Why trust that the Bible is infallible...

[joe370]

So in the early second century some of the books were accepted as scripture.
Very good.

it was because of all the confusion in the early church, as to what was truly canonical and what was not, that the CC, out of necessity, codified the canon in the 4th century.

Did all Christians in the second century have the current Catholic understanding of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception since you mentioned them?

Even the Jewish people, prior to Christianity, prayed for their dead. People in heaven don’t need our prayers, but we need their prayers, and prayer for those in hell is sadly ineffectual, but I still pray for them; who know, which means there must be a third option. To make it to this purgative interim is to make it to heaven! Words like purgatory, Trinity, Rapture, Immaculate conception were not used by the CC, early on, but what these words represent were believed by the early church much to my surprise, with the exception of the rapture of course, at least in the way many evangelical interpret it.

Curiously, do the Orthodox even TODAY relying on Apostolic Sacred Tradition have the same beliefs?

Absolutely. I actually considered the EOC on my journey to the historical church of Matthew 16. They don’t define these beliefs like the CC does, however, they do believe the same things for the most part: intercessory prayer of the communion of Saints in Heaven, prayer for the dead, which means there must be some sort of purgative interim, belief in the true presence, but they call it a Mystery, belief in the blessed mother Mary’s bodily assumption, perpetual virginity and immaculate conception etc. etc.

What they don’t embrace is the Filloque, the practice of indulgences, Papal authority, of course, however, to belong to the EOC one must defer to the authority of the Bishop of each respective Parish. Each Bishop is considered the Pope (Papa) - of each Parish. Every church has leaders and an authoritative charter.

I am REALLY glad you mentioned those two. Since most of our beliefs are the same, believe it or not highlighting those things that are not and their patristic support (or not) is going to be very important

I know; that is great. The idea is to come together as much as we can without compromising the teachings of our respective churches. Most of my family belong to non-Catholic churches, and I often go with them to their service and I love it. I just feel drawn to the Mass of the CC.

Man, I have stayed up way too late…Have a good night…

 

[joe370]

Joe are you using a Methodist website! Now thats progress
gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm

If you would have said that I was wrong, all I would have to do is send you the web site. i try never to use a Catholic web site, for people will call me biased. I always defer to Protestant scholars and Protestant web sites when attempting to debate; makes sense, doesn’t it. :thumbsup:Now I am going to sleep. LOL…

Peace brother…

 

[Javl]

As a Catholic, I’m putting in my :twocents: worth.

I know the Bible is infallible and that it’s the inerrant Word of God, because in all the various Bibles and translations ( also in some of the different languages in which I am conversant ) of the scriptures that I have read I have found no errors ( other than typos ) or contradictions. To me this is sufficient proof.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[PUP]

99.9% of all the codices are exactly the same. You are talking about a textual variation of .01% and my understanding of that .01% is not material in any way. For example , in the .01% variation you will not find that a codex said Jesus was not resurrected.

 

[BrianH]

99.9% of all the codices are exactly the same. You are talking about a textual variation of .01% and my understanding of that .01% is not material in any way. For example , in the .01% variation you will not find that a codex said Jesus was not resurrected.

No. Who told you that? That is simply not true AT all.
How about just Matthew 1?
bible-researcher.com/text-mat1.html

 

[schaick]

A question for my non-Catholic friends:

Why trust that the Bible is infallible considering the fact that infallible Bible was bound and codified in the 4th century, by the CC, comprised of all fallible people? If the CC started adding things early on as many suggest, then certainly they had the means to add (include) - some books in the bible that were not meant to be in there, and the means to exclude some books that were meant to be in the bound codified Bible. How can we be certain that the CC did not alter the word of God, considering the fact that non-Catholics have no problem believing that the CC altered and added other things that reputedly, were not believed by the 1st century church?

Check out this table-
ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[Javl]

No. Who told you that? That is simply not true AT all.
How about just Matthew 1?
bible-researcher.com/text-mat1.html

Variations in Geneological lists does not negate them, nor variations in semantics. There may be variations in idiom according to culture or the understanding of the translator. The important thing is that the truth and message are the same and are constant without amendment, variation, or correction.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[PJM]

***Can a Catholic reply?

Let me first pose another question.

What do YOU stand to gain or lose in:

1. Believing that the Bible is Infallible?
2. Holding and believing that it is not infallible?

Now, here is why the above is at best “good fiction.”

1. The CC founded has lasted for 2000 conscutive years BASED on what the Bible teaches
2. Christ died ONLY [if I may be so bold?] to Redeems us. salvation is an entirely seperate issue, requiring the now codeified 1600 year old Catholic Bible [with historical evidence of it going back to the Apostles, so what is in the Codified version is verifible:thumbsup:
3. Point #1 is of even greater signifiance when viewed in the light of the poliferation of bibles and protestant churches that changed the then 1200-1300 year old Codified Catholic bible.**

Points 1 and 2 give solid evidence of Christ promise and the Holy Spirit’s Presence in Her, just as the bible states is FACT.

Love and prayers friends,

Pat**

 

[joe370]

Hey Pat…

Can a Catholic reply?

Absolutely.

Let me first pose another question.

1. Believing that the Bible is Infallible?

Doctrinal truth.

1. Holding and believing that it is not infallible?

Doctrinal truth.

Now, here is why the above is at best “good fiction.”

1. The CC founded has lasted for 2000 conscutive years BASED on what the Bible teaches

I agree. The answer is no.

1. Christ died ONLY [if I may be so bold?] to Redeems us. salvation is an entirely seperate issue, requiring the now codeified 1600 year old Catholic Bible [with historical evidence of it going back to the Apostles, so what is in the Codified version is verifible.

1. Point #1 is of even greater signifiance when viewed in the light of the poliferation of bibles and protestant churches that changed the then 1200-1300 year old Codified Catholic bible.

Points 1 and 2 give solid evidence of Christ promise and the Holy Spirit’s Presence in Her, just as the bible states is FACT.

Pat, agreed. I didn’t think anyone was responding to my thread; sorry for the delay.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Roblox84]

I’m new to the threads… is this a rhetorical questions meant to entice someone that isn’t Catholic into a discussion for the purpose of converting or is this a legitimate question? Its posted in the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ thread so I’m not sure.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt… if this is a legtimate question…

I used to believe the Bible was infallible because it was the foundation of my faith as a protestant. I wasn’t a good protestant and my example doesn’t represent everyone… but just like you need to take a leap of faith in something… my leap of faith was in believing the Bible was infallible. I may be on a different route now, but from hindsight, it was just as a meaningful leap of faith to me back then as deciding to convert to Catholicism is a leap of faith to me now. I didn’t really have a need to question it because I had faith and factual history didn’t bother me anymore than the Spanish Inquisition likely bothers Catholics (meaning, it is a point of concern, but it doesn’t undermine a faith that is based on belief, not proof.)

Questions about ‘how can you trust it when’… or ‘how can you be certain,’ never bothered me. I had faith in God and his infallible word.

Anyway, that was how I approached it and just trying to be helpful if you’re really wondering about the issue.

I know a lot of protestants foundation is the bible, but what bible passages are used to support this? The only thing I know that is in the bible is that the foundation is the church.

 

[PJM]

=joe370;6343890]Which brings me back to my original question:

Why trust that the Bible is infallible considering the fact that infallible Bible was bound and codified in the 4th century, by the CC, comprised of all fallible people? I believe the answer is: the holy spirit is forever (Jon 14:16) - guiding the CC into all truth (at least revealed truth). John 16:13.

Brian, if the CC started adding things early on as many suggest, (Immaculate conception, purgatory) - then certainly they had the means to do the same with the holy bible by adding some books to the bible that were never meant to be in there, and the means to exclude some books that were absolutely meant to be in the bound, codified Bible. How can we be certain that the CC did not alter the word of God, considering the fact that non-Catholics have no problem believing that the CC altered and added other things that reputedly, were not believed by the 1st century church?

I’ve got to get some sleep, but i look forward to your response.

Hi Joe,

Try looking at the Bible as the ** * Mission Statement of “Christ Incorporated.”***

This Christ [CEO] knew He was soon to die, and before doing so He wanted to establish his legacy, his new organization in a manner that would last for ever. What are some of he logical steps he would take?

Certainly He would pick someone to head the Organization after he died.

He would train and empower this person to do a make decisions along the same line. He Christ would choose.

He would leave extensive and specific instructions to cover certain contingencies; but would also permit this person to act de facto, on his behalf, for the many unforeseen events that would naturally occur over time and great growth.

He would set up a system of succession from within the organization.

He would have a system of reward and punishment; a checks and balance to insure his standards and wishes continued to be applied and met, long after his demise.

He would establish training standards, ethic standards, succession standards, and rules of conduct. And he would supply as reference, an extensive reference guide.

He would insist that the authority he gave, stayed within the organization. That the training manual be used and translated only by his chosen * associates.

Mt. 20:15 “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’

John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide…”

This kind of explains why Christ set up the Organization He did, empowered Peter and successors as he did, and explains how He expects His Bible to be used.

Joe, over 2,000 YEARS, things change. Understanding changes as do the needs of the "customers."

**The Church is a Living entity; a living Christ. **Teaching must stay current with UNDERSTADING always guided by the Holy Spirit. **John 17:14;17 and John 14: 16 **"And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

No other church in the history of the WORLD has such a promise from God Himself. We can know this because when the words were spoken, and written; Christ One Church was the only Church in existence.

Oh, an Joe; just fo the record. Both of the teaching you claim were added later; have a implicit Biblical foundation. They were EXPLAINED LATER; not added

Love and prayers,
Pat*

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,

Try looking at the Bible as the ** * Mission Statement of “Christ Incorporated.”***

 

[PJM]

=joe370;6378888]Pat, well said, and I whole-heartedly agree with everything you’ve said; that is why I left the Lutheran church and became a member of the historical church (Catholic Church) - founded by God, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, forever guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth, as opposed to partial truth (revealed truth that is).

Would you consider the Eastern Orthodox Church to be founded by God, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, as well, considering the fact that 1) I cannot provide the name of the man that started the EOC, and when, other than Jesus, as I can which each and every Protestant church, and 2) the EOC can also trace its lineage all the way back to the Apostolic age? Or, does the fact that they no longer recognize the biblical fact that Jesus’ church was built on Simon, renamed Kepha (you are Kepha and on this kepha, I will build my church) - nullify this claim, in your opinion?

Thanks Joe! Wecome home!

Here is what I understand the diference to be.

The EOC [strangly seem to feel that they are a seperate church], based on what I, [certainly not they] see as highly insignifiant, and politically motivated diferences; as the “Body” of our beliefs and practices are very much the same. [THANK GOD!]

The New Testament has over 30 references to “One Church.” Clarly that was and remains th intent of Jesus.

If we do not push asside the fact the the first Church community was actually started by Jesus Himself, and presented to Peter as such; there is much clear evidence, that even after the Death and Ressurection, that the first Church, that was given to and founded upon Peter, continued in existence in Jeursalem for some time before the “dispersement” caused in part by the Mission** [Mt. 28:19-20] **and in part by persecuation.

**Matt.3: 5 **Then went out to him [Jesus] Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan,

Matt.16: 21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. [NOTICE this is the same chapter as v. 15-19]

** Mk. 11: 27** And they came again to Jerusalem. And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to him

Luke.6: 17 And he came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases;

Luke.24: 13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emma’us, about seven miles from Jerusalem, Then one of them, named Cle’opas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; **and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, **

**Acts.1 : 4 **And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, [8] But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth.” And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Acts.2 :5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.

This is but a few proofs of the continuation of the church founded by Jesus before the EOC’s, and ruled through Peter. So clearly, the One TRUE Chruch starts with Jesus, is handed to Peter, and is a vibrant church before the EOC’s.

Love and prayers,
Pat