If you don't trust the Catholic Church, why do you trust the Bible?

[pearl]

Not until the 4th cent, 367, that a list of Chtistian Scriptures as known today in the NT finlly appeated. Athanasius, then Bishop of Alexandria, listed the 27 books as the "springs of salvation" and as included in the "canon", which in the judgment of the church at large contained the purist form of the apostolic traditions (Latin; regula fidei: "rule of faith").
The canon grew out of the Christian community during its first three centuries of their existence.
In Alexandria and Antioch Rev was disputed and never received canonical status in the Syrian churches. Syria was the holdout in accepting the canon. It never did accept some of the Catholic Epistles or Apocalypse. The final acceptance of the 27 NT books was really by common consent rather than any formal pronouncement of a church council.

 

[Grandliseur]

Post ref: #1

The Catholic Church decided which books would be in your Bible at the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. The Bible is a Catholic book.

That is a common claim that all true believers can safely disregard.

Most people never study the Bible carefully with the goal of determining how the Bible came to be. However, the Bible contains evidence for how the OT was compiled by the Jews; it contains evidence for how the early 1st century Christians compiled the NT. One more thing your assertions ignore totally: the fact that God can do and does do, anything he wants. It is therefore a certainty that we have enough provided for us in the Bible to help us with matters of faith. While the forces of darkness always have worked against the Bible and God, his power may be seen in the way people sacrificed their lives to translate and study their Bibles no matter the inquisition.

Here is a link, in case you want to see something about the NT: Link: >Truth Seeker - The New Testament<

Due to personal problems the website has not been maintained as it should be, sorry.

 

[UpperLimits]

I believe there is a fatal flaw in the logic of the OP. The poster is making the presumption that the Roman Catholic Church of today is the same entity that compiled the scripture as it is currently known and accepted. To put it succinctly: It isn't. There's been more than 1600 years of history in the meanwhile.

Over this period of time the church has changed its historical position on many doctrines. There have been councils. The Eastern church split from the Western church. There has been the split of the Protestant Reformation. And so on and so forth. Today we have inherited the result of this history. Basically, what you see ISN'T what you had; So there's really no fair comparison that can be made in regards to the opening premise.

 

[metis]

The Apostles went to Synagogues not Catholic Churches.

They created their own synagogues, and the word "church" ("eccelasia") means "community" or "congregation" and eventually replaced "synagogue" as the word used for them.

 

[metis]

That is a common claim that all true believers can safely disregard.

That's simply not true: Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

Focus in on the dates whereas the Christian canon was finally selected, and it definitely was done through the CC, taking over 1/2 a century.

 

[metis]

I believe there is a fatal flaw in the logic of the OP. The poster is making the presumption that the Roman Catholic Church of today is the same entity that compiled the scripture as it is currently known and accepted. To put it succinctly: It isn't.

Just because there's been councils and groups that reunited with the CC doesn't mean that it's not the same church. Just because I've changed over my 72 years doesn't mean that I'm literally a different person.

 

[Grandliseur]

That's simply not true: Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

Focus in on the dates whereas the Christian canon was finally selected, and it definitely was done through the CC, taking over 1/2 a century.

Did you read the link I provided? The point here is that this link shows how scripture itself gives witness to how the first century congregation collected all the writings deemed inspired and sent them on to all the congregations. If you didn't read the Bible's own witness on this, you are avoiding the answers it gives.

That God clearly used people up through time from the 1st century to make sure we would have the Bible is not in question: however, it is my claim by scripture that the Bible already existed collected in the congregations by the Bible's own witness.

You can claim anything you like, but if you disregard the Bible's own witness, I frankly don't care what your opinion is, or that of others.

 

[Kenny]

The question is for Christians. The Catholic Church decided which books would be in your Bible at the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. The Bible is a Catholic book.

Actually, the Bible is technically a Jewish book.

If you don't trust the church, why do you trust that they made the right decision putting together your new testament Canon?

I do trust that the NT and OT are correct.

Furthermore, how do you know they didn't tamper with it throughout the centuries. For centuries there were no other Christian churches on the face of the Earth but the Catholic Church.

Because there are so many translations into other languages that if it was change in the year 1000AD it would show up by the copies that were made in 500AD

If the Catholic church is so evil, that shows what a terrible job God does at guiding and shepherding his people. How could God be so pitiful? The only churches on the face of the Earth preaching that Jesus is Lord were catholic.

God's Church isn't evil... people can be evil. If you read the NT, you would see that reality

God lets centuries of people become totally deceived and didn't introduce protestantism to the world until the 16th century. Protestants who claim that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon, are stating that the Bible they love so much was put together by the whore of Babylon. How is that Bible trustworthy?

I think you have a problem here.

 

[metis]

Did you read the link I provided? The point here is that this link shows how scripture itself gives witness to how the first century congregation collected all the writings deemed inspired and sent them on to all the congregations. If you didn't read the Bible's own witness on this, you are avoiding the answers it gives.

Since I taught Christian theology for many years, I'm very familiar with its history, thank you.

You can claim anything you like, but if you disregard the Bible's own witness, I frankly don't care what your opinion is, or that of others.

The point I was making relates to the selection of the canon, which we know for a fact was done in the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries through the Catholic Church. What you wrote above is merely a deflection away from what I wrote.

 

[metis]

Actually, the Bible is technically a Jewish book.

.

Let me ask you a question: Were the apostles "Christians"? Now, I do think you realize that this can be answered different ways, right?

BTW, to clarify this for some others here, some of the NT authors were not Jewish, such as Luke, and just a reminder that the word "Jew" means a certain nationality, not a religion ("Judaism").

Sorry, Ken, but I just had to play devil's advocate.

 

[Grandliseur]

What you wrote above is merely a deflection away from what I wrote.

People who think themselves scholars and ignore the actual evidence in the Bible itself should be ashamed of themselves.
While what had been written and collected also had to be carried forward - is not denied. But, this simplistic denial of the internal evidence of scripture is not that of a Believer, it is that of an non-believer.

Frankly, I don't give a hoot, hoot hoot, what non-believers believe, or not.

 

[metis]

People who think themselves scholars and ignore the actual evidence in the Bible itself should be ashamed of themselves.
While what had been written and collected also had to be carried forward - is not denied. But, this simplistic denial of the internal evidence of scripture is not that of a Believer, it is that of an non-believer.

Frankly, I don't give a hoot, hoot hoot, what non-believers believe, or not.

Again, all you're doing is again deflecting from what I wrote with an obvious disingenuous attempt to discredit the information that I provided you in a link from a non-Catholic source about the selection of the Christian canon. Either you understand and accept the fact that the CC chose your canon or you don't, and I said not one thing about the issue you deflected to above.

So, maybe next time try and stick to that which someone actually posts rather than deflecting it to something that they didn't post.. And since you "don't give a hoot" about what I may or may not believe or post, then I guess we're done.

 

[Kenny]

.

Let me ask you a question: Were the apostles "Christians"? Now, I do think you realize that this can be answered different ways, right?

BTW, to clarify this for some others here, some of the NT authors were not Jewish, such as Luke, and just a reminder that the word "Jew" means a certain nationality, not a religion ("Judaism").

Sorry, Ken, but I just had to play devil's advocate.

LOL - I ALWAYS give leeway for you to be wrong. It's called grace!

The apostles were Jewish and in wasn't until Antioch that people who followed the Anointed one and His anointing were called Christians. Just because someone is called a Benjamite doesn't mean they aren't Jewish (as in nationality which includes their faith)--likewise those who follow Jesus (technically speaking) become part of the tribe of Judah as they are grafted into the Jewish tree. WE IS BROTHERS!

But we aren't talking about people here, we are talking about the scriptures. Even Luke took his notes from the Jewish Apostles so, though he was Greek, the writings were none-the-less Jewish in nature.

 

[metis]

The apostles were Jewish and in wasn't until Antioch that people who followed the Anointed one and His anointing were called Christians.

Does a rose by another name smell different? Point being that one may assign the label "Christians" to them because they came to believe in Jesus.

Plus you're not comparing apples to apples but apples to something else. "Jewish" is a nationality that could belong to any religion or may be secular, whereas "Christians" are a people who are into "Christianity" thus not a nationality.

Gotta go as company just arrived, and I'll not be back on-line until Monday.

Take care, my friend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The question is for Christians. The Catholic Church decided which books would be in your Bible at the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. The Bible is a Catholic book.

If you don't trust the church, why do you trust that they made the right decision putting together your new testament Canon?

Furthermore, how do you know they didn't tamper with it throughout the centuries. For centuries there were no other Christian churches on the face of the Earth but the Catholic Church.

If the Catholic church is so evil, that shows what a terrible job God does at guiding and shepherding his people. How could God be so pitiful? The only churches on the face of the Earth preaching that Jesus is Lord were catholic.

God lets centuries of people become totally deceived and didn't introduce protestantism to the world until the 16th century. Protestants who claim that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon, are stating that the Bible they love so much was put together by the whore of Babylon. How is that Bible trustworthy?

Don't you think that God, the Creator of everything, could control the destiny of His own book?

Furthermore, the Scriptures tell us that many times, Jehovah God used godless people, like Assyrians, the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, Balaam, and others to carry out His purpose. That's nothing new. If He can use the godless, He can use anyone!

Jesus gave us a clue in the wheat and the weeds, that pseudo Christians would be 'in charge' at least temporarily.

As far as your statement,
"Furthermore, how do you know they didn't tamper with it throughout the centuries",

....the Dead Sea Scrolls put that idea to rest; the Bible has come down to us basically the same as when it was written, when comparing those old manuscripts to the various renderings we have today. In fact, there's more variance between the numerous versions today, than in comparison with the old.

Take care.

 

[Kenny]

Does a rose by another name smell different? Point being that one may assign the label "Christians" to them because they came to believe in Jesus.

EXACTLY!!! Just because they started calling them Christians didn't change the reality that they were Jewish!

I'm glad we agreed on that point.

Plus you're not comparing apples to apples but apples to something else. "Jewish" is a nationality that could belong to any religion or may be secular, whereas "Christians" are a people who are into "Christianity" thus not a nationality.

Well... let's break that down. I think you are relating a modern terminology to something that was totally different 2,000 years ago. 2,000 years ago you could be of any national origin but you were Jewish because of the faith they had. Thus being Jewish was not a "nationality" but rather a faith.

When Israel's Temple was build again with Nehemiah, they were brought from all nations.., but they were of the Jewish faith and that is why they were set apart as different because of their faith.

Gotta go as company just arrived, and I'll not be back on-line until Monday.

Take care, my friend.

Hope you had a meaningful Shabbat and Mass with your wife. And a great time with friends.

 

[Grandliseur]

And since you "don't give a hoot" about what I may or may not believe or post, then I guess we're done.

Well, obviously done. I have nothing against looking at later history and acknowledge that the Catholic church that emerged was the de facto organ that carried the Bible forward, and even determined at that time which material to include.

I don't argue with that, however, I wanted an acknowledgment of what scripture states as to who collected this material and carried it forward for the church to do with it what it did.

But, obviously, we cannot easily talk to each other. I have nothing against your scholarly qualities and abilities. But, scripture must be acknowledged, scholar or not.

Thank you, and good bye.

 

[UpperLimits]

Just because there's been councils and groups that reunited with the CC doesn't mean that it's not the same church. Just because I've changed over my 72 years doesn't mean that I'm literally a different person.

That would depend on what part of the "person" you're looking at, as well as "how" you're defining the term. Technically, the Roman Catholic Church, as we know and love it today, didn't really even come into existence until the great schism of 1054.

 

[UpperLimits]

Did you read the link I provided? The point here is that this link shows how scripture itself gives witness to how the first century congregation collected all the writings deemed inspired and sent them on to all the congregations. If you didn't read the Bible's own witness on this, you are avoiding the answers it gives.

That God clearly used people up through time from the 1st century to make sure we would have the Bible is not in question: however, it is my claim by scripture that the Bible already existed collected in the congregations by the Bible's own witness.

You can claim anything you like, but if you disregard the Bible's own witness, I frankly don't care what your opinion is, or that of others.

This is essentially correct. There were many alternative writings which were in popular circulation at the time. (Gnostic gospels, among other writings in the pseudepigrapha.) It was also commonly agreed at the time that certain writings were considered authoritative and authentic to the writings of the original apostles. All the councils of the third century did was to simply ratify what was already basically considered common knowledge among Christians.

 

[Grandliseur]

This is essentially correct. There were many alternative writings which were in popular circulation at the time. (Gnostic gospels, among other writings in the pseudepigrapha.) It was also commonly agreed at the time that certain writings were considered authoritative and authentic to the writings of the original apostles. All the councils of the third century did was to simply ratify what was already basically considered common knowledge among Christians.

Thank you.

I believe that even more evidence is present that I might have missed, but, I think the material gives enough to show how things were done and what happened.

When the 'church' decided what to include, it had to be prevalent and present to be publicly known sufficiently well to be considered at all. This material did not just pop out of empty air, taken from material from China to Bolivia, to South Africa at random - that just happened to float about in the ether.