Catholics wrote the New Testament, collected the scriptures, determined what was to be in the New Testament, and have the real tradition to understand it. If you claim to understand a verse from the New Testament without knowing the entire of tradition, you will fail at grasping the true meaning.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bible contradictions
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Sorry, but this is false. it is not a Catholic myth. Catholics never once claimed it was in the New Testament. It is part of the sacred tradition.
What are you talking about? There were no Catholics when the "books" of the New Testament were written. The word "Catholic" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. They created a canon for their denomination only, and do not have any special ability to understand it. Proof is in all the extra-Biblical stuff added to the apostles' message.
What is "the entire of (extra-Biblical) tradition"? Catholic propaganda? a) The Orthodox denomination is as old as Catholicism and b) Martin Luther and others disproved the warped ideology of the Catholic denomination.
Your old denomination has so many flaws it's a wonder anyone belongs.
Finally, when does Jesus finally come down from the cross?
Then funny thing about the Catholic Church being the largest Christian denomination in the world.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I am sympathetic to these points, because there is a need to hold Protestants to the reality that they inherited a great deal from the Catholic Church including the NT canon. But I feel the need to point out that the above statements completely ignore that the formation of NT canon happened during the years when there was no distinction between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. IOW, what I am saying is that the Eastern Orthodox churches can equally claim the formation of canon as part of their history as well.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh I understand the tradition quite well. Too bad that you do not understand a joke when you see one.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Though I am not fan of the Catholic church they do have quite a bit of history on their side. Until 1054 there was only one "Catholic Church" and they were pretty much it except for a few groups that went their own way and were, especially after Rome adopted Christianity formally, treated as heretics. So until 1054 the word "catholic" was quite appropriate since it means "universal".
So? That doesn't disprove anything that I wrote. What is the largest country in the world? Russia. Larger doesn't mean better.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The first time the word Catholic was used to describe the church was in 115 AD in the letters written by the Bishop of Antioch. He is also very clearly teaching Catholic doctrine. Read the letters.
Earlier, in 95 AD the Bishop or Rome wrote to the church in Corinth correcting them. Sure sounds like a pope to me.
In about 180 AD Ireneaus wrotea "“Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things everywhere alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. The languages of the world are different, but the meaning of the tradition is one and the same. Neither do the Churches that have been established in Germany believe otherwise, or hand down any other tradition, nor those among the Iberians, nor those among the Celts, nor in Egypt, nor those established in the middle parts of the world” (I:10:1-2)
And as for the Orthodox Church, this was all long before Constantine, Constantinople, and the Orthodox.
Earlier, in 95 AD the Bishop or Rome wrote to the church in Corinth correcting them. Sure sounds like a pope to me.
In about 180 AD Ireneaus wrotea "“Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things everywhere alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. The languages of the world are different, but the meaning of the tradition is one and the same. Neither do the Churches that have been established in Germany believe otherwise, or hand down any other tradition, nor those among the Iberians, nor those among the Celts, nor in Egypt, nor those established in the middle parts of the world” (I:10:1-2)
And as for the Orthodox Church, this was all long before Constantine, Constantinople, and the Orthodox.
It doesn't matter when the word "Catholic" (which is an English word) was first used. As I wrote earlier, the word "Catholic" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. And it doesn't matter when the Bishop of Rome wrote something, as that term (or "Pope") isn't in the Bible either.
Additionally, Ireneaus' quote doesn't contain the word "Catholic" either.
"The history of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the formation, events, and transformation of the Eastern Orthodox Church through time. According to the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church is traced back to Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The Apostles appointed successors, known as bishops, and they in turn appointed other bishops in a process known as Apostolic succession." (source: wikipedia) So your statement "And as for the Orthodox Church, this was all long before Constantine, Constantinople, and the Orthodox" (which is redundant) has no value.
If any people can claim to be the originators of "the church" it is the Jews, since Jesus was a Jew, all the disciples were Jews, all the apostles were Jews, and Jews wrote the entire Bible -- both testaments -- with the sole exception of Luke.
In other words, the claim that the Catholic denomination was the first Christian denomination simply is not true.
Don't blame this stuff on us ...
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh come on! I thought that we get to blame the Jews for everything.
Seriously the language that the New Testament was written in tell us who to blame for many of the ideas.
Telling Christians that their beliefs are largely of Greek origins tends to get them really mad, so I ain't saying nothing about it.
(laugh) "blame"? Interesting choice of wording!As I have written before...
1) The entire Bible (with one exception : Luke) was authored by Jews.
2) Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew, as were all the disciples.
3) They were first called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11), long after Yeshua was killed by the Romans.
BTW, I am also a Jew.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What makes you think that the Gospels were written by Jews? They were not written by who they were named for. That is clear. The only one possibly written by the person that it was named for would be Luke. And that is rather doubtful.
As I have written before...
1) The entire Bible (with one exception : Luke) was authored by Jews.
2) Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew, as were all the disciples.
3) They were first called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11), long after Yeshua was killed by the Romans.
BTW, I am also a Jew.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Actually, in your favor, I think it is even earlier than that. My understanding is that Ignatius died in 110, and he obviously wrote of the catholic church BEFORE he died. I would say the odds are that they were using the phrase "catholic church" back in the first century.
Yes, I agree with you on this one as well. The fact that Clement wrote as if he had authority over another bishop's jurisdiction is a very solid argument in favor of the uniqueness of the Bishop of Rome going back to the first century.
Here we have to part ways. The eastern church did not suddenly appear in 1054. Just as with the Catholic church, Eastern Orthodoxy can make all the same claims to having a direct line back to the apostles.
Here's the one that did it for me:
1Chr. 21. [1] And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
[2] And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
vs
2 Samuel, CHAPTER 24:1
… The LORD's anger against Israel flared again,a and he incited David against them: “Go, take a census of Israel and Judah.”
2: The king therefore said to Joab and the leaders of the army who were with him, “Tour all the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beer-sheba and register the people, that I may know their number.
Read in context you can see that these are two different accounts of the same story.
1Chr. 21. [1] And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
[2] And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
Bible, King James Version
quod.lib.umich.edu
vs
2 Samuel, CHAPTER 24:1
… The LORD's anger against Israel flared again,a and he incited David against them: “Go, take a census of Israel and Judah.”
2: The king therefore said to Joab and the leaders of the army who were with him, “Tour all the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beer-sheba and register the people, that I may know their number.
2 Samuel 24:1-25 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, | King James Version (KJV) | Dow
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him,
www.bible.com
Read in context you can see that these are two different accounts of the same story.
OK, although "Jew" may not be as helpful a descriptor as one might imagine.
L'shalom ...
Sorry, but it is true that the Catholic church was the first Christian denomination.
Second Temple Jews believed they were in a sacred covenant with God, which of course they were. They also held sacred their traditions and scripture, and had a High Priest in the temple in Jerusalem.
Catholics broke away from Judaism while claiming their church to be the fulfillment of Judaism, and the start of an incredible new covenant with all of humanity.
Catholics believe the covenant God held with only the Jews was now extended to include all of humanity. They continued, as their Jewish forefathers, to believe in sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and to have a high priest, now in Rome.
They taught and thought through a Jewish lens. Believed in the traditional Jewish scriptures, thought in Jewish ways, believed ancient Jewish prophecy had been fulfilled in Jesus.
For example, Isaac and Abraham, the great hinge that began the covenant with the Jews and God, was now seen as a prophecy of Christ. Isaac was not sacrificed, but the son of God was. Jesus was the son who gave up his life for love of humanity. Abraham could not find a perfect lamb to the sacrificed, only an old ram. This turned out to be a prophecy, which could only be fulfilled in Jesus, who was the perfect lamb.
Of course all the first Christians were Jews before they became Christians. But their belief that Jesus was God separated them from their parent Jews, and this was true almost from day one.
In the first two years after the crucifixion, Stephen was stoned to death. Also in the first two or three years after the crucifixion Paul was sent out to persecute Christians.
Jews did not persecute other Jews. As much as the Essenes loathed the priesthood in Jerusalem, they lived in peace with the Sadducees. Something very extreme must have changed for Jews to persecute other Jews.
It's obvious what that was. It was the belief that Jesus was God, which would be blasphemous to the fiercely monotheistic Second Temple Jews. If there was one concept that horrified Second Temple Jews, it was that Jesus was God and the equal of God the Father.
This was, in fact, the start of a new religion, which claimed to be the fulfillment of Judaism. The covenant which would now include all of humanity.
This seems to be cut-and-paste propaganda. Again, the word "Catholic" doesn't appear in the Bible in any translation.