Why do Protestants argue to be a bible Church is paramount to being the true Christian Church?

Question

Why do Protestants argue about being a bible Church and only a bible church to be the "true Christian" Church when in fact the true Christian Church was a pre-bible Church?

As the Christian bible wasn't fully compiled until the 4th century by Catholic bishops why do Protestants make this false argument about where you find what has been termed "true Christians"?

Even with bible usage the teaching authorities of Protestant denominationalism are still extremely divided over what is written and to claim you belong to "the Church of Acts" any logical rational minded Christian should once examining biblical development realise to be the real Christian Church the Church has to be pre-biblical not founded on the bible.

Now i'll await all the answers which project the false claims of me rejecting scripture and the "profitable" usage of scripture

TG you mention a definitive "66 books" yet in the pre-bible years there was no closed canon. It wasn't until the 4th century that the Christian canon was closed with the assembled bible. Also this bible wasn't 66 books as you like to think. Therefore in the pre-bible years those books being reviewed by Christian was in certain places and at certain times more than 66 and less than 66. Your answer isn't good enough.

TG regarding The Muratorian Canon,

"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).

Paul himself wrote against Marcion. You can't have your cake and eat it too!
the Muratorian fragment should indicate where orthodoxy is found even though his followers saw themselves as orthodox but were not.

Tertullian
"Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).

Answer 1

They also edited the bible, taking out the passages and chapters they felt where scandalous (Songs of Solomon) and it was one of the ways they backed up their break from the RCC. Well it wasn't the RCC at the time but you catch my drift. They have changed the focus from Jesus to the Bible. Its almost idolatry I swear.

Answer 2

I think you are correct. Though the gospels seem to have all been written during the late 1st century, believers generally did not have copies of them, and it is questionable whether they would consider them to be scripture.

There is a school of thought that the only gospel which should be considered authoritative is the Hebrew Matthew, which was lost though Du Tillet claimed to have wrested a copy from the Vatican:

http://www.torahresource.com/Dutillet.html

As you state, most Protestants are basically basing their faith on a set documents which Catholics compiled and edited and placed in one collection (the Bible).

Suzanne: There are several translations of the Hebrew Matthew - here's one where Y'shua is used:

http://www.1bread.org/scripture/Matthew.html

Though I agree that the Hebrew text in the Paris library does seem to say Yeshu (hard to see well, and I don't read Hebrew - but can tell Yeshu from Yeshua). In the introduction to the Schonfield translation, it is mentioned that this version was found in amongst other Hebrew literature when Pope Julius 3 decied to supress the Talmud and confiscated documents. So perhaps this is indeed not an original Matthew and perhaps even one used for criticism.

Regarding the gospels, I never came across any texts which stated that the late 1st century believers had copies, so I supposed someone (then) would've mentioned it if they did. Do you have any references for that?

Answer 3

i exchange into raised catholic and went to Protestant and Evangelical church homes for years. there are various good human beings in those places and in some techniques its solid they exist because of the fact they do provide some human beings a style of a dating with God. although the real faith as practiced by employing the apostles is what the Church (Catholic) does as we communicate. Spouting some theories which you have or heard on the Catholic Church only shows how dumb and lie to human beings quite are. i'm completely recommended approximately Evengelicals etc, i will argue twenty differing viewpoints employing the bible on my own. I even have considering the fact that come decrease back to the real church and guess what Jesus is there!!

Answer 4

i know that when I find a distressed person online and I want to refer them to a church that can help them I sometimes use the phrase Bible believeing church because it is so hard to know what they might run into in a church even of a known denomination. Their local congregation of Lutheran or Roman Catholic or even Baptist might be one that just happens to be really off the track from all the others in the denomination.

I really hate to be too specific but am willing to let God help them choose. I pray that wherever they go they are not led astray.

I did once refer a YA user to a RC church in her town but they had a very informative web site that assured me that they were faithful to church teaching and seemed to be living out the gospel message. Without this info I would not have sent the lady there. She did let me know that it worked out well for her.

Answer 5

When Protestant churches claim to reflect teachings and behaviors of the "Church of Acts," all they're saying is that they stick to the practices contained in the Bible and not to traditions of men (you know -- that Sola Scriptura thing you and I disagree so much about). But we can point to more than the Acts of the Apostles to support our belief: we have the testimony of the earliest Church writers to back us up.

Please do me the courtesy of taking about 20 minutes to read these sources:

1) The Epistle of Clement of Rome, written between 95 and 96 CE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

2) An Epistle from Ignatius to Polycarp, written some time prior to Ignatius' martyrdom in 117 CE:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html

3) An Epistle from Polycarp to the Philippians, written some time between 120 and 140 CE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html

4) The only existing fragments of writings from Papias, a disciple of the Apostle John himself (various early dates): http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Please tell me, learned Pastor Billy -- where EXACTLY do you see these men teaching doctrines we now recognize as Roman Catholic, but which are not in the Bible (either explicitly or implicitly)? My answer is: there are none.

These Epistles, together with the Acts of the Apostles, tell us how the early Church functioned and what it believed. Any Church that holds to these EARLY beliefs is a TRUE Church. A Church that teaches doctrines of men and explains that IT is the "true Church" is behaving in a dishonest way.

EDIT: "Jill," you are quite incorrect. All Protestant Bibles contain the Song of Solomon. What they DO NOT contain are the apocryphal books from the Septuagint, such as Bel and the Dragon.

"Joseph," you stated that "believers generally did not have copies of" the gospels or Epistles. You have forgotten that Peter wrote the he'd read all of Paul's Epistles. Actually, it's quite well known that the Gospels and Epistles were copied by the recipients and sent to the other local churches. They did, in fact, have copies.

Follow up to "Joseph": I reviewed the text you've linked us to and noticed this translation uses the name "Yeshu" instead of "Yeshua." The name "Yeshu" is a slur of Jesus' name and means "May his name be forever forgotten." So I'm leary of this text and its translation.

Answer 6

Interesting

Although I am a Christian, I am not of the protestant belief...

However, I have never put much stock into what all the different churches claim as what they "are" or not.... they are just words, after all....and since churches are made up of man, it is bound to advertise the same way as we advertise everything else as being "the best" "the ORIGINAL" "the MOST" etc etc etc....simply to get people to "try their product". :)

As for the matter of no Bibles....They had the papers of the O.T. as well as all the letters being passed to and fro throughout the Bible....In N.T. the Apostles were writing back and forth to the Churches they had left, and to those they were going TO....

But then, they had a "LIVING "BIBLE" there among them in the N.T. in the person of Jesus Christ.....

Answer 7

Although the Bible was not "compiled" in a complete form that we see today in the first century. The teachings of Christ and the establishment of the church were documented and available to the first century Christians. Therefore the first century church was not "pre-biblical" as you put it. They had the original greek and hebrew writings, just not in the 66 book, chapter, verse form that you are used to. Granted, some of the epistles (letters) to the early church were written after the church was established, but these letters were read to the assemblies as were the scriptures from what we know as the Old Testament.

Also, you may want to check your Bible history. The Catholics did NOT give us the Bible. Early translations and canons were written and established long before the Roman Catholic Church came into being.

I. By around A.D. 100, God had given all the information to man that He was going to give (Jude 3; Rev. 22:18-19; II Pet. 1:3).
A. Immediately upon completion of these writings, copies were necessary (cf. Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27).
B. The only means of duplication until the fifteenth century (in A.D. 1454 Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press) was by manual handwriting.

Marcion - the first attempt at a canon

While the books that now comprise the New Testament were in widespread use from the first century, it actually took quite a while to turn them into an official "canon". The first attempt at creating an official list of books for inclusion in the New Testament was by a gnostic shipowner named Marcion (c. 85 - c. 160 A.D.). As a gnostic, Marcion believed that there were two Gods in the universe - the God depicted in the Old Testament, and the God represented by Jesus in the New Testament. To accommodate these (and other) gnostic beliefs, Marcion created a list of books that he considered authoritative, based on his theological views. These included a condensed version of the Gospel of Luke (lacking the Nativity and Resurrection scenes), and 10 of Paul's letters. While the gnostic theology of Marcion was roundly condemned by the Early Church Fathers, his list was the first known attempt at defining a New Testament canon, and it prodded the Early Church Fathers to give greater consideration to those books that should be considered authoritative.

Muratori Canon (c. 200 A.D.)

One of the first known attempts by the Early Church Fathers to define a canon (and to refute the list postulated by Marcion) was in a fragmentary list (85 lines) dated to c. 200 A.D., named (after its 18th century discoverer, Lodovico Muratori) the Muratori Canon. The Muratori Canon is remarkably similar to our modern day New Testament, lacking only Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, and III John. The Muratori Canon also adds (curiously) the Old Testament Apocryphal book "Wisdom of Solomon", as well as the "Revelation of Peter" .

The canon of Athanasius (367 A.D.) contained the full New Testament list as we know it today.

Again, the Catholic Church relative to the Bible is prone to say, "If you accept the Bible, you must accept us for the Bible has been preserved by us and has come to you through us." My friends, the Lord is responsible for the preservation of His Word as He said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My Words shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31). Should it even be granted that the Catholic Church were the agency through which the Word was preserved for a season, what would it signify? Further, should one be ready to concede that the Bible was handed to us, in a sense by the Catholic Church, does it follow that we must believe in the Catholic Church in order to accept the Bible? If I must repossess the newspaper from the mouth of my neighbor’s dog, does it follow that I must believe in my neighbor’s dog in order to accept what I read in the paper? Those who accept the Bible and the Bible alone plainly show that they reject all else.

Answer 8

That's because your idea of a true church is incorrect. A true church is not defined by externals or whether you have access to the Bible in its entirety or not. A true church is defined only by true believers. Where true believers are, there the true church is. Whether the organisational setup of the believers or whether the church meeting is held according to the Scriptures is another matter.

Answer 9

Yes there were Coptic's and still are

but the bible was being written because

Jesus died building His Church

(Matt 16.18)

The bible being finished in the 60's or 70AD's

Was then compiled and defrauded by Catholicism but still does not promote any

form of Catholicism. (Matt 23)

It was and is His church from the beginning

started at Jerusalem (Lk 24: 42-end)