"Biblical' Christianity is a Myth?


#1

I believe it is quite clear the “Biblical” Christianity is a myth.

Take as an example the following:

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

  1. Early Christian were more like the “Bible” Christians of today, then the Roman Catholic Church.

  2. We have historical records of these early Christian by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.

  3. In the historical records are revealed what early Christians thought, believed and practiced.

  4. In the historical records it reveals what the early Christians thought, believed and practiced are in line with Roman Catholic Teaching.

  5. Therefore, premise 1 is false and "biblical Christianity is a myth.

It is 75% good theology and 100% bad history (and the theology part was inherited from Catholicism).

Any thoughts?

Peace


#2

How can there be “Biblical” Christianity before there was even a Bible (new testament)?


#3

[quote=geezerbob]How can there be “Biblical” Christianity before there was even a Bible (new testament)?
[/quote]

That is a very good question. I will try to provide some answers after I come back from “shopping”

Maggie


#4

[quote=dennisknapp]I believe it is quite clear that “Biblical” Christianity is a myth.

Take as an example the following:

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

  1. Early Christians were more like the “Bible” Christians of today, then the Roman Catholic Church.

  2. We have historical records of these early Christians by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.

  3. In the historical records are revealed what early Christians thought, believed and practiced.

  4. In the historical records it reveals what the early Christians thought, believed and practiced are in line with Roman Catholic Teaching.

  5. Therefore, premise 1 is false and "biblical Christianity is a myth.

It is 75% good theology and 100% bad history (and the theology part was inherited from Catholicism).

Any thoughts?

Peace
[/quote]

Is it true? Have I finally come up with a thread that has stumped all Protestants on this forum?

I can’t believe it?


#5

It must be true because they would rather disrupt other threads with their mythology than face a debate that challenges their beliefs and idol worship of the Bible.

Maggie


#6

Dear All,

Coming from a Protestant background, I think “idol worship of the Bible” is an overgeneralization, and a bit too strong. I think the strength Catholics find in Protestant adherence to Scripture is a mere reflection of the strength Protestants find in Catholic adherence to Tradition. Newton’s third Law pure and simple – for every action, an equal opposite reaction. I don’t doubt Protestants view Catholics as idolizing Tradition, because I was one of those Protestants. If there is one thing I’ve noticed having been on both sides of the apologetic fence, it is that apologists should be very careful about using arguments that can bite them in the a**.

Would you mind if I played Devil’s Advocate and presented you with some arguments Protestants may use?

God bless,

Greg


#7

[quote=GAssisi]Dear All,

Coming from a Protestant background, I think “idol worship of the Bible” is an overgeneralization, and a bit too strong. I think the strength Catholics find in Protestant adherence to Scripture is a mere reflection of the strength Protestants find in Catholic adherence to Tradition. Newton’s third Law pure and simple – for every action, an equal opposite reaction. I don’t doubt Protestants view Catholics as idolizing Tradition, because I was one of those Protestants. If there is one thing I’ve noticed having been on both sides of the apologetic fence, it is that apologists should be very careful about using arguments that can bite them in the a**.

Would you mind if I played Devil’s Advocate and presented you with some arguments Protestants may use?

God bless,

Greg
[/quote]

Hey Greg,

I was hoping that the wording would draw one of the others who have been accusing Catholics of being idolators would bite on that one.

There is an element of truth in the statement because of the excessive reverence that is given to the Bible to the point that the KJV is alleged to have fallen out of the sky.

Please play the devil’s advocate so that we can get the thread moving in the right direction.

I have a sore hand at present due to a fall I had today, so I might have to cut my participation if it gets too sore.

Maggie


#8

[quote=GAssisi]Dear All,

Coming from a Protestant background, I think “idol worship of the Bible” is an overgeneralization, and a bit too strong. I think the strength Catholics find in Protestant adherence to Scripture is a mere reflection of the strength Protestants find in Catholic adherence to Tradition. Newton’s third Law pure and simple – for every action, an equal opposite reaction. I don’t doubt Protestants view Catholics as idolizing Tradition, because I was one of those Protestants. If there is one thing I’ve noticed having been on both sides of the apologetic fence, it is that apologists should be very careful about using arguments that can bite them in the a**.

Would you mind if I played Devil’s Advocate and presented you with some arguments Protestants may use?

God bless,

Greg
[/quote]

By all means, just as long as they stay within the boundries of this thread. And that would be proving Premise 4 false.

Peace


#9

There is an implication here that churches today SHOULD be as close to the very early churches.

Well to carry that a bit farther, should the Navy, the mode of transportation and the practice of medicine be as it was in 1776?

I don’t think so. Maybe The Holy Spirit has been acting all these years.


#10

Maggie:

Idol worship of the Bible

As a questioning Catholic who has had a huge crisis of faith and is veering ever more towards other denominations of christianity (I have huge issues with Catholicism) I have to question what this quote means?

Many protestants say that Catholics who kneel and pray in front of statues are idol worshippers and the Catholics defend themselves with many answers. How is the Bible worshipped by Protestants? Do they kneel and pray to it? And if so how is this different? Please explain your comment, as all Protestants I know take the Bible to be God’s Living Word and they follow its teachings implicitly. The actual book is just paper and ink.

Many thanks


#11

I believe Bible Christians are indeed closer to the NT Church than the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

It is useless for you to appeal to post-biblical history. We all know that the apostasy was already present even DURING NT times. There is no reason for me to believe that the Church Fathers were true to the apostolic church.

We can see this struggle or tension between the true NT church and the new apostatized church played out even in the earliest Fathers. For example, one sees that even in Ignatius of Antioch’s time, there was no clear distinction between the office of bishop and the office of presbyter. The false distinction was imposed by so-called “apostolic churches” because of the infection of desire for more secular power, as the administration of churches began to more closely mirror the administration of secular governments.

Already as early as Justin Martyr’s time, we can see this apostasy at work, since he gives a certain honor to Mary that is not even present in the Bible.

So your conclusion #5 is valid, but it is far from being sound because there is a missing premise that you have not proven – that the faith and practice of the NT church is indeed identical, or at more closely related to, the faith and practice of the post-apostolic church/ Catholic/Orthodox church.

If you Catholics and Orthodox just stick to the Bible, you would not fall into so many errors.

Greg, the Devil’s Advocate


#12

Dear Teresa,

Within Protestantism, there are two camps. ALL Protestants profess to believe in SOLA Scriptura. However, there is one camp who believes that SOLA Scriptura means it is OK to supplement Scripture with some things outside of Scripture, while keeping Scripture as the ultimate judge. The other camp believes that the faith can be obtained from NOTHING ELSE BUT Scripture.
The former group will often distinguish the latter group as believers NOT in SOLA Scripture, but in SOLO Scriptura. It is the ones who purportedly believe in SOLO Scriptura that often, even by fellow Protestants, are charged with idolizing Scripture.
You should read some of the literature out there by some of these Protestants. They truly use language that makes no distinction between the written word and the Son of God. I have seen this language in Robert Godfrey, Eric Svendsen, and a host of other anti-Catholic evangelists, and even Karl Barth.
God bless,
Greg


#13

[quote=teresas1979]Maggie:

As a questioning Catholic who has had a huge crisis of faith and is veering ever more towards other denominations of christianity (I have huge issues with Catholicism) I have to question what this quote means?

Many protestants say that Catholics who kneel and pray in front of statues are idol worshippers and the Catholics defend themselves with many answers. How is the Bible worshipped by Protestants? Do they kneel and pray to it? And if so how is this different? Please explain your comment, as all Protestants I know take the Bible to be God’s Living Word and they follow its teachings implicitly. The actual book is just paper and ink.

Many thanks
[/quote]

What issues do you have with the Catholic Church?

Peace


#14

[quote=GAssisi]I believe Bible Christians are indeed closer to the NT Church than the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.
[/quote]

Really, how so. Were you around to provide an empirical comparison? Didn’t think so.

[quote=GAssisi]It is useless for you to appeal to post-biblical history. We all know that the apostasy was already present even DURING NT times. There is no reason for me to believe that the Church Fathers were true to the apostolic church.
[/quote]

And you have given us no reason to believe that the Church Fathers were not 100% faithful to the Apostolic Church. Non-sequitor arguement.

[quote=GAssisi]We can see this struggle or tension between the true NT church and the new apostatized church played out even in the earliest Fathers. For example, one sees that even in Ignatius of Antioch’s time, there was no clear distinction between the office of bishop and the office of presbyter. The false distinction was imposed by so-called “apostolic churches” because of the infection of desire for more secular power, as the administration of churches began to more closely mirror the administration of secular governments.
[/quote]

This seems to be more speculation than anything. Where is your evidence for this?

[quote=GAssisi]Already as early as Justin Martyr’s time, we can see this apostasy at work, since he gives a certain honor to Mary that is not even present in the Bible.
[/quote]

Which honor would that be? Could you provide us with some specifics, rather than just making an unfounded accusation with the assumption that it is true?

[quote=GAssisi]So your conclusion #5 is valid, but it is far from being sound because there is a missing premise that you have not proven – that the faith and practice of the NT church is indeed identical, or at more closely related to, the faith and practice of the post-apostolic church/ Catholic/Orthodox church.
[/quote]

You have not proved, nor disproved anything, my friend. You have made some very interesting commentary, that taken in total, mean nothing, except to you.

[quote=GAssisi]If you Catholics and Orthodox just stick to the Bible, you would not fall into so many errors.
[/quote]

  1. This makes the assumption that the Church falls into error without providing any examples of the errors they fall into.
  2. Where was the bible during the first 400 years of the Church for the Church to follow. By necessity, the Church HAD to be apostolic and traditional, as the canon of Scripture was not yet determined.

[quote=GAssisi]Greg, the Devil’s Advocate
[/quote]

Scott LaFrance, the Church’s Advocate.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_12.gif


#15

[quote=GAssisi]I believe Bible Christians are indeed closer to the NT Church than the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

It is useless for you to appeal to post-biblical history. We all know that the apostasy was already present even DURING NT times. There is no reason for me to believe that the Church Fathers were true to the apostolic church.

We can see this struggle or tension between the true NT church and the new apostatized church played out even in the earliest Fathers. For example, one sees that even in Ignatius of Antioch’s time, there was no clear distinction between the office of bishop and the office of presbyter. The false distinction was imposed by so-called “apostolic churches” because of the infection of desire for more secular power, as the administration of churches began to more closely mirror the administration of secular governments.

Already as early as Justin Martyr’s time, we can see this apostasy at work, since he gives a certain honor to Mary that is not even present in the Bible.

So your conclusion #5 is valid, but it is far from being sound because there is a missing premise that you have not proven – that the faith and practice of the NT church is indeed identical, or at more closely related to, the faith and practice of the post-apostolic church/ Catholic/Orthodox church.

If you Catholics and Orthodox just stick to the Bible, you would not fall into so many errors.

Greg, the Devil’s Advocate
[/quote]

Premise 5 follows from premise 4. In order to prove 5 false you have to prove 4 false. This you have not done. What you have done is begged the question.

Peace


#16

Dear Dennis,

That is why I said #5 is VALID, but it is not sound. Any argument has two characteristics - validity and soundness. An argument is valid if the conclusion is logically drawn from the premises. An argument is sound ONLY if 1) it is valid, and 2) if the premises are all proven to be TRUE.

You have NOT proven that the NT church is identical to the post-apostolic Church. You have simply assumed that. Indeed you may have shown that the post-apostolic church is very much like modern Catholic/Orthodox churches, but that is not the issue, is it? The question is whether the NEW TESTAMENT Church (NOT the post-apostolic Church) is truly more similar to Catholics/Orthodox than to Protestants. You have not proven your argument at all.

Dear Scott,
Everything you said of my statements can be said of Dennis’ statements - they are all assumptions. In any case, you are the ones claiming something, so the burden of proof is with you Catholics. I think even Dennis realizes that, since he made this (rather weak) attempt at a syllogistic proof.

God bless all,
Greg, the Devil’s Advocate


#17

The use of allegory and metaphor are literary devices and are not myth.


#18

[quote=GAssisi]Dear Dennis,

That is why I said #5 is VALID, but it is not sound. Any argument has two characteristics - validity and soundness. An argument is valid if the conclusion is logically drawn from the premises. An argument is sound ONLY if 1) it is valid, and 2) if the premises are all proven to be TRUE.

You have NOT proven that the NT church is identical to the post-apostolic Church. You have simply assumed that. Indeed you may have shown that the post-apostolic church is very much like modern Catholic/Orthodox churches, but that is not the issue, is it? The question is whether the NEW TESTAMENT Church (NOT the post-apostolic Church) is truly more similar to Catholics/Orthodox than to Protestants. You have not proven your argument at all.

Dear Scott,
Everything you said of my statements can be said of Dennis’ statements - they are all assumptions. In any case, you are the ones claiming something, so the burden of proof is with you Catholics. I think even Dennis realizes that, since he made this (rather weak) attempt at a syllogistic proof.

God bless all,
Greg, the Devil’s Advocate
[/quote]

My argument infers a continuity for which there is evidence for. If you would like me to post the evidence I will.

You likewise would have to prove a discontinuity. You would have to show where and when this “apostasy” took place, for it contradicts all of Church history.

Also, Ignatius of Antioch was appointed by John the last Apostle. He know Polycarp and lived most his life in the Apostolic Age. He bridges the gap between the Apostolic and post-Apostolic ages.

Peace


#19

[quote=Kevin Walker]The use of allegory and metaphor are literary devices and are not myth.
[/quote]

Can you explain further?

Peace


#20

[quote=teresas1979]Maggie:

As a questioning Catholic who has had a huge crisis of faith and is veering ever more towards other denominations of christianity (I have huge issues with Catholicism) I have to question what this quote means?

Many protestants say that Catholics who kneel and pray in front of statues are idol worshippers and the Catholics defend themselves with many answers. How is the Bible worshipped by Protestants? Do they kneel and pray to it? And if so how is this different? Please explain your comment, as all Protestants I know take the Bible to be God’s Living Word and they follow its teachings implicitly. The actual book is just paper and ink.

Many thanks
[/quote]

Have you ever noticed how some Protestants slip into the habit of making statements such as “are you calling God a liar”? I think that you have already answered your question about what I mean. It is not about praying before the Bible - no it is about how they perceive the Bible, and precisely because they claim to follow the teachings of the Bible implicitly.

Yes, like you I know that the actual book is just paper and ink but try telling that to someone who claims that infers that if you do not believe every thing they say is calling God a liar. Yet they fail to recognize that they rely on their own traditions for the interpretation of the Scripture and there is no such thing as relying on the Scripture alone.

Might I suggest that if you are having a crisis in faith that you go find yourself a Spiritual Director and sort out that crisis. The issues that “you” have are issues that you need to resolve and not the other way around. Another denomination will only allow you to take the easy road…

Maggie


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.