A correspondent writes:Posted on 06/13/2010 6:41:27 PM PDT by markomalley
A correspondent writes:
I’m just in need of a helping hand from you, because I’m in the middle of a debate with a muslim friend.
While we’re in the middle of discussion, he happen to addressed me with a question that blew me away, because I don’t have any idea on how I could tackle his question.
This is what he said, “Could you also tell me that there are hundreds of Gospels, then how come only four made it through the New Testament?”
I know that the “Books or Gospels” contained in the New Testament are all inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I think there are much more broader explanation regarding this matter.
I hope you could give me a helping hand regarding this subject Sir. I would really appreciate it if you could give me at least a brief explanation and answer regarding this.
The correspondent is correct that the canonical gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit and false gospels aren’t. The question is how the Holy Spirit guided the Church into a recognition of which were inspired and which weren’t.
Here’s how that happened . . .
I don’t know that there are literally hundreds of gospels (that would mean 200 or more), but there are a large number of purported gospels that were written between A.D. 100 and A.D. 400. There may have been hundreds written back then (and people continue to crank out false gospels even today, like the Aquarian Gospel of Levi), but only a few dozen survive from those centuries.
The reason that they are not in the New Testament is that they are all fakes. The Church recognized them as such because (1) they often theologically contradicted the canonical gospels that had been passed down from the apostles and their associates and (2) they showed up out of nowhere, with no history of having been read in the churches down through the years.
The canonical gospels, by contrast, all date from the first century, they were written by the apostles or their associates, they were given to the first churches to read, and the churches read them all the way down through history. Also, the doctrine contained in them agreed with the doctrine passed down by the apostles to the bishops and handed on by them.
The later-written “gospels” thus were spotted as phonies because they had not been passed down like the others and they contained bad doctrine.
Eventually, as a warning to the faithful who might be confused by the new gospels, some of the early Church councils—like Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 (among others)—published official canon lists naming the specific books of Scripture that had been handed down as sacred from the time of the apostles.
Incidentally, the image is Matthew 23:3-15 from an Arabic New Testament. (Note also that it reads from right to left.)
Hope this helps!
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.- FF Bruce, Excerpt of The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?
For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four universal winds, and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and base of the Church and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter and kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to men, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit.- Irenaeus, circa 180 AD
**Or could it be one holy catholic church?**
And apostolic Church that comes down to us through the apostles.
Authentic gospels would not deny the previously accepted canon of the Old Testament.
If a teaching in “the gospel of Dr. Suess” contradicts the books of Moses, the Psalms, the Proverbs, or the Prophets -
it is rejected.
Because both can’t be true. And the OT was already authenticated.
The Spirit of God preserved the true Gospels. The notion that the Papacy is the original Apostolic faith, and delivered the true gospels to us, is false. Not as insidious as Mohammedism, but still false.
Agreed.
The Spirit of God preserved the true Gospels. The notion that the Papacy is the original Apostolic faith, and delivered the true gospels to us, is false. Not as insidious as Mohammedism, but still false.
wrong again kemosabe....Christ directly appointed Peter as the first head of the Christian church (notice I didn’t say Catholic). It was not until a few years later that the church became known as Catholic. It is still the same church as dated nfrom the earliest time. It was not Lutheran, Calvanist,Methodist, Jehovahs witnesses, Mormon, Episcopalian. nothing....it was and still is Catholic. Even the Schism if the Eastern Catholics changed nothing, they are Catholic as are the Roman Catholics. Protestants are outside the true church....nice people, but outside the true church.....you cannot reform from without, you must remani in the organization to attempt to reform it.....the protestants REVOLTED formed another form of religon...not a reformed Catholocism....sorry
When you meet your creator, I don’t believe it’s going to matter which denomination. What matters is if you were a believer.
Even before the Early Church had figured out the Canon for the New Testament, writers such as Clement and Ignatius of Antioch, among others, were insisting on the special role of the See of Rome.
They were writing at the end of the first century/beginning of the second century, while the first lists of the books in the NT Canon don't come about until the late second century. The first complete list of our 27 books comes from St. Athanasius, in about the year 367.
“Constantine was the first pope. Not Peter.”
Whoa, don’t tell Jesus that. He thought he made Peter the Pope when he said in front of the apostles, “I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
There’s an entire chapter devoted to this in “The Case for Christ” - great book!
I’ve been debating Muslims on a forum for years. You’ve given the very same answer that they give. Most of the answers they give are the same as that of Protestants who are against the Catholic Church. Did you learn from Muslims or vice versa?
50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
[written in 1994 and published on pp. 233-238 of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism]
See the related paper, Reply to a Critique of my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy, for a fuller explanation of exactly what I think these biblical evidences prove, and how I view them in terms of logical force (i.e., what I would claim for them), especially when considered individually.
*****
The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically-based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:
1. Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
2. Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).
3. Matthew 16:19 “. . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the
Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.
4. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (”Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).
6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
10. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).
14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).
15. Christ teaches from Peter’s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (cf. Mt 4:19).
16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).
17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
20. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
25. Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
33. Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter (”Simon”), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).
34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).
35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).
36. Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).
38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
39. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
40. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
41. Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).
44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.
46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”
48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).
49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).
50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.
In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html
END
by Dave Armstrong
The Catholic Church has since the beginning totally misinterpreted that verse, because they like to think that Jesus initiated the Papal succession. History says otherwise. Each city had its own Bishop and the Bishop of Rome declared itself the leader of all other Churches. And not without resistance by the other Churches.
In fact there is no Biblical provision for a universal Church on earth. The Bible only mentions local Churches in its structure. And the Bishop was the leader of the local Church.
I agree with you Catholic Scholars overwhelmingly agree with the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. “their version” of it that is.
Tell you what, I will rely on Jesus being the Rock and you can rely on Peter. Lets see which one of us ends up in heaven.
The Reformation was much about ridding the church of these practices and bringing it back to the original church Christ intended... but was protested against by the Bishops and church leadership who had become political figureheads rather than servants of God....and the monetary means of retaining their power was threatened.
Thousands were murdered for not complying with the strict codes the church was demanding of the people..and many died even when they did comply.....The system set up by the Bishops was similar to that which the N. Korean people live under now, where every member watched the other members who had watchers over them...all lived in fear of being the next in line for death...many turned in their own family members just for the monetary advantages or self preservation....guilty or not.
Thank God for the Reformation which freed the church once more, unfortunately as in all wars or uprisings, collateral damage took a great toll as well. It was a horrible blood bath time.
Yes....I am on the Rock Jesus as well...and Him alone. Though we certainly do not discredit any of the deciples great work for the Lord...just the opposite for they were bold for the Lord yet humble followers of all He taught...and it is by that same great spirit which was in them that believers today carry the message of Christ.
Yes....I am on the Rock Jesus as well...and Him alone. Though we certainly do not discredit any of the deciples great work for the Lord...just the opposite for they were bold for the Lord yet humble followers of all He taught...and it is by that same great spirit which was in them that believers today carry the message of Christ.
This question is not unique to Muslums. That's to Dan Brown and the Da Vinci code this question is more and more common among nonbelievers in the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.