Why Bible-based Christianity is illogical

[izzy88]

the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine

While Constantine was certainly an important figure in Church history (though nowhere near the most important), it has never been "his" Church.

rejected the books that the authors of Gospels and letters of their canon,had quoted from?

What are you talking about?

 

[The Anointed]

While Constantine was certainly an important figure in Church history (though nowhere near the most important), it has never been "his" Church.



What are you talking about?

If you have to ask that question, it is apparent that you have never studied the scriptures in any depth. Let me give you one of many instances, Luke states that Arpachshad is the father of Cainan/Kainam, who was the father of Shelah, from which book of scriptures did Luke learn this? Certainly not the OT canon of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine.

 

[izzy88]

If you have to ask that question, it is apparent that you have never studied the scriptures in any depth. Let me give you one of many instances, Luke states that Arpachshad is the father of Cainan/Kainam, who was the father of Shelah, from which book of scriptures did Luke learn this? Certainly not the OT canon of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine.

I'm sorry, but I can't have a serious conversation with someone who calls it "The Roman Church of Emperor Constantine" continuously. Maybe take a break from cross-referencing every quote in scripture and take some time to actually study the history of the Church.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Why do you suppose that the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, rejected the books that the authors of Gospels and letters of their canon,had quoted from?

Sorry, I don't think I fully understand what your question is.

Are you saying that I suppose or that they actually did reject them?

 

[The Anointed]

Sorry, I don't think I fully understand what your question is.

Are you saying that I suppose or that they actually did reject them?

Only twice in the OT is the Father of Shelah identified, one in Genesis 11: 12; "When Arpachshad was 35 he had a son 'Shelah.' Two.1 Chronicles 1: 18 ; Arpachshad was the father of Shelah. So Luke did not receive his information that Shelah was the son of Cainan/Kainam, from the canon of the Roman church, so from which scriptures that the Roman church has rejected, did he receive that information?

And if Luke quoted from another book of scriptures, why did the Roman church of Constantine reject those scriptures?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Only twice in the OT is the Father of Shelah identified, one in Genesis 11: 12; "When Arpachshad was 35 he had a son 'Shelah.' Two.1 Chronicles 1: 18 ; Arpachshad was the father of Shelah. So Luke did not receive his information that Shelah was the son of Cainan/Kainam, from the canon of the Roman church, so from which scriptures that the Roman church has rejected, did he receive that information?

1. Luke could have made it up.
2. Luke could have taken it from another book.
3. Luke could have received the information from tradition.
4. He could have gotten it from another being.
(there are probably more options)

And if Luke quoted from another book of scriptures, why did the Roman church of Constantine reject those scriptures?

That would be my question as well. I think they reject them because of inconsistencies and obvious historical errors. Hence why I would say Sola Scriptura is false.

Just to clarify, as far as I know, the majority of Bible only Christians reject the apocrypha and use a Bible with less books. They wouldn't consider outside books as Holy Scriptures.

 

[The Anointed]

1. Luke could have made it up.
2. Luke could have taken it from another book.
3. Luke could have received the information from tradition.
4. He could have gotten it from another being.
(there are probably more options)



That would be my question as well. I think they reject them because of inconsistencies and obvious historical errors. Hence why I would say Sola Scriptura is false.

Just to clarify, as far as I know, the majority of Bible only Christians reject the apocrypha and use a Bible with less books. They wouldn't consider outside books as Holy Scriptures.

Or Luke could have read from the book of Jubilees, which says in [Chapter 8]
[Chapter 8]
[Chapter 8]

 

[Samael_Khan]

Or Luke could have read from the book of Jubilees, which says in [Chapter 8]
[Chapter 8]
[Chapter 8]

Yes. I think that the book of Jude also quotes another book not in the official canon.

Then the question is:

What are the actual holy scriptures?

 

[The Anointed]

Yes. I think that the book of Jude also quotes another book not in the official canon.

Then the question is:

What are the actual holy scriptures?

[Chapter 8] 1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for 3 himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and 4 stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was 5 afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it. And in the thirtieth jubilee, in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.

Yes! Jude, the step brother to Jesus quotes verbatim from the words of righteous Enoch, from which Jesus and his apostles taught, whose books were cherished by the early Christians up until the 4th century, when, under the ban of dogmatic authorities of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, such as Jerome, Hilary and Augstine, those books finally passed out of circulation and were thought lost for millennia.

2 Timothy 3: 16: New King James Version; "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," And Paul also taught from the words of righteous Enoch.

 

[The Anointed]

Yes. I think that the book of Jude also quotes another book not in the official canon.

Then the question is:

What are the actual holy scriptures?

[Chapter 8] 1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for 3 himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and 4 stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was 5 afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it. And in the thirtieth jubilee, in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.

Yes! Jude, the step brother to Jesus quotes verbatim from the words of righteous Enoch, from which Jesus and his apostles taught, whose books were cherished by the early Christians up until the 4th century, when, under the ban of dogmatic authorities of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, such as Jerome, Hilary and Augstine, those books finally passed out of circulation and were thought lost for millennia.

 

[BilliardsBall]

@BilliardsBall you should probably fix your formatting.

But in regards to your claim, it's simply untrue. While there was disagreement among the early Church Fathers about which books were canonical, to say that none of them quoted from the deuterocanonicals or accepted them as inspired is patently false.

How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals

Didn’t Jerome and Augustine disagree about the deuterocanonical books?

Yes, as did other early Christians. Numerous Church Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, while some did not.

Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: “We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God,” wrote Augustine, “but by the canon of the Catholic Church.”

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

You've presented a number of false choices and false equivalences, for example:

"One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established."

1) The Jews and the Church agreed regarding the intertestamental books.

2) Jesus did not establish Rome, He warned true believers about it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The question:

So, if you accept that the books in the Bible are indeed divinely inspired... how could [The Catholic Church] have possibly decided which books were divinely inspired? Do you think they just got really really lucky?

And the "answer":

You don’t realize that God can even use heathens & pagans to accomplish His will? There are many examples.

@izzy88 - I feel you simply had to have anticipated this as a rebuttal/answer to the question you posed. The old "magic" line of reasoning. Being a believer/religious yourself, have you never appealed to this type of "logic" yourself at times, to appease questions raised about certain (otherwise inexplicable) items of your faith?

 

[izzy88]

1) The Jews and the Church agreed regarding the intertestamental books.

Please explain what you mean by this, because on its face it seems to be a ridiculous claim.

2) Jesus did not establish Rome, He warned true believers about it.

Ah, yes, and I suppose you have some out-of-context Bible verses that have been personally interpreted by you or someone else who knows next to nothing about biblical scholarship or hermeneutics that you're going to use to prove this point?

 

[MJFlores]

The Catholic Church (though, back then, it was just The Church)

So, if you accept that the books in the Bible are indeed divinely inspired, you necessarily implicitly accept that the Catholic Church herself is the one true Church guided by the Holy Spirit - otherwise how could they have possibly decided which books were divinely inspired? Do you think they just got really really lucky?

COMPARING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH THE CHURCH OF THE BIBLE

let us compare the one true Church built by Christ with the Roman Catholic Church.



THE CHURCH BUILT BY CHRIST
IS CALLED AFTER HIS NAME

The one true Church is called after the name of her founder, owner and head, thus it is called “Church of Christ”:

“For just as the human body is one and yet has many parts, and all its parts, many as they are, constitute but one body, so it is with the Church of Christ.” (I Cor. 12:12 NTME)

How important is the name “Church of Christ”? How important that the Church is called after the name of her founder, owner and head (the Lord Jesus Christ)? Let us read Acts 4:12:

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NKJV)

The Bible said, “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” The verse further testified, “Nor is there salvation in any other.” Thus, if a church is not called “Church of Christ” it means that there is no salvation in this church.

Even Catholic authorities testify that the one true Church founded by Christ is called “Church of Christ”:

“5. Did Jesus Christ established a Church?
“Yes, from all history, both secular and profane, as well as from the Bible considered as a human document, we learn that Jesus Christ established a Church, which from the earliest times has been called after Him the Christian Church or the Church of Christ.” (Cassily, Francis B., S.J. Religion: Doctrine and Practice for use in Catholic High Schools, p. 442-443.)

However, Catholic authorities admitted that the name “catholic” cannot be found in the Bible, but instead, a name coined only by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in early second century AD:

“The name Catholic as a name is not applied to the Catholic Church in the Bible…St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna about the year 110, is the first to use the name ‘The Catholic Church’…” (Conway, Bertrand L. The Question Box, p. 132)

Catholic authorities admitted that only on the sixteenth century when the word “Roman” was made part of the name “Catholic Church”:

“The Council of Trent made ‘Roman’ part of the official title of the Church…” (Taylor, Edward K. Roman Catholic, p.7)

"Roman" Catholic by Taylor, Rev Edward K - 1963

Catholic authorities also admitted that the name “Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church” was made only in 1870 at the First Vatican Council:

“In 1870, at the Vatican Council, the name ‘Roman Catholic Church’ was proposed but it was rejected. The bishops assembled unanimously decided upon this official name: ‘The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church’...” (Crock, Clement H. Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed, p. 191.)

Thus, the official name of the Catholic Church is “Roman Catholic Apostolic Church” made only in 1870, while the name of the one true Church built by Christ is “Church of Christ.”

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC Church claims that they are the one true Church built by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is about time that one make a careful examination of the religion of his birth. Commonly, a “Catholic” became a catholic not by choice, but because he/she was born a “Catholic.” For all of his life, the catholic beliefs and practices was inculcated in his/her mind. However, let us adhere to admonition of the Bible to make an examination. I John 4:1 says:

“Dearly loved friends, don't always believe everything you hear just because someone says it is a message from God: test it first to see if it really is. For there are many false teachers around.” (I John 4:1 Living Bible)

It is about time to examine the religion of your birth. It is about time to examine if the Roman Catholic Church is indeed the One True Church taught in the Bible, the one built by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[exchemist]

@izzy88 I certainly agree with you as regards the fundamentality of the apostolic succession of the episcopacy (the "laying on of hands", from one generation to another all the way back to the Apostolic Age) and the tension in trying to square biblicism with the very apparent role played by tradition and the consensus of the ordinary Magisterium (bishops affirming the early canons).

There's a pithy and now famous saying of Cardinal St. John Henry Newman to the effect that: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845)).

With that being said, I would not personally go so far as to declare bible-based ("sola scriptural") eclesial communities "illogical".

I think their historical case is substantially weaker, though, than those churches which adhere in principle to the apostolic succession. In this category, I would add in Oriental Orthodoxy and Anglicanism (the latter's sacred orders are not recognised by the Catholic Church, due to rupture in the lines of succession, but they observe the principle).

In the Gospels Jesus gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively shepherd others, conferring upon them duty of governing his ecclesia (assembly of believers, the church).

As early as the Letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, which although not actually authored by the Apostle Paul most likely draw on written sources of his "school", we see the clear primacy of the episcopacy (Bishops) as the leadership organs of the Church, the centre of unity at the local (diocesan) level and tasked with the duties and virtual office of the Apostles.

The early Christians were extremely self-confident and assured of their Apostolic Succession.

In fact so convinced where they of its authenticity, that they often challenged their pagan opponents to go and check the records for themselves.

In light of all this, read these self-confident words of Tertullian:


Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200]):

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say:

Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men--a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles."​

Among early evidence outside of the Bible, as Bishops being the successors to the Apostles, we have the writings of the apostolic father Saint Clement I from around the year 80 - 90.

This is quite a remarkable document since it was written at the very "end" of the Apostolic Age, when the apostles could still have been within living memory. He wrote, at this early stage:

"...Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . .

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry...

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death.

Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned.

After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience..."

- Saint Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians 42:45, 44:13 [A.D. 80-90]​

For me, the larger problem is the idea that the "Reformation" somehow returned Christianity to a more primitive modus operandi.

While certain ecclesiastical structures of Protestant churches - such as Presbyterianism and Congregationalism - have a decent argument at having resurrected an earlier, pre-monarchical episcopate style of church governance, the theologies of "absolute election, faith alone, individual predestination, total depravity and Sola scriptura" are not attested by scholars in the earliest circles of believers.

The more 'Jewish' the first generations of believers become in the reconstructions of contemporary scholars, such as the New Perspective on Paul (which correctly understands his "works of the law" as referring to the cultic, ceremonial regulations of the Torah as opposed to the moral law and denies that he preached a novel doctrine of grace), the less easily can they be construed in a 'Proto-Protestant' manner.

Ironically, the theology of Calvinistic strains of Protestantism - but also Lutheranism - owes far more, in my opinion, to a very strict and undiscriminating interpretation of Augustinianism (the Latin theology of St. Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century), than it does to what modern scholars would describe as the perspective of the early church.

On the other hand, many of the contemporary Protestant critiques of abuses by the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century - as over the sale of indulgences, the refusal to widely disseminated the Bible in the vernacular in preference for the Latin Vulgate, the reality of the priesthood of all believers as opposed to only the sacerdotal clergg and so on - were fully justified and indeed without the Protestant Reform, Catholicism itself would not have got it's stall back in order at the Council of Trent.

Thanks for another informative tour of the history of the church.

I'd just like to add that I strongly concur with the sentiments in your final paragraph. We Catholics owe a debt to the reformers that is seldom acknowledged.

 

[izzy88]

The question:

And the "answer":

@izzy88 - I feel you simply had to have anticipated this as a rebuttal/answer to the question you posed. The old "magic" line of reasoning. Being a believer/religious yourself, have you never appealed to this type of "logic" yourself at times, to appease questions raised about certain (otherwise inexplicable) items of your faith?

No, I haven't; the Church condemns fideism - and that was essentially the whole point of this thread, to point out that a Christianity based solely on the Bible as a divine authority which denies the divine authority of the Church is nonsense.

 

[exchemist]

While your post was very informative and insightful (as usual), I'm not really seeing how anything you said makes Sola scriptura logical. The Reformers certainly had some very valid points about the abuses happening among clergy, but that doesn't make leaving the Apostolic Tradition and denying their authority, and then basing your religion entirely on the text that was a product of said authority, logical.

Either the Church had divine authority or it didn't. If it did, then the Bible has divine authority; if it didn't, then the Bible doesn't have divine authority. You can't have a divinely authoritative Bible without accepting the divinely authoritative Church.

A nice point.

Though I suppose the argument can be made by Protestants that while they accept the authority of the early church in selecting the books of the bible, the church went off the track subsequently and it is this presumed deviation they are trying to correct. So sola scriptura is not a 100% complete description, but they discard the elaborate superstructure of doctrine erected in later centuries.

 

[Thief]

I'm not here to prove that Christianity is true, so please don't derail the thread with arguments about that. The point I'm going to make is that Bible-based Christianity cannot be true, and that the only forms of Christianity that can possibly be true are the ones which still have apostolic succession (The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy).

you have already drawn your conclusion

why ask anything

why attempt a debate

granted.....most Christians are just everyday joe average
with only Sunday go to the meeting.....mindset
and they might not be true Christians for all the distraction they suffer
and because you can throw books at them

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No, I haven't; the Church condemns fideism

Well, to be clear, one needn't reject science to claim that "the Lord works in mysterious ways." Which is, to be sure, a statement made appealing strictly to "faith" that what the speaker is saying is true. It's either that, or point back to the texts as the justification for what you are saying, which you most likely derived from the texts. Things are dressed up to try and sound profound (like the "mysterious ways" bit), without having a single shred of ties to actual data, demonstration, realistic observation, measurement, quantification, etc.

 

[izzy88]

one needn't reject science to claim that "the Lord works in mysterious ways." Which is, to be sure, a statement made appealing strictly to "faith" that what the speaker is saying is true.

It's telling that you set up science as the opposition to fideism; it's also wrong. Reason is the opposition, and reason does not depend on science - quite the contrary, science depends on reason.

That being said, I'm not going to waste my time trying to have a discussion with you; I've already learned the hard way that it goes nowhere. You're as much a fundamentalist as any religious person, blindly certain that everything you believe is correct - and you're insufferably arrogant about it, to boot.

Take care.