Question to protestants about the bible.?

Question

So if the Church existed for 300 years before the bible was formaly put together, what did it use for guidance. Clearly there were teachings and traditions (most couldnt read anyway) that were passed on for around 3-4 generations.

Pauls letters talks about these traditions and to hold on to them, he also talks about the Church being the pillar of truth.
He says that all scripture is beneficial, but clearly as the new testement had not been compiled he is talking about the old testement. (I doubt he would hold some letters he wrote as the same authority as scripture at that time)

then the bible was compiled and existed for 1200 years untouched until martin luther and other decided to take books out of the original bible.

Why, because they didnt agree with it and wanted to start their own man made religion. History bears witness to all this.

So how can you have faith in mans interpretation of text that was tampered with from the start.

Futher doesnt it make sense to examine the true church that Jesus started when he said he would build his Church on Peter and the gates of hell would not prevail. that church still stands to today, the pillar of truth.

How can people follow religions that really only existed for a few hundred years and were not started till at best 1600 years too late.

Call no man father - Paul calls himself the spiritual father of Timorthy.

Do you call your father, father.


The catholic church existed well before 300ad, Jesus founded it and it is referenced as early as 100ad.

Answer 1

Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, No (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the same non-Catholic Christian denomination in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to interpret the entire Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings

What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all." Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages. All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone. Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church?
The Catholic Church was the first Christian denomination to commission a mass printing of the Bible by asking Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, to do so in 1447. Non-Catholic Christians may accuse the Catholic Church of not allowing the common people to read the Bible before the Reformation, but what good would it have done for the Catholic Church to widely distribute the Bible to the masses when over 90% of the common people were illiterate and couldn't read anyway? The Catholic Mass has always included Scriptural readings from both the Old and New Testaments and Catholic priests have always "preached" the Word of God to the common people throughout history.

Which books of the Old Testament did the Apostles accept as Scripture? Did they accept the 46 books as in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible or the 39 books as in the King James version? The Septuagint was accepted among the Hellenistic sect of Judaism (of which St. Paul was a member) and this canon did indeed include the same books as the present-day Catholic Bible. In addition, the entire New Testament was written in Greek (Hellenist) with the exception of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ). Over 85% of the quotes from the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. The Palestinian Old Testament canon was not compiled until between 70-90 A.D. and then, it was done so by the non-Christian Jews in violent reaction to early Judeo-Christianity. The Palestinian canon was the one chosen by Martin Luther based on the acceptance of it by the 16th century German Jewish community of Luther's time. This canon excludes the seven books that were accepted by the Apostles as Scripture. Why was the canon of the Protestant Old Testament decided by Jews and not Christians? In addition, why did Luther attempt to eliminate the Book of St. James and the Book of Revelation? Is it because they contradicted his dogma of "faith alone?"

"Our faith receives its surety from Scripture." - St. Thomas Aquinas ("Summa Theologica" 13th century A.D.)

Answer 2

Here's some more thoughts on the subject: Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Protestant Bible. 1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin. 2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration. 3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries. 5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places. 6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

Answer 3

I am not sure what the question is. The protestants split from the Roman Catholic Church for a variety of reasons - some political and some theological. It came at a time when printing was making it possible for the bible to be translated and circulated in different languages. This was bad news for those who controlled the message of the church because everyone could see when the message was in line with the bible and when it was not.
The main theological issue was around the importance of faith as against works in securing salvation but there were many others.
Over the last few centuries translations have improved and now there are fewer differences and some Catholic Bible scholars command universal respect .

Answer 4

Most of writings by the apostles were in circulation by the end of the 1st century and certainly numerous copies were made of them during the next two centuries. But others also added their writings - and it is these which had to be compared with the original apostolic writings to be sure they did not include false teachings. The early church discriminated to some extent but Luther decided that had not discriminated enough and he decided that many of them included heretical material which he excluded from the Protestant Bible.

Answer 5

I agree very much with you considering all these religions and cults popping up out of no where claiming they have the truth, especially one called Jehovah's Witnesses that often forget about their history and beginning and claim to be the oldest religion on earth. This is why religion is so confusing to others that they want nothing to do with it.

Answer 6

Well hello Catholic. The bible says the gospel is to be restored in the last days which will follow a period of darkness. The Catholic church is a good church and does a lot of good in the world, but cannot really trace their priesthood back to Peter. John was the last apostle to live, not Peter. The Catholic church did not start until 300 years or more after Christ. No apostle lived that long. On the sacred hill Moses appeared to Christ and Peter James and John. This was transferring the Keys from Moses. They appeared in this dispensation to another Prophet and restored the keys on earth, just as in ages before.

Answer 7

That the catholic church decided upon and put together the bible as we know it, is BEYOND a shadow of a doubt. Anyone who doubts this most basic fact has not studied history. If some protestants think what the catholic church teaches is anti-scriptural, they need to study the church fathers who PUT the bible together. They put the scriptures together from the writings the apostles left to them (yes the apostles left the writings of scripture to CATHOLIC church fathers) and people believed them because they could trace their succession directly to the apostles whom appointed them and the gnostics and other heretics could not. They were catholic, of that, no rational person can doubt. To deny that basic fact is to deny the origins of the scripture.

If some protestants find catholic teaching appaling they need to do some history on the gnostics and the gnostic gospels against which the catholic church faught ARDENTLY (and prepare themselves to be truly apalled by what they find in gnostic belief), to preserve the ideas we have about christ and to preserve the gospel! The gnostics denied the divinity of Christ and had a completely different view of orthodox christianity as we know it today. The gnostics existed aplenty, had their own false gospel and deceived many. The catholic church prevailed against the gnostic heresy, which was one of the earliest heresies that denied Christ. The ONLY reason we have the views which we do of Christ and Christianity today is because the catholic church proved in the earliest of centuries that she had the authority, apostolic succession and truth concerning the christian faith. Catholics fought for, gave their lives for that truth because they knew that She was the true Church of Jesus Christ which would never be conquered by the gates of hell. One of the earliest things which the catholic church gave and defended to the world can be thusly summed up by the Creed of Nicea, which was written specifically to denouce heresy, and unify the true church in one universal, outspoken profession of faith:

"We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (St. Iranaeous, Against Heresies; 189 A.D.)."

Answer 8

Jesus didn't build His church on peter the man, he built it on peter's confession of Jesus being the Christ, that is the true church. not what peter started with his hands in jerusalem, but what he started with his heart.

Answer 9

He did not say that he would build his church upon Peter he said he would build it upon what Peter said that He was the son of God.

Next they had many writings but they mostly used the 4 gospels that had already been written

Answer 10

They only took out what was just history and the books that were not proven to be authenic scripture.
The N.T. tells us to not call any one Father, except our Father in Heaven and we are all priests in the sight of God.
But remember that I LOVE YOU AND HOPE TO MEET YOU IN HEAVEN!!!
Yours in Christ.