Secret Councils Changing The Bible?


#1

I have recently learned that it is well known by most scholars that Matthew 16:13-20 was added at some council to give credibility to the Pope.


13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. **18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.


What is your take on this? If this is so how do we know there weren’t secret societies and councils that tampered with the Bible to help keep their positions of power??? Because in all honesty, the Church for most of it’s life has been pretty troubled… And I mean some really radical things took place in it, often. Corrupt Popes, Bishops, councils, secret societies watching others, the forbidden books, ect.


#2

It would be useful if you could cite the source from where you recently learned this.


#3

There is a great deal of widely scattered manuscript evidence for the New Testament, essentially as we have it today. In order for anyone to attempt to change portions of the N.T. as we have it today, that person would have had to change all this manuscript evidence at all the locations where it could have been found. Also, that person or secret society would have had to make sure no one wrote about the change in the manuscripts.

The problem is, I think, that we humans just like conspiracy theories. :slight_smile:


#4

Sure some people are so easily mislead by these things. Did you know that the moon is really made of green cheese!

We know because there is so much other documented evidence that says otherwise.


#5

I am taking a Catholicism class at my University, (that could be the problem), My instructor informed us of this. I will try and see if I can find a better description of this claim somewhere in my notes.


#6

Is it a Catholic University?


#7

The first thing you need to learn in college is that your instructor can be wrong. More than that, your instructor can be a bigotted jerk, but as long as it is only against Catholics or other Christians, it will be tolerated.

Truly, look into you notes and find some documentation. If none is there, ask your instructor for his information source. And once (if:rolleyes: ) documentation is provided, look at it critically. Bring it here, most can help:)

Frankly, the statement that it is “well known” by scholars sounds like a claim someone else made that the “general consensus” was that Mary had other children. General consensus since when and by who?

The *when *and who making the claims are significant factors that must be looked at.


#8

What is his field of expertise, and where did he get his PhD? It’s surprising that any academic would take such stuff seriously.


#9

You should tell your professor that the verse that was secretly added is this one:

Romans 3:28: "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

It wasnt, BTW, addedby a Catholic Council:D


#10

Maybe your professor is a member of the Jesus Seminar. Or Dan Brown’s historical advisor. Secret Councils? Getting bishops together to debate things and change the Bible without anyone else knowing?


#11

The first part is easy. Numerous excerpts of Matthew have been uncovered in the last century. Do any of them have this text missing? If so, then “Bingo for your Professor”, and a few of the posters on this thread would have to apologize, but I’d bet they’ll never have to.

But what gives this “urban legend” credence is that there are parts of Matthew that may have been added. Wasn’t the Doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer appended by later copyists? Our good Professor’s source for his (mis)information may be drawn from this fact.

What is your take on this? If this is so how do we know there weren’t secret societies and councils that tampered with the Bible to help keep their positions of power??? Because in all honesty, the Church for most of it’s life has been pretty troubled… And I mean some really radical things took place in it, often. Corrupt Popes, Bishops, councils, secret societies watching others, the forbidden books, ect.

I take offense at this statement. Out of over 260 Popes, you could probably count on your fingers the number of degenerates. That leaves the vast majority of them in a much better light. Secret societies? Get real. Forbidden books? C’mon, people!!! :confused:


#12

I just got this off the official 1611 KJV website:

13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And 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.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

So I guess it had to be changed before 1611… since the very first version of KJ has it.


#13

What is his field of expertise, and where did he get his PhD? It’s surprising that any academic would take such stuff seriously.

He is Canadian, not sure where he went there or exact field of expertise he studied. The syllabus does not give us any of this info.

Is it a Catholic University?

It is not a Catholic University. I go to Iowa State University.

I take offense at this statement. Out of over 260 Popes, you could probably count on your fingers the number of degenerates. That leaves the vast majority of them in a much better light. Secret societies? Get real. Forbidden books? C’mon, people!!! :confused:

I have to say I take offense to it too, especially since he hadn’t shared the sources of his statement. It has made me wonder though.

This is some stuff I learned in lecture today…

In fact it is true the Catholic Church had a very comprehensive list of forbidden books, most of which were banned by the church until the 20th century. Apparently a lot of stuff on modernization was banned. Priest back in the day actually had to take an oath against modernization. The Papacy even created secret societies to monitor scholars and priests, making sure they did not teach modernization. If they did they would be excommunicated, or worse.

Does this ring a bell with anyone?


#14

Other than the fact you can find them on just about every anti-catholic website on the Internet, No. One wonders why the school would tolerate such anti-catholic bigotry?


#15

I believe your professor is confusing “modernization” with “modernism”.

Modernism is a heresy. Modernization is not.


#16

Those supposed secret councils must have taken place very early in Church history because St. Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 189) and Tertullian (A.D. 220) quote from that section of Matthew in their writings.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons quotes from Matthew 16:13, 16, and 17 in Against Heresies 3:18:4 and from Matthew 16:17 in Against Heresies 3:13:2 and 3:21:7.

Tertullian quotes from Matthew 16:18-19 in On Modesty 21.


#17

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I wanted to get your views this stuff. There is a lot of other thing that seems anti Catholic about his teachings. It is really a hard class to follow, we cover hundreds of years in one lecture and much information is thrown at us on top of readings. Sometimes I don’t have time to look over certain claims that seem kinda fishy and bias.


#18

Question: If the council was a secret, how does the professor know about it?

– Mark L. Chance.


#19

You or he has your terms mixed up. Yes the Church had a list of “banned Books”, books that posed a danger to the Christian faith. Modernism was banned and priests took an oath against Modernism. I actually heard that a new pastor took that same oath a few weeks ago. The Bishop requested that he read it at his installation Mass. The Holy See created the Holy Office, now called the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith that monitors scholars. Also those who teach Catholic theology are also required to take an oath required by John Paul II. I’m sure your professor has not taken it. Since he is not Catholic he should refrain from teaching about Catholic Beliefs and practices. It sounds to me like you are taking Anti-Catholicism 101.


#20

To me too.

What class are you taking disciple?


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.