Wrong bible for first 1500 years?

[mpdmed]

Is there a reason given by Protestants for why God would allow the bible to be in error for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

 

[Esdra]

Is there a reason given by Protestants for why God would allow the bible to be in error for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

I’ve been now in a protestant Church for quite a time - but I’ve never heard that the BIBLE was in error?!
Yes, we say that the “apocrypha” (meaning the Deuterocanonical Books) are apocryphal books, I agree. But the Bible was never in error.

However, there are many protestant Churches who teach that the (Catholic) CHURCH was in error the first 1,500 years.
But that’s an entirely other topic then and maybe worth a new thread.

in Christ,

 

[JonNC]

Is there a reason given by Protestants for why God would allow the bible to be in error for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Where is the Bible in error?

Jon

 

[ricmat]

Where is the Bible in error?

Jon

If your Bible doesn’t have the books of Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees 1 and 2, etc. then it is incomplete. Catholic bibles have more books than (most? All?) Protestant bibles.

I think that’s what the OP is referring to. (Or perhaps the reference is to things like Martin Luther being the first one to add “alone” right after the word “faith.” Or maybe it’s something else).

If the bible was OK AS IS for over a thousand years, for the Protestants to change it, they must have thought that it was wrong. Otherwise, they’d still be using Catholic bibles today.

Perhaps the OP can clarify if this isn’t the intended direction of the thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve been now in a protestant Church for quite a time - but I’ve never heard that the BIBLE was in error?!
Yes, we say that the “apocrypha” (meaning the Deuterocanonical Books) are apocryphal books, I agree. But the Bible was never in error.

However, there are many protestant Churches who teach that the (Catholic) CHURCH was in error the first 1,500 years.
But that’s an entirely other topic then and maybe worth a new thread.

in Christ,

And how do those Protestants know the Catholic Church was in error for the first 1500 years?

Scriptures tell us that Christ said He would be with His Church until the consummation of the world. Where does scriptures tell us that 1500 years of people would not have Him with them through His Church?

 

[srferdave]

However, there are many protestant Churches who teach that the (Catholic) CHURCH was in error the first 1,500 years.

Isn’t it more accurate to say that most protestants believe that the Catholic Church is in error now for the past 500 years, not the first 1500 years. There was no protestant church for the first 1500 years. There was only the Catholic Church.

If it is true that you believe that the CC was in error for the first 1500 years than you must have missed the part in the Bible that says “the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church”. This absolutely cannot be. There had to be a Church for the first 1500 years. And the CC is that Church.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Well look, if you’re including the “apocrypha” in the Bible then you must somehow be devaluing the “true” books of the bible by sitting them next to those books of straw.

I love threads about the Canon!

 

[Barbkw]

I watch “The Journey Home” with Marcus Grodi, he interviews clergy converts (and he is one himself.)

Many people of protestant denominations, and even protestant clergy, are unaware that Christianity was 100% Catholic for 1,500 years.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

Esdra ,
Those seven Deuterocanonical Books of the bible that you and other Protetestants reject , were part of the accepted Canon of Sacred Sripture ( what we Christians call the , Old Testament ) that were embraced and studied by Jesus And the Apostles . If these books were good enough ( and considered true, i. e. inspired ) for Jesus And the Apostles, why aren’t they good enough for you ? Please explain .*

 

[JonNC]

=ricmat;7935732]If your Bible doesn’t have the books of Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees 1 and 2, etc. then it is incomplete. Catholic bibles have more books than (most? All?) Protestant bibles.

Well, Luther’s translation had 74 books. And both our Bibles lack Macc 3, and some others in Orthodox Bibles.

I think that’s what the OP is referring to. (Or perhaps the reference is to things like Martin Luther being the first one to add “alone” right after the word “faith.” Or maybe it’s something else).

I’d be happy to clarify it if that’s the question.

If the bible was OK AS IS for over a thousand years, for the Protestants to change it, they must have thought that it was wrong. Otherwise, they’d still be using Catholic bibles today.

Or maybe we in the west should use one of the Orthodox ones.
It isn’t exactly accurate to say that everyone in the CC for 1500 years thought it was ok, either.

Perhaps the OP can clarify if this isn’t the intended direction of the thread.

Jon

 

[dharmasister]

In Jesus’ time, Hebrew was essentially a dead language; Palestinian Jews usually spoke Aramaic. Greek was the common language of the entire Mediterranean world (Remember, the entire New Testament was written in Greek.) The Old Testament had not been settled. Different groups honored different canons of Scripture. The Sadducees, for example, held that only the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) were Scripture. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition roughly the same as the Protestant one today. Some Jews honored a canonical tradition that is best represented today in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.

Jesus and the New Testament writers used the Septuagint translation. The great majority of the OT quotations found in the NT are from the Septuagint. Protestant authors Archer and Chirchigno list 33 places where the Hebrew OT is cited, but found that the Septuagint was cited 340 times. And for 1500 years, the early church used the Septuagint.

I’ve pretty much quoted this word for word from the Catholic Apologetics Study Guides by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham

In 1529, Martin Luther proposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism.

So the Bible was never in error. It is simply a matter of which OT you would rather use - the one that Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament writers and the early Church used, or do you want to use the one that the Sadducees, Pharisees and Rabbinic Jews chose (keeping in mind that these are the very same people who rejected Jesus and in fact, crucified him)?

 

[Modestly_Anne]

Isn’t it more accurate to say that most protestants believe that the Catholic Church is in error now for the past 500 years, not the first 1500 years. There was no protestant church for the first 1500 years. There was only the Catholic Church.

If it is true that you believe that the CC was in error for the first 1500 years than you must have missed the part in the Bible that says “the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church”. This absolutely cannot be. There had to be a Church for the first 1500 years. And the CC is that Church.

I think it’s possible that many Protestants feel that where the CHURCH is spoken of in the New Testament it is actually referring to the body of believers that follow Christ as their Lord and Savior, and not about a hierarchy or some claim to an unbroken line of succession.

It is also quite possible for some to believe that in the same way things have gone wrong in the Church in the past few decades(scandals, cover ups etc.) that there were errors in the understanding/teachings/and therefore traditions not long after the Apostles’ deaths.

I think any of us that have seen the changes, corruption and moral decline in our present day world over just a few decades should be able to entertain the idea that some might hold that major errors in understanding and practice could have been present in just a few decades after the death and resurrection of Christ.

Standing up and taking a stand takes a great deal of courage and it’s possible that over the years many were silenced before they had the chance to speak.

Regardless it seems pretty obvious that the Orthodox feel that their were errors in exactly who holds the unbroken lineage title to the “organized” Church long before the reformation so obviously things were not all rosy nor strongly united, even long before the 1500s.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think it’s possible that many Protestants feel that where the CHURCH is spoken of in the New Testament it is actually referring to the body of believers that follow Christ as their Lord and Savior, and not about a hierarchy or some claim to an unbroken line of succession.

It is also quite possible for some to believe that in the same way things have gone wrong in the Church in the past few decades(scandals, cover ups etc.) that there were errors in the understanding/teachings/and therefore traditions not long after the Apostles’ deaths.

I think any of us that have seen the changes, corruption and moral decline in our present day world over just a few decades should be able to entertain the idea that some might hold that major errors in understanding and practice could have been present in just a few decades after the death and resurrection of Christ.

Standing up and taking a stand takes a great deal of courage and it’s possible that over the years many were silenced before they had the chance to speak.

Regardless it seems pretty obvious that the Orthodox feel that their were errors in exactly who holds the unbroken lineage title to the “organized” Church long before the reformation so obviously things were not all rosy nor strongly united, even long before the 1500s.

Scriptures are clear on the hierarchy of the Church (See 1 Corinthians 12). Scriptures clearly tell us, through the early Church, to ‘obey our leaders and be subject to them’ (See Hebrews 13). With those examples we see an authoritative Church. How does a ‘body of believers’ align with a hierarchy in an authoritative Church?

Jesus told the people to ‘observe and do whatsoever they, that sat on the seat of Moses, said to them, do not as they do’. If people were to abandon a Church over the errors of sinful men, wouldn’t Christ have instructed the people differently?

 

[Bluegoat]

There have always been differences in the Church regarding just what texts various groups use.

 

[1holycatholic]

Well, Luther’s translation had 74 books. And both our Bibles lack Macc 3, and some others in Orthodox Bibles.

I’d be happy to clarify it if that’s the question.

Or maybe we in the west should use one of the Orthodox ones.
It isn’t exactly accurate to say that everyone in the CC for 1500 years thought it was ok, either.



Jon

You speak of the various Orthodox as if they are somehow all united. I can assure you that this is not the case.

The various Orthodox Churches that have returned to communion with the Successor of Peter use the same 73 books infallibly canonized by the Church roughly 350 years after Pentecost. The books you mention are a non-issue.

 

[Modestly_Anne]

Scriptures are clear on the hierarchy of the Church (See 1 Corinthians 12). Scriptures clearly tell us, through the early Church, to ‘obey our leaders and be subject to them’ (See Hebrews 13). With those examples we see an authoritative Church. How does a ‘body of believers’ align with a hierarchy in an authoritative Church?

Jesus told the people to ‘observe and do whatsoever they, that sat on the seat of Moses, said to them, do not as they do’. If people were to abandon a Church over the errors of sinful men, wouldn’t Christ have instructed the people differently?

I understand a Catholic would read those verses differently than some non-Catholics. My understanding of those verses in Corinthians is that they were given to explain the different roles of all of us in the Church. They are not necessarily setting up a hierarchy government, but more an explanation given by Paul as to the importance of each member of the Body of Christ no matter what their role. It was to build up and edify the Church and it’s members.

As for your second question, I do not believe that any true Christians abandoned the Church of Christ. I believe that we are all members of the Church of Christ.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

so what is the doctrine of the Church of Christ on what defines a true christian?

 

[1holycatholic]

I understand a Catholic would read those verses differently than some non-Catholics. My understanding of those verses in Corinthians is that they were given to explain the different roles of all of us in the Church. They are not necessarily setting up a hierarchy government, but more an explanation given by Paul as to the importance of each member of the Body of Christ no matter what their role. It was to build up and edify the Church and it’s members.

As for your second question, I do not believe that any true Christians abandoned the Church of Christ. I believe that we are all members of the Church of Christ.

Christ established the Catholic Church and no others. Those validly baptized non-Catholics have at least an imperfect communion with Christ’s Catholic Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

You speak of the various Orthodox as if they are somehow all united. I can assure you that this is not the case.

The various Orthodox Churches that have returned to communion with the Successor of Peter use the same 73 books infallibly canonized by the Church roughly 350 years after Pentecost. The books you mention are a non-issue.

I don’t think that is his point. Historically, there have been differences in different parts of the Church about what they used as canonical texts. This was so before there was any schism. And I think you will find that even today, this is in no way considered to be an impediment to union.

There is no requirement that the canon has to be identical for all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I understand a Catholic would read those verses differently than some non-Catholics. My understanding of those verses in Corinthians is that they were given to explain the different roles of all of us in the Church. They are not necessarily setting up a hierarchy government, but more an explanation given by Paul as to the importance of each member of the Body of Christ no matter what their role. It was to build up and edify the Church and it’s members.

As for your second question, I do not believe that any true Christians abandoned the Church of Christ. I believe that we are all members of the Church of Christ.

First, secondly, thirdly and after that, clearly lists offices in order.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church;** first** apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

Speaking of offices, Acts 1 is also clear about an office to be filled, according to the prophesy of scriptures.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Now go back and read 1 Corinthians and see specific instructions to the Church, not a body of believers.

I would be interested in seeing your explanation of Hebrews 13:17.

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Obey your leaders and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls.

You missed it in your response.