T Nation

Catholic Church Refutes the Bible!


#1

Apparently the Catholic Church in England has decided that the Bible isn't true. Or more appropriately that some passages can't be taken literally. Wow, who knew!?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
In an attempt to appeal to a broder (member/donor) base they have adjusted their stance on a number of scriptures so that they appear more politically correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't what the church did in the first century when they adopted the trinity doctrine and other non-Biblical doctrines to bend to the will of the masses?

Besides the last time I checked the Catholics didn't follow the Bible anyway so why is this news?

The Catholic Church freely admits that Papal Doctrine takes precedence over the Bible.

The Bible is pretty clear though. 2 Timothy 2:16 says "'ALL' scripture is inspired of God..." not just what the church deems appropriate. Further Revelation 22:18 states "...If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life..." It's pretty clear that the book is not to be trifled with and disected according to your personal preference.

Literal or prophetic, it seems to me you either believe the Bible as a whole or you don't believe it at all. Based upon the tone of the Bible it's pretty clear God isn't one to split hairs, so says Revelation 3:16 "...So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth."

Anyone in T-Nation feeling lukewarm?


#2

What is new about this?

Every RCC I talk to says that the papal docs. and church tradition is what they follow.


#3

I'm glad I'm Lutheran.

(He said, donning his flame retardent underwear.)


#4

I am going to jump into this one....what I am saying below is a very simplified repeat of a deep and broad subject.

I am Eastern Orthodox. It has always been the tradition of the church that there are three pillars to the faith: the priesthood and laity, the Bible and Tradition. No one 'leg' of the church can be removed without the entire structure becoming a case of "My religion is what I say it is".

The selection of what went into the bible has a long and controversial history. The current Protestant Bible is the version that was approved by Rabbi's in the early stages of the split between the Jewish religion and the rising sect that followed Jesus. They in essence removed all the pro-Jesus/Christian parts in order to appease the Romans. (I know that sounds a bit unPC, but if I remember correctly, that is the justification that they used. The early church fathers have it down, I just don't remember precisely.)

The destruction of the temple in 70 AD seemed to support the Rabbi's decision to remove all parts of the Bible that antagonized the Romans.

The Rabbi's saw the sect as being threatening to the faith. This sect had been deemed by the Romans as a threat to the empire and was to be eradicated. To demonstrate to the Roman Government that the mainstream Jewish religion was not aligned with rhe radical sect, removed from the 'Bible' those sections which seemed to support the beliefs of the growing sect.

The finalized version of the Eastern Bible was not really settled until the 4th or 5th centuries, if I remember correctly. It was after a long and tortuous debate lasting centuries amongst the priests and laity before the Bibles contents were finalized. Traditional practices heavily influenced that debate. What did tradition say was a frequent center of that debate.

The Roman Protestant church (and that is how Eastern Orthodox see the 'Catholic Church' as most Protestants see it) removed several books from the bible as they could be construed to challenge the roman archbishops authority afer the split in the church around 1050 AD.

There was a push to return to the original version of the Bible after the Protestant Reformation began. Unfortunately, because the Roman Church had forbidden contact with the Eastern Orthodox churches, the only version available was the approved Rabbinical version that removed many pro-Jesus/Christian sect books.

I think that a more thorough examination of the history of the 'Bible', the seed bed it was grown in and supported in would be in order before declaring that 'the Bible says it is and so it is.'


#5

EOC huh?

What I have learned about your church, and traditions makes me love your sect of Christianity more than any other.

I still attend a protestant church, but I really enjoy talking to my EOC brothers.

good post over all, but some of the century long debate at the council of nicea was mostly over only a few books, and not the majority of the NT.


#6

Haney,

Yes, you are right: it was over a few books. But those do make a difference. Tradition carries a lot of weight in the church. Not that it is always right, but it can and does help prevent error from creeping in.

I don't want to convey the idea that the Bible is wrong; more that it is not the only source of Truth inside Christianity. There is a balance to the message or Word.

It is just my two cents as is said.


#7

Interesting thread -- the OP has it correct. Traditonal Catholic doctrine regards the Bible as only part of the story. Tradition and church teaching [the pope's "infallable" pronoucements] are regarded equally (if not more) than the Word of God.

Lately, Catholic teaching has been diminishing the Bible and the Biblical record.

I have no problem with someone inventing a religion and then following it. Everyone has the right to be wrong.

The problem that I have is when a religion purports to have its basis in the Bible and to follow Christ. Then, if this is so, that religion must, by definition, be in accord with the Bible and what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Well, here is the "knockout punch" to following Church tradition and pronoucements of the pope:

(1) Ephesians 2:8-9 -- salvation is not of works [sacraments].

(2) Romans 4:1-3 -- Abraham is the example of a person being saved through faith alone.

(3) Romans 3:28 -- "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified [saved] by faith without the deeds of the law."

This next one is for our Catholic friends as well as the Eastern Orthodox poster who spoke about the different "pillars" -- in other words things are added to the Bible to have a right relationship with God.

Given the above verses that I already shared, if you add to the Bible, this is what the Bible says:

(4) Revelation 22:18-19 -- "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Faith alone!

Sola Scriptura!


#8

So let me jump in the fray too and have my flesh rendered by flames...

Let me ask...Does God make use of quill and ink? Does God own a printing press? God might have inspired the works, but once they were placed into man's hearts, and hands, the works fell victim to the fallibility of mankind. And after 2000 and more years, that's a lot of fallibility to pile up.

To consider the Bible to be the word of God is, at best, naive. The Bible is a work of man.

Sacrilege!

Man heard the words, wrote them down, translated them, again, and again, and again. Errors upon errors. Biases and personal agendas piled on top of one another.

And to top it all off, at the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century, a group of men got together and decided not just what to put into the Bible, but what to throw away! Over 300 years after Jesus the Annointed One walked the earth, they decided what was official doctrine and what wasn't. Today we don't even have very good records from the 1700's. What could they have had on the 300's from the 00's?

Think about it.

Now let's suppose that you're watching TV and you see a commercial that says Brand X toothpaste is a formula handed down from God, blessed by God himself and you will be damned for all eternity if you use any other brand. You'd call that a crock of shit, right?

Now some guy comes along and says he's got a set of writings that are handed down from God, are blessed by God himself and you will be damned for all eternity if you read any other writings. What do you think of that? Personally, I think he's selling some toothpaste.

Come on people. Use that great big brain God gave you as a gift. Thre's nothing special about the Bible. It's not history, it has a dubious literary heritage. It's just a collection of stories to illustrate points of morality.


#9

is it possible to live for more than 24 hours without a quotation of the bible appearing.

Just a thought.


#10

i agree with you and disagree with you. I agree that the Bible is not the word of God... some of the Old Testament was the word of God, but has changed a lot during the years, things being added and removed and changed, and it did not stop changing until AFTER christ (according to modern scholarship).

The New Testament was written by different men, saying what they heard about Jesus, etc. There is clearly no divine inspiration, as they sometimes contradict each other, and some scholars believed Matthew and Luke based their gospels on an older gospel they copied from, which the scholars have named Q (but there are still problems with this theory).

However, the toothpaste analogy is ridiculous. You can't compare the two. Plus, with commercial products you have meterial gains to make. He struggled through the persecution and was patient until the end, which at least shows the sincerity of his intentions.

Then came Paul, the Antichrist, and told them "I am the only toothpaste, if you buy any other toothpaste you go to Hell", and in his case it was clearly for material gain and power. The religion brought down by Jesus is true, but it was corrupted partially by Paul.

See the diaologue between James and Paul, James defending the doctrines of Jesus and Paul reversing them:
http://www.hashlamah.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=29

However Paul was not the only one to corrupt the new religion. Let me quote a third-year university New Testament studies textbook:

Similarly the thought of Jesus' deity seems to be a relatively late arrival on the first-century stage. Paul does not yet understand the risen Christ as the object of worship: he is the theme of worship, the one for whom praise is given, the one whose risen presence in and through the Spirit constitutes the worshipping community, the one through whom the prayer prays to God (Romans 1.8; 7.25; II Corinthians 1.20; Colossians 3.17) but not the object of worship or prayer. So too his reticence about calling Jesus "God". Even the title "Lord" becomes a way of distinguishing Jesus from God rather than identifying him with # God (Romans 15.6; I Corinthians 8.6; 15.24-28; II Corinthians 1.3; 11.31; Ephesians 1.3, 17; Philippians 2.11; Colossians 1.3). Paul was and remained a monotheist. That reticence in calling Jesus "God" is only really overcome towards the end of the first century with the Pastorals (Titus 2.13) and again with Fourth Gospel (John 1.1, 18; 20.28). (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. London and Philadelphia: SCM Press and Trinity Press International, 1990, 226).

as you can see Paul began changing the religion, claiming that God spoke through him and that you should follow him. In later generations, with the authoror of the Gospel of John, Jesus was given God-status.

The fact that the message was corrupted does not detract from the original message or the messenger who brought it.


#11

The same probability of having someone who claims to abhor such things eagerly read and post to such threads consistently to no apparent purpose other than to be an irritating prick.

If you don't like the music, change the channel. Is someone forcing you to read and respond, or could you simply quit reading and move on to another post. You know, "Live and let live". Kind of the same expectation and demand you place upon those who post those things so offensive to your sensibilities.


#12

I still think the analogy holds, because it's not just material gains you have to allow for. Many men of the church gained respect, position and power by using "God" as their brand. The Catholic Church, using that brand, at one time was more powerful than many nations.

Given the position of power, it's pretty easy to suppress variations of the message that don't agree with yours, especially if the other guy isn't out for the power.

I agree. But it's difficult to find the true message within the noise, given that our current sources for the message are primarily the corrupted records. It seems that the only way to find the message is to look inside yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a Gnostic belief?

I'm not denigrating the message or original messenger, I'm just saying that you can't rely on a church or ANYONE else, who gains anything, including mere self-satisfaction, to tell you what that message originally was. Only the originator knows for sure, and he's not preaching at the moment.


#13

I still think the analogy holds, because it's not just material gains you have to allow for. Many men of the church gained respect, position and power by using "God" as their brand. The Catholic Church, using that brand, at one time was more powerful than many nations.

Given the position of power, it's pretty easy to suppress variations of the message that don't agree with yours, especially if the other guy isn't out for the power.

I agree. But it's difficult to find the true message within the noise, given that our current sources for the message are primarily the corrupted records. It seems that the only way to find the message is to look inside yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a Gnostic belief?

I'm not denigrating the message or original messenger, I'm just saying that you can't rely on a church or ANYONE else, who gains anything, including mere self-satisfaction, to tell you what that message originally was. Only the originator knows for sure, and he's not preaching at the moment.


#14

Beutifilly put and well stated.

I'm not aying that the bible isn't a great book, I'm just agreeing that the bible is ABSOLUTELY the work of men, inspired by god.

I refuse to allow religion to get in the way of my faith.

-Bigflamer


#15

I used to think sola scriptura meant something similiar to most protestants.

Now I understand that sola scriptura means that but in the right context.

So in some ways I think the early church, and traditions are equally important for the correct understanding.

The further the interpretations gets from the oringinal writing the less valid in my opinion.


#16

That verse is taken way out of context...

other wise you would apply that same rule to all the other places in the BIble where is says don't add anymore to this book. We would have a bible that didn't go any further than the books of Moses.


#17

I grew up in a fundamentalist tradition. Every time we got a new preacher, a new set of meanings were given to the same set of scriptures. It got to be pretty confusing. The only constant amongst the four in 20 years was: faith and sola scriptura. And each denied what the previous said was the truth.

It seemed that the more the Bible was held as the only thing, the 'spirit', as it were, was left farther behind.

To me it was a case of the Bible means what I say it means. Each generation had its own interpretation. And with each new interpretation there was a new 'Church'. And now I wonder how many Protestant sects there are? And they all claim to have the truth...

I am not going to say that E.O. has 'it', but I think it has remained loyal to what the message was from the very beginning.


#18

So you have a degree in Biblical textual criticism? Have you actually studied how the Bible was transmitted from "The Mind of God, to the Mind of Man?"

I suspect that you are trying to advance something that you haven't studied, but please don't think that we have to take it as fact, just because you thought it up.

Have you considered the Dead Sea Scrolls? Before they were discovered in Qumran, Irael in the Negev Desert, the oldest copy of the Bible we had was 1,000 years later. . Then the scrolls -- 1,000 years older -- and guess what, they agreed perfectly with the texts that we had of the Hebrew Scriptures. That's right -- 100% perfect after 1,000 years.

Unlike toothpaste, God has promised that He would preserve His Word. Hey, He created everything -- is anything too hard for God?

If you wish to stake your eternal destiny, my friend, on an analogy with toothpaste, then go right ahead. Hell fire awaits those who would go to the grave scoffing at God.

One final thought. I do use my brain, thank you very much. I have a very responsible administrative position in a private school, where I use my brain everyday. I would point out to you that God also gave us all a heart -- I respectfully ask you to use yours. For spiritual truth, the heart takes first place over the brain.

Take care.......


#19

NO


#20

Faith in what?

Surely it cannot be in a god that cannot even preserve his word after he promised to do so.

Your faith is in what then?