It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do Protestants trust the New Testament if they believe the Catholics were corrupt?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
My understanding of Protestant history is that the Catholic Church and all their traditions were rejected unless they could be validated independently through the New Testament.

So why should Protestants trust the New Testament when the Catholic/Orthodox Church decided what writings to include and what writings to exclude?

I don't want this to seem like I'm attacking Protestants. I have a little bit of faith in my own personal spiritual insights but I have very little faith in the Church or the Bible. Christians are supposed to test their insights against the Bible to see if they are true.
edit on 11-6-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Google the bible and the dead sea scrolls for your answer.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday
My understanding of Protestant history is that the Catholic Church and all their traditions were rejected unless they could be validated independently through the New Testament.

So why should Protestants trust the New Testament when the Catholic/Orthodox Church decided what writings to include and what writings to exclude?
edit on 11-6-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

For the same reason multiple phone companies use the same lines and towers.
All of the info is traveling in the same direction in the same language and the money travels in only one direction.
Why war amongst ourselves when we can use the pawns?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


The Battle of the Bibles


This video will provide a full history of the 2 dominant streams which lead to the Bible as we currently have it. One culminating in the King James Version (verified by the dead sea scrolls) the other resulting in the Catholic and Jesuits bibles which have all the convoluted teachings to justify their idolatrous and heretical practices.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
...
This video will provide a full history of the 2 dominant streams which lead to the Bible as we currently have it. One culminating in the King James Version (verified by the dead sea scrolls) the other resulting in the Catholic and Jesuits bibles which have all the convoluted teachings to justify their idolatrous and heretical practices.


Thanks for that response and the earlier responses too. I don't have a way to watch the video until this evening. I'll check it out.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday
My understanding of Protestant history is that the Catholic Church and all their traditions were rejected unless they could be validated independently through the New Testament.

So why should Protestants trust the New Testament when the Catholic/Orthodox Church decided what writings to include and what writings to exclude?

I don't want this to seem like I'm attacking Protestants. I have a little bit of faith in my own personal spiritual insights but I have very little faith in the Church or the Bible. Christians are supposed to test their insights against the Bible to see if they are true.
edit on 11-6-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


That isn't true. That's why. The early church rejected GNOSTIC scriptures that had pseudographical authorship.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by cloudyday
My understanding of Protestant history is that the Catholic Church and all their traditions were rejected unless they could be validated independently through the New Testament.

So why should Protestants trust the New Testament when the Catholic/Orthodox Church decided what writings to include and what writings to exclude?

I don't want this to seem like I'm attacking Protestants. I have a little bit of faith in my own personal spiritual insights but I have very little faith in the Church or the Bible. Christians are supposed to test their insights against the Bible to see if they are true.
edit on 11-6-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


That isn't true. That's why. The early church rejected GNOSTIC scriptures that had pseudographical authorship.


I believe the Church excluded writings that might promote any kind of heresy - not just Gnostic writings. So a writing that was mostly good but included some items that might lead to heresies was excluded. Of course the Church (ancestor of the Catholic/Orthodox Church) defined the heresies.

So do Protestants believe the Church was not corrupt at the time the New Testament was defined and later became corrupt? I think the Church was already very corrupt by 400 AD from the history I have read.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Well sure by 400 AD, but the gospels were completed by 97AD with the gospel according to John. Paul's epistles were completed by 62-64ish AD when Nero ordered him beheaded. Irenaeus speaks of and has commentaries dealing with all the current NT books we now have. The "selection" (actually neglection) of books of the Bible happened much later with the refusal to accomodate Gnostic books written with false authorship in an attempt to give the books credibility the authors didnt naturally possess.


edit on 11-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I think I understand now what you're hinting at and I never got it earlier. Are you trying to suggest the books of the Bible, or as they say the "canon" of scripture was determined in the 4th century at the council of Nicaea? If so thats ridiculous myth that has zero basis in historical fact. Don't believe me, go to the Council of Nicaea wiki page and scroll down to the subheading entitled "misconceptions".


edit on 11-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I think I understand now what you're hinting at and I never got it earlier. Are you trying to suggest the books of the Bible, or as they say the "canon" of scripture was determined in the 4th century at the council of Nicaea? If so thats ridiculous myth that has zero basis in historical fact. Don't believe me, go to the Council of Nicaea wiki page and scroll down to the subheading entitled "misconceptions".


edit on 11-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


How about 200 AD then?

Anyway, am I correct that Protestants strive to reconstruct the uncorrupted beliefs and practices of Christianity solely from the Bible? As I read the Bible it seems to be written for readers who already have some background information which no longer exists. It seems a hopeless task.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


The last books of the NT were penned by John aroumd 95-97ish AD. The other apostles and two half-brothers of Christ were all dead at that point in time.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Because they were raised in Christianity and were too brainwashed to break away from it completely...



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Rome wasn't always corrupt. It took 4 centuries for the apostates to fully take it over, and the pagan priests removed their pagan medallions and pagan robes and put crucifixes and christian robes on and then they christianized their pagan traditions and began teaching them to the laity.

Even though this was going on there were still loyal christians in their ranks, like Peter Waldo who took the Textus Receptus and made as many copies as fast as he could because they were being destroyed by the Popes, and the French Hugenaughts who were embroiled in a war against Rome and 1 million of them were martyred just to get the truth out and to safety.

Yeshua will always find a way to get the truth out, they can kill as many of us as they can catch but even if they were to get us all he would start anew and more would arise to take our place.

The catholics were adding stuff to the text that wasn't originally there, Nicolaitan stuff that Yeshua said he hates. The true Church is a spiritual brotherhood, not an institution of man made by the hands of men, but created by the hands of YHWH. We were never meant to bow down and worship and scrape before a man sitting on a golden gilded throne like he is the King of Kings himself.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Outstanding, not much I can add to that.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Rome wasn't always corrupt. It took 4 centuries for the apostates to fully take it over, and the pagan priests removed their pagan medallions and pagan robes and put crucifixes and christian robes on and then they christianized their pagan traditions and began teaching them to the laity.

Even though this was going on there were still loyal christians in their ranks, like Peter Waldo who took the Textus Receptus and made as many copies as fast as he could because they were being destroyed by the Popes, and the French Hugenaughts who were embroiled in a war against Rome and 1 million of them were martyred just to get the truth out and to safety.

Yeshua will always find a way to get the truth out, they can kill as many of us as they can catch but even if they were to get us all he would start anew and more would arise to take our place.

The catholics were adding stuff to the text that wasn't originally there, Nicolaitan stuff that Yeshua said he hates. The true Church is a spiritual brotherhood, not an institution of man made by the hands of men, but created by the hands of YHWH. We were never meant to bow down and worship and scrape before a man sitting on a golden gilded throne like he is the King of Kings himself.


Assuming the NT is uncorrupted both in what it says and what it excludes (personally I don't believe that, but let's just say you are correct), there is still the question of how you reconstruct Christianity solely from the uncorrupted information in the NT. There are many places in the NT where the author says something like: "don't forget all those things we talked about when I visited last time". After all, we have thousands of different reconstructions of Christianity represented by the many Protestant denominations.
edit on 12-6-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


It depends.. the Textus Receptus manuscript is uncorrupted, however the 3 manuscripts originating from Alexandria Egypt in the 3rd - 4th centuries are EXTREMELY corrupted. Entire chapters are removed from those manuscripts to support Gnostic doctrines. (Mark 16 example) So it all depends what you mean by "uncorrupted" there are more than one manuscript. Irenaeus warned about Marcion and his followers for them "mutilating the scriptures which they themselves have shortened".. one must really be careful, there is the Holy Bible and there are counterfeits.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cloudyday
 


It depends.. the Textus Receptus manuscript is uncorrupted, however the 3 manuscripts originating from Alexandria Egypt in the 3rd - 4th centuries are EXTREMELY corrupted. Entire chapters are removed from those manuscripts to support Gnostic doctrines. (Mark 16 example) So it all depends what you mean by "uncorrupted" there are more than one manuscript. Irenaeus warned about Marcion and his followers for them "mutilating the scriptures which they themselves have shortened".. one must really be careful, there is the Holy Bible and there are counterfeits.


Thanks, unfortunately my level of suspicion about the NT goes beyond an added or deleted phrase here or there. Besides, I don't see why anybody should think the sources used for the Textus Receptus are any more valid that the sources used by Jerome. Jerome's sources were probably earlier. Isn't it kind of presumptuous for a person in the 1500s to say that he has better sources and a better understanding of the language and culture than somebody 1000 years earlier?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


The TR is the "majority text", meaning a majority of the manuscripts agree with eachother. The more different manuscripts that agree the easier it is to trust that's what the original said. The minority manuscripts were later additions/creations (3rd-4th century.) And they have great portions of scripture removed to support Gnostic doctrines. One example is the last chapter of Mark, totally removed. And verses dealing with the deity of Christ or the Trinity, removed.


edit on 12-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cloudyday
 


The TR is the "majority text", meaning a majority of the manuscripts agree with eachother. The more different manuscripts that agree the easier it is to trust that's what the original said. The minority manuscripts were later additions/creations (3rd-4th century.) And they have great portions of scripture removed to support Gnostic doctrines. One example is the last chapter of Mark, totally removed. And verses dealing with the deity of Christ or the Trinity, removed.


edit on 12-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Thanks. I wouldn't be surprised if the texts that the Church liked were copied in monasteries while the texts that the Church didn't like were burned. So "majority text" probably means "Church-approved text".



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Actually no, the "church approved text" was the Alexandrian/Gnostic manuscripts. 20+ million Christians are dead for trying to get the real word of God into the hands of the common man. One of the corrupt manuscripts is called the "Textus Vaticanus".. guess where it was found.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join