It is unbiblical The belief that the Bible is the sole rule of Christian theology

[metis]

The Apocrypha are not "gospels", nor do they say anything or hint of anything that has to do with Jesus, nor does it have anything to do with Jesus why we did not canonize them.

 

[Unification]

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

Church authorities (Catholic Bishops) in the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage decided which books would comprise the New Testament. IF the Church was evil, how can you trust their decision?

The Bible teaches that authoritative Christian teaching comes through the Bible, the Church, and the apostolic "deposit" or Tradition. Catholics agree that every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only indirectly sometimes, and cannot contradict it.

2 Timothy 3: 16 does not teach "Bible Alone," but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture. Biblical indications for the Catholic position are quite numerous. When Jesus condemns "tradition", he qualifies His rebuke by referring to corruptions or traditions of men."
The apostle Paul refers positively to a Christian Tradition ("maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" 1 Cor 11:2). He also upholds the authority of oral tradition, referring to "the word of God which you heard from us" 1 Thess 2:13 and "sound words which you have heard from me." 2 Tim 1:13-14. The latter passage is very important because it is located in the context of the 2 Timothy passage that is the most common Protestant proof text against tradition.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical proof of the infallible authority of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, and its authoritative, binding pronouncement Acts 15. Peter made the decision that gentiles who came into the Church did not have to be circumsized or follow certain laws from the law of Moses. This decision that Peter and the Council agreed upon was found nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures offered only support for a different decision. This is clear Biblical proof that the Church was able to make decisions that had no Scriptural support. At that time there was no New Testament.

In Matt 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate binding authority (even when they are being rank hypocrites): "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." The idea of "Moses' seat" cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, but it appears in the (originally oral) Mishna, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
In 1 Cor 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. In the Old testament, we hear about Moses striking a rock to produce water, but it doesn't say anything about such a miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

Nor did the Jews ever accept Solo Scriptura. Only the skeptical Sadducees rejected Oral Tradition, but they also rejected the future resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal rewards and retribution, and demons and angels. The nature of authority in the Old Testament times is illustrated by Ezra, a priest and scribe who taught the Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26

The overwhelming weight of relevant biblical data is opposed to the central Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone, and strongly supports the idea of authoritative tradition. The History of Protestantism and its many doctrinal divisions and some 20,000 denominations strongly argues against the solo-scriptura Doctrine. How could a perspicuous Bible lead so many believers to so many different interpretations.

The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.

Such division began right at the beginning of Protestantism. Martin Luther had different beliefs than Huldreich Zwingli about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther were divided about Baptism. There are today five major competing Doctrines of Baptism.


2 Peter 3:15-17 "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ingorant and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
Division is not of God, yet the Solo Scriptura Doctrine brought division to Christianity that had not been there previously. Martin Luther did not reform the Church, he splittered it into many different pieces, which is unbiblical. God wills that we be unified in faith. Our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17:22, "that they may be one even as we are one." Acts 4:32 informs us that the earliest Christians were "of one heart and soul." St. Paul taught that "there is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:4-5, and that Christians were to "stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," Phil 1:27, and to be "in full accord and of one mind".Phil2:2

St. Peter urges us to have "unity of spirit." 1 Pet 3:8 Denominationalism and doctrinal relativism are roundly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-13 "all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...each one of you says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas, or I belong to Christ. Is Christ divided?"
Only an authoritative Church, commissioned by Christ to teach His truth and protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error, can preserve individual Christians from the dissensions caused by their own flawed interpretations.

Diary -

When one starts to seek the Lord only for truth and not man, which is biblical adultery... One will see that scripture is referring to the human body and the kingdom being within. The 7 day creation is all of the human body. . Rest of scripture is transformation of that human body within, the Lord conquering metaphorical enemies (sin) within an individual.

 

[gsa]

There is only ONE source of truth, and it is GOD. The Bible is His inspired word. Anything outside of His word are the words of men. There are no inspired men today, nor has there been since the last apostle died.

When I was searching for the one true church, which Jesus purchased with His own blood, I tested many denominations' teachings by measuring them against the church I was reading about in the New Testament. I knew when I found one whose teachings and practices lined up with the NT church, I would have found the Lord's church.

The catholic church is far removed from the NT church in its teachings and practices. They do not rely solely on the word of God. They are not the Lord's church.

How do you know that the text is the only source of Christian truth? Or that the text is sufficient, standing alone, without a tradition to interpret it?

 

[katiemygirl]

How do you know that the text is the only source of Christian truth? Or that the text is sufficient, standing alone, without a tradition to interpret it?

By faith. I trust in what God's word says. I get my faith from reading and studying His word.

I don't trust the traditions of men. Unlike the word of God, it is ever changing.

Why would I ever trust men to interpret the word when I have the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide me into all truth?

I put my trust into the traditions of men when I was a child, but I soon learned, after I grew up, that they contradicted God's word. When it came to choosing between the traditions of men and God's word, it was a no brainer. I chose God's word.

 

[kepha31]

By faith. I trust in what God's word says. I get my faith from reading and studying His word.

First, "God's word" is never confined to the written word alone. Go to any Bible search engine and key in "Word of God". There is not a single reference of "Word of God" to mean just the written word.

Second, faith comes by *hearing*, not reading.

I don't trust the traditions of men. Unlike the word of God, it is ever changing.

This makes no sense. You equate traditions of men with all traditions. Traditions of men have to do with rubrics and customs, not biblical sacred traditions that the Bible commands us to follow.

Why would I ever trust men to interpret the word when I have the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide me into all truth?

Jesus commissioned the Apostles and their successors to teach all nations. He founded a living, hierarchical, infallible CHURCH, not a book club. There is nothing in the Bible about the Holy Spirit guiding individuals apart from the CHURCH into all truth, unless you support Arius, Nestorius, Montanus, Sabellian, and every heretic and his dog claiming the Holy Spirit was guiding them into all truth.

I put my trust into the traditions of men when I was a child, but I soon learned, after I grew up, that they contradicted God's word. When it came to choosing between the traditions of men and God's word, it was a no brainer. I chose God's word.

You keep on about "traditions of men" without giving an example. I'll give my definition of Sacred Tradition if you give me your definition and we can clear this up real fast. Just stop equating the two.

Most shocking of all (to a Protestant sola Scriptura mindset) is the fact - established by a simple biblical cross-referencing - that Tradition, Word of God, and the Gospel are regarded as essentially identical in Scripture. All are conceived as predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received.

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

Acts 8:14 . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .

1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.

Jude 3 . . . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. [cf. Acts 2:42]

In St. Paul's two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably. Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then gospel and word of God are also bad words! Thus, the commonly-asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically-minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men.
by Dave Armstrong
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Sola Scriptura: An Unbiblical Tradition: Refutation of Dr. John MacArthur and Richard Bennett​

 

[nazz]

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

Church authorities (Catholic Bishops) in the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage decided which books would comprise the New Testament. IF the Church was evil, how can you trust their decision?

The Bible teaches that authoritative Christian teaching comes through the Bible, the Church, and the apostolic "deposit" or Tradition. Catholics agree that every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only indirectly sometimes, and cannot contradict it.

2 Timothy 3: 16 does not teach "Bible Alone," but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture. Biblical indications for the Catholic position are quite numerous. When Jesus condemns "tradition", he qualifies His rebuke by referring to corruptions or traditions of men."
The apostle Paul refers positively to a Christian Tradition ("maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" 1 Cor 11:2). He also upholds the authority of oral tradition, referring to "the word of God which you heard from us" 1 Thess 2:13 and "sound words which you have heard from me." 2 Tim 1:13-14. The latter passage is very important because it is located in the context of the 2 Timothy passage that is the most common Protestant proof text against tradition.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical proof of the infallible authority of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, and its authoritative, binding pronouncement Acts 15. Peter made the decision that gentiles who came into the Church did not have to be circumsized or follow certain laws from the law of Moses. This decision that Peter and the Council agreed upon was found nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures offered only support for a different decision. This is clear Biblical proof that the Church was able to make decisions that had no Scriptural support. At that time there was no New Testament.

In Matt 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate binding authority (even when they are being rank hypocrites): "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." The idea of "Moses' seat" cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, but it appears in the (originally oral) Mishna, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
In 1 Cor 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. In the Old testament, we hear about Moses striking a rock to produce water, but it doesn't say anything about such a miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

Nor did the Jews ever accept Solo Scriptura. Only the skeptical Sadducees rejected Oral Tradition, but they also rejected the future resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal rewards and retribution, and demons and angels. The nature of authority in the Old Testament times is illustrated by Ezra, a priest and scribe who taught the Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26

The overwhelming weight of relevant biblical data is opposed to the central Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone, and strongly supports the idea of authoritative tradition. The History of Protestantism and its many doctrinal divisions and some 20,000 denominations strongly argues against the solo-scriptura Doctrine. How could a perspicuous Bible lead so many believers to so many different interpretations.

The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.

Such division began right at the beginning of Protestantism. Martin Luther had different beliefs than Huldreich Zwingli about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther were divided about Baptism. There are today five major competing Doctrines of Baptism.


2 Peter 3:15-17 "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ingorant and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
Division is not of God, yet the Solo Scriptura Doctrine brought division to Christianity that had not been there previously. Martin Luther did not reform the Church, he splittered it into many different pieces, which is unbiblical. God wills that we be unified in faith. Our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17:22, "that they may be one even as we are one." Acts 4:32 informs us that the earliest Christians were "of one heart and soul." St. Paul taught that "there is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:4-5, and that Christians were to "stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," Phil 1:27, and to be "in full accord and of one mind".Phil2:2

St. Peter urges us to have "unity of spirit." 1 Pet 3:8 Denominationalism and doctrinal relativism are roundly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-13 "all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...each one of you says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas, or I belong to Christ. Is Christ divided?"
Only an authoritative Church, commissioned by Christ to teach His truth and protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error, can preserve individual Christians from the dissensions caused by their own flawed interpretations.

Diary -

Hmm, you make a good point that the bible people claim as their only source of inspiration was chosen by the church. I hadn't thought of that before.

 

[Unification]

How do you know that the text is the only source of Christian truth? Or that the text is sufficient, standing alone, without a tradition to interpret it?

The Word of God is the Lord speaking within. Mankind doesn't need any scriptures to find the truth and the life. Transformation of an individual only occurs within, internally. Tradition, outward, external, literal interpretations are vanity. We are all human seeking the higher spiritual nature of love.

 

[gsa]

The Word of God is the Lord speaking within. Mankind doesn't need any scriptures to find the truth and the life. Transformation of an individual only occurs within, internally. Tradition, outward, external, literal interpretations are vanity. We are all human seeking the higher spiritual nature of love.

That may or may not be the case, but the post I was responding to was clearly referring to scripture as "the Word," not some innate spiritual nature.

 

[Unification]

That may or may not be the case, but the post I was responding to was clearly referring to scripture as "the Word," not some innate spiritual nature.

Peace to you. The Word of God and scripture are two separate matters. A book being exalted over a living and active Lord inside a human speaking to that particular individual are separate manners. A book isn't final authority. A book shouldn't be exalted. All that has led to is divide everywhere and debate and arguing. . When there is only one truth worldwide.

 

[kepha31]

Hmm, you make a good point that the bible people claim as their only source of inspiration was chosen by the church. I hadn't thought of that before.

A couple of things. First, the Church didn't decide what bools were inspired, she proved which were inspired and which ones were not. They were already inspired. It is a mistake to think the Church is above scripture, a common error by Bible-only-ists. Second, it makes no sense to accept the Bible but reject the Church that gave it to them. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium work in harmony in the presentation of the truth to an ever changing world. One is not over the other.

The Word of God is the Lord speaking within. Mankind doesn't need any scriptures to find the truth and the life. Transformation of an individual only occurs within, internally. Tradition, outward, external, literal interpretations are vanity. We are all human seeking the higher spiritual nature of love.

That may be fine and dandy for a modern new age individualist but it doesn't hold water in the communal sense. I agree with your last sentence though.

There is a difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality is the whole life of a person lived in relationship with the transcendent. A person’s individual spirituality may or may not incorporate the rituals, practices, and beliefs of a particular religious group. However, for billions of people throughout the world, institutionalized religion provide the setting in which personalized spirituality is expressed and developed.

Religion acknowledges both the communal dimension of spirituality and the place of tradition of the spiritual journey. It provides a connection to the wisdom and richness of those who have gone before us. Religion enables the tradition to come alive in our own experience and it calls the faith community to apply the tradition to the needs and hopes of the present.

Peace to you. The Word of God and scripture are two separate matters. A book being exalted over a living and active Lord inside a human speaking to that particular individual are separate manners. A book isn't final authority. A book shouldn't be exalted. All that has led to is divide everywhere and debate and arguing. . When there is only one truth worldwide.

I agree that a book isn't final authority. The Bible is the Word of God. That premise is held by all Christendom. The Catholic premise is that the Bible is not the final authority in itself. It is authoritive in the material sense, not authoritive in the formal sense, the premise held by Bible-only-ists. Division and arguing has been the result of the sola scriptura heresy for the past 500 years. It doesn't work.

 

[nazz]

A couple of things. First, the Church didn't decide what bools were inspired, she proved which were inspired and which ones were not. They were already inspired. It is a mistake to think the Church is above scripture, a common error by Bible-only-ists. Second, it makes no sense to accept the Bible but reject the Church that gave it to them. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium work in harmony in the presentation of the truth to an ever changing world. One is not over the other.

What exactly was this "proof"?

 

[kepha31]

What exactly was this "proof"?

If you ignore videos like I do, I can tell you the criteria for discerning the books of the bible were:

• they had to be written in the Apostolic age.
• they could not conflict or contradict other writings
• they could not conflict or contradict Apostolic teaching or the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles (Tradition)
• there had to be a general acceptance of what was read in the churches as scripture.

There might be more but that's off the top of my head. Let me put it another way:

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.

Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the

(2)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the
(1)Church is infallible.

Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—
(1)that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—
(2)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

1) On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2) From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3) And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4) This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5) and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

 

[nazz]

If you ignore videos like I do, I can tell you the criteria for discerning the books of the bible were:

• they had to be written in the Apostolic age.
• they could not conflict or contradict other writings
• they could not conflict or contradict Apostolic teaching or the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles (Tradition)
• there had to be a general acceptance of what was read in the churches as scripture.

There might be more but that's off the top of my head. Let me put it another way:

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.

Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the

(2)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the
(1)Church is infallible.

Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—
(1)that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—
(2)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

1) On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2) From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3) And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4) This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5) and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

None of that constitutes "proof" of anything

 

[kepha31]

None of that constitutes "proof" of anything

But it does. You have to "prove" the Church did not exist, which is a historical absurdity. To do that, you have to "prove" the Resurrection didn't happen.

Briefly, therefore, the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable, who lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their apostolic life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by the eloquent silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them "that they speak no more in this name to any man" (Acts 4:17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, for the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Resurrection of Jesus Christ
​

Getting back on track, the Bible came from the Church, a church did not come from the bible. Sola scriptura is unbiblical, unworkable, did not exist until the 15th century, and is a corrupt tradition of men.

 

[nazz]

But it does. You have to "prove" the Church did not exist, which is a historical absurdity. To do that, you have to "prove" the Resurrection didn't happen.

Briefly, therefore, the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable, who lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their apostolic life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by the eloquent silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them "that they speak no more in this name to any man" (Acts 4:17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, for the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Resurrection of Jesus Christ
​

Getting back on track, the Bible came from the Church, a church did not come from the bible. Sola scriptura is unbiblical, unworkable, did not exist until the 15th century, and is a corrupt tradition of men.

I'm not supporting sola scriptura. I was agreeing with the OP. As for the resurrection and such I've argued the same. But your contention that the inspiration of the bible can somehow be proven just does not work.

 

[Pegg]

Jesus said "by their fruits you will recoginize them"

The bible was written by people who had the fruits of Gods holy spirit and who demonstrated Godly fear and behaved in a manner worthy of being called servants of God. On the other hand, the men who have since sat and wielded power over the christian religion have been murderers & plunderers who have the blood of millions on their hands with their wars and killing of fellow christians and people they accused of being heretics and witches and the like.

Thats why the bible is above reproach and they are not. They have not acted according to the directions and commandments of Christ. They have not lived in harmony with Gods requirements. And the written word of God was never dependent on such people for its survival. In fact, many of those whom you call 'bishop' and 'pope' have shown great disregard for the bible and their fellow Christians... its not surprising that those who support the papal system likewise disregard Gods Word as the authority.

 

[Pegg]

​

Getting back on track, the Bible came from the Church, a church did not come from the bible. Sola scriptura is unbiblical, unworkable, did not exist until the 15th century, and is a corrupt tradition of men.

that is quite incorrect to say that. The scritpures were already circulating among christians before the church came into existence.
What you call 'the church' began as small groups of Christs followers who met in private homes and who preached the message of Gods kingdom throughout their towns and cities.

The 'church' developed later, when ambitious men rose up above their christian brothers and seized control and began to rule over Christs disciples. They made themselves 'the church' as you call it.

 

[metis]

that is quite incorrect to say that. The scritpures were already circulating among christians before the church came into existence.
What you call 'the church' began as small groups of Christs followers who met in private homes and who preached the message of Gods kingdom throughout their towns and cities.

The 'church' developed later, when ambitious men rose up above their christian brothers and seized control and began to rule over Christs disciples. They made themselves 'the church' as you call it.

There are roughly 1000 "N.T,"-type books that never got selected for the canon. Secondly, "church", "ecclesia" in Koine Greek, means community. Thirdly, it was the C.C. that chose the text you now use in the 4th century.

 

[ChristineES]

About the only difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is the Apocrypha. It isn't the Bible that's the trouble, it is the way people interpret it and the extra things that were added from other faiths that might be a problem. Not everything we do, whether in a Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant Church is Biblical. Or if it's Biblical, it is a interpretation of the scriptures.
Jesus earliest disciples had the Torah and all the Jewish teachings and all that, but they had no Christian scriptures, as we all already know. We ought to teach Jesus' teachings.

 

[Pegg]

There are roughly 1000 "N.T,"-type books that never got selected for the canon. Secondly, "church", "ecclesia" in Koine Greek, means community. Thirdly, it was the C.C. that chose the text you now use in the 4th century.

the reason they were not selected was because during the first century, the 12 Apostles were alive and they were the only authority given by Christ to lay down his teachings. So while they were alive, only what they all agreed on was viewed as accurate teaching. But after the first century, when they had all died off, other christians began to promote their teachings and started circulating more and more literature among the congregations. Eventually, christians began noticing differences in teachings and the first major teaching which was noted as contradictory was the teaching that Jesus was God which came about in the late 2nd/early 3rd century.

So they all got together and had to make a decision on all these writings which were causing a bit of controversy. They chose to compile all the writings which were known and accepted by the 12 Apostles and they collected them into the canon. All other writings (things that had been rejected by the 12 apostles or the ones written after their time) were left out of the cannon.

Thats why we can completely trust the bible canon as it is with the 4 gospels, the letters of Paul, Peter, Jude, James and John. These were the original church teachings...these writings had the apostles stamp of approval.