Facts about the NT Bible

by Amazing 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LittleToe

  Tis a bit of an RC-biased thread there, Jim, so you'll excuse me (I hope) if I address the balance somewhat.

  The Big Question is: Is your NT Bible the accurate NT Bible ... or is it a Protestant Corruption ... or is it a Catholic conspiracy? You Decide!

  As Didier alludes to, the King James Version contains the same books as the Douay. Further the JWs don't claim that the Protestants further corrupted the Bible, being content to accept that it was an improvement to have a Bible in English, instead of confined to Latin.

  On the point of authentic teaching, surely you're not going to sidestep the fact that the Reformers were Catholic Priests with an RC education and all the Orthodox documents available to them? These weren't unlearned men, and the schizm occured within the [RC] church, not as an assault from without.

  Given that this was a period of time when all sorts of wacky scientific beliefs were sustained by the religious (RC) authorities, I'm sure you'll agree that there has actually been progress, rather than regress in the advancement of thought, and this was bound to have an affect on theology as well. While there are some denominations that eschew solid doctrine and theology, this is not representative of the whole group.

  Scottish Reformed Presbyterianism has been one bulwark of learning that does not simply change doctrine at whim, and has been responsible for some of the greatest theological minds worldwide (or at least in the last 400 years). This is also to be expected, given its RC roots, even if there is a modern antipathy to said roots. It also had a system of church government that is rooted in Pastors, Presbyters and Deacons, with congregations, councils and synods related to one another, rather than "independant". In fact the only thing it is lacking is a "Holy See", which it holds in common with the Greek Orthodox.

  As a further sidebar to the Reformed churches, while they hold to the canon of 66 books being inspired, they also acknowledge that there is some merit in the "subordinate standards" of other documents and books, including the Apocrypha and Creeds. You will find many of the "Divines" refering to them.

  Just my 2p - no skin lost
• 

  LittleToe

  Addendum: I should also add that I agree with your introductory point about the Bible being a secondary testimony. On that front I am quite Barthian.
• 

  lovelylil

  Jim,

  I don't even know where to begin. You seem to be an expert on the Roman Catholic faith and sure copied lots of information right from thier books. However, I must strongly disagree with you that the Bible is inspired because the RC church first declared it was. The Bible is inspired becasue God's word first declared it as such. He does not need any man-made organization to declare what he already declared in his word. The RC assertion that the world owes it to them for giving us the Bible is utter rubbish and it is the way the Church continues to try to assert its authority over all Christians.

  The term Catholic back in the Apostles day meant "universal" only, but now it is used by the RC as a denominational distinction. The RC of today is not anything like the universal church of the Apostles day which included all those who had faith in Christ and was loosely organized, mostly in private homes. The RC's assertion that they are the only true Church and the setting up of their hierarchy began several hundreds of years after the death of the Apostles. And the catholic council that put together the Book we today know as our bible, caused more problems than it reconciled.

  While I do agree with you that Christ has Always been with his church through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Church is NOT the RC of today. It is NOT any church organization, it is the individuals with faith in him alone. The Bible is NOT a Catholic book and is for all believers in Christ no matter what denomination they are in, or even if they choose not to belong to any denomination. The RC is just another man made denomination that divides the body of Christ instead of uniting it. And the Bible is only one way for believers to get to know God. Even if we never had an "official" book called the Bible, we had plenty of writings to read from fellow believers in God, if we chose to. God primarily works with believers through his spirit and not through the words in the Bible anyway.

  A great article on the RC's claims about its authority and giving the world the Bible can be found here;

  http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm

  While I have come to the same conclusion years ago that the author of the above article does, he puts it in words in a better way then I can. Peace, Lilly
• 

  choosing life

  "We must be careful when using tth Bible to recognize its limitations."

  Many people have put the Bible in a position of being an idol. They care more about quoting scripture and being righteous in their own eyes than showing brotherly love. The books that make up the Bible were never written for that purpose. I agree that it has its limitations.
• 

  LittleToe

  Part of the difficulty is in defining terms.

  I attempt to use the word "church" (small c) to describe the body of believers, regardless of denomination; and the word "Church" (capital C) to describe a particular denomination.

  IMHO its impossible to identify any peculiar denomination as the sole owner of the title "Church", as it will depend on the context of whom you are speaking to. When I use it locally, people will likely understand me to be talking about the Church of Scotland or the Free Church of Scotland; if I were to use it in Italy, likely they would think of RC; in Greece, the Orthodox.

  But I would say that, as I'm a Reformer at heart

  Lil:

  The term Catholic back in the Apostles day meant "universal" only, but now it is used by the RC as a denominational distinction.

  I think it's a little difficult to be that specific during the first century. While the Apostles were around it was pretty much the case that your denomination was "Christian". Though there were "other teachers" that attempted to form sects (such as the Nicolatians and Judaizers), the sense still seemed to be that you were with us or against us. Every attempt was made to keep everybody together, as seen in the "Circumcision" council of Jerusalem reported on in Acts and James.
• 

  LittleToe

  CF:

  Many people have put the Bible in a position of being an idol. They care more about quoting scripture and being righteous in their own eyes than showing brotherly love. The books that make up the Bible were never written for that purpose.

  That would be the basis for Karl Barth's position.

  Unfortunately it is jsut as easy to do with a denomination, too. Yet all are fallible.
• 

  LittleToe

  LiL:

  However, I must strongly disagree with you that the Bible is inspired because the RC church first declared it was. The Bible is inspired becasue God's word first declared it as such.

  When Paul wrote to Timothy it is likely that none of the Gospels had been written down at that point. He was evidently refering to the Old Testament, and in particular the Torah and some of the Prophets. The RC church is the body that declared the whole corpus to be "inspired", after gathering the books and letters together for preservation. The Protestant Churches have just maintained that position, with a few minor alterations.
• 

  lovelylil

  LT,

  I don't even think the word "universal" was used in the first century at all. It was a term used later on but just to identify all those in the Christian faith. The term Catholic today has a very different connotation. To me the church (ecclesia) is the believers in Christ (the people), not the building, organization or denomination. When organizations started popping up and giving themselves denominational names as Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, etc. and began to make rules and doctrines unique to them that you have to accept to belong to that denomination, they succeeded in dividing the body of Christ instead of uniting it. (by promoting a sect, i.e. RC) Lilly
• 

  LittleToe

  Lil:You're preaching to the choir - I'm a Reformer, and hence have plenty of gripes with the RC, though not enough to withhold fellowship

  That having been said (very approximate dates to follow):

  • from 33 - 65AD there was only a rather small sect that was called "the Way", later to be named "Christianity";
  • between 65 - 400 AD it was growing and exploring its understanding of theology and struggling to keep agreeable;
  • between 400 - 1000AD there was a unification into one denomination, with a few dissenters;
  • between 1000 - 1600AD there were only two almost identical denominations and most of the main dissenters had folded;
  • and since 1600 there was a failed attempt to reform the RC Church that led to schizm after schizm down to our day.

  They evidently can't have been doing everything so wrong, if you hold to any concept of the Gospel being spread in a half-organised way (as did the Apostles).
• 

  lovelylil

  LT,

  You are right. All scripture inspired of God is talking about the OT, not the NT. I see what you mean that the RC are the first ones who declared even the NT inspired. Thank you for clearing that up. I was under the impression that the RC was speaking about the OT and the NT. The NT writers never claimed to be under inspiration anyway. They simply wrote thier testimony about Christ and his teachings, and wrote much about thier hope for the future return of Christ, and about their personal experiences living life as a Christian.

  I think the only NT book that claims to have been written under inspiration and is a prophetic one (according to some) is Revelation. btw: I am sort of a "reformed" Christian myself. Lilly