Replies

Would you put the writings of Eusebius in the 4th century on the same level as the Scriptures of the 1st century?

Yes! The Bible that you and I both cherish, was compiled by the Catholic Church. First off, 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.

Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are supposed to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.

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 I). 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.

Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."

So, yes, the historical record for Peter in Rome comes from extra canonical sources.

Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."

It's hard to get you people to admit this but every now and again, one of you do...

If you can't take the bible as word for word truth, what do you have??? You have nothing more than a novel...

If it's not ALL right, then probably none of it is right...But yet you guys and your church constantly quote scripture like you believe it...

So some time ago, some people invented a church...And they take bits and pieces from the bible to justify it...And they fill in the gaps with their own creation and call it tradition...

"The Bible that you and I both cherish, was compiled by the Catholic Church."

----- wasn't Diocletian burning Bibles during his reign? Wasn't Diocletian before the founding of Catholic Church?

Didn't Ignatius and Ireneas have Bibles? The Scriptures are quoted throughout the writings of the patriarchs from the 2nd century. They clearly had them.

The Scriptures were in the hands of the true Church from its beginning, starting with those Jesus read in the Temple, and then adding the Gospels and Epistles as they were written and circulated --- you know that.

"Yes! The Bible that you and I both cherish, was compiled by the Catholic Church."
____________________________

I don't believe that is completely accurate. As I understand it the first complete Bible was directed by St. Athanasius who was the Bishop of Alexandria. He did not take this action at Rome's direction, but did so to protect the churches he was the Bishop of throughout Egypt. He wrote in the 39th Festal letter in 367 AD the contours of the cannon. He stated the 27 books in the NT and only those 27 books should be considered Scripture.

His list was: Old Testament, Old Testament Apocrypha (to be read only as devotional literature not as canonical authorities), 27 books of the New Testament "in these alone the teaching of Godliness is proclaimed".

In 393 AD a council of Bishops at the Synod of Hippo (Augustine included) approved a Cannon of the New Testament. The list was the same as that proposed by St, Athanasius proposed 30 years earlier. The Synod of Hippo was not organized or directed by Rome.

Don't forget that the Protestant Church was not created de novo; the first churches held that they were carrying on the true traditions of the church universal that had been corrupted by Rome. We hold the Church pre-1517 to be our Church history, too.