, there was one Church. Then, due to ego and political considerations, the Orthodox split away. After this came Luther and his rejection of Church authority. From three we have grown exponentially to 30,000+ denominations. This is if you believe the Protestant encyclopedia of churches. Christianity is not supposed to have any diversity, but rather unity. It has everything but unity. Consider: You must be Baptist, because they assure me that they have the truth. But, we are not, so where is the truth?
And FYI there is no 'self-explaining" bible. The Holy Spirit guides Christians to the truth, not man nor a man’s church. If this is believed then it is placed above God.
Click to expand...
Catholic teaching exactly! However, there must be a framework within which the truth operates. We cannot all have the truth if we all believe differently.
 
po18guy said:
Well, for 1,054 years, there was one Church. Then, due to ego and political considerations, the Orthodox split away. After this came Luther and his rejection of Church authority. From three we have grown exponentially to 30,000+ denominations. This is if you believe the Protestant encyclopedia of churches. Christianity is not supposed to have any diversity, but rather unity. It has everything but unity. Consider: You must be Baptist, because they assure me that they have the truth. But, we are not, so where is the truth?

Catholic teaching exactly! However, there must be a framework within which the truth operates. We cannot all have the truth if we all believe differently.
Click to expand...
I do not have the full truth as neither do you, And simply as you believe differently than I, that does not give you truth over me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top