From a theological point of view, should the holy scriptures

This is why I'm a Catholic. When taken simply as just a reliable human document, the Bible shows that Christ not only rose from the dead, but that he established a church built on the apostles (Matt. 16:18-19, Eph. 2:20). The successors of the apostles, or the popes and bishops who inherited the apostles' spiritual authority, were then able to authoritatively declare the Bible to be the word of god.

This is not a circular argument, in which an inspired Bible is used to prove the church's authority and the church's authority is used to prove that the Bible is inspired. Instead, as Karl Keating would say, it is a "spiral argument," in which the Bible is assumed to be a merely human document that records the creation of the divinely instituted church. This church then had the authority to pronounce which human writings also had God as their author.

Contrast this with the Protestant view of scripture:

In the 16th century, Luther rejected the seven books that comprise the deuterocanonicals together with parts of Daniel and Esther. He did so because they contained passages that disagreed with his theology. Luther claimed that all matters of faith and practice were based on the Bible alone, but the Bible never gave Luther the authority to determine the books that belong in the Bible. Luther also questioned "Whether James was in fact scripture" along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to Jude as a "superfluous document" and claimed that Revelation "lacks everything that I hold as apostolic or prophetic."

In rejecting the canon of the Bible that was accepted by Christians for over one thousand years, Luther wrenched Sacred Scripture from the certain foundation upon which they had been established, namely, the infallible authority of the Catholic church.

Since Protestants teach that the Bible alone is their ultimate authority, each book of the Bible has a cloud of suspicion hanging over it because the Bible does not have an infallible table of contents that lists the books that are divinely inspired and, therefore, should be included in it. If, as Luther taught and Protestants believe, the Catholic church was wrong about the deuterocanonicals, isn't it reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church made other errors? Perhaps other books should be rejected from the bible?

>>10017563
Very interesting! I had never thought of it that way. Let me try to sum it to see if I understood:

The Catholic Apostolic church, as the name says, was founded by the Apostles by the order of Jesus himself, therefore the church has the power of choosing the books, since it was the order of Jesus.

However, my question is: the current canon was accepted around the IV century after Jesus, him and the apostles were long dead. I don't doubt that their influence lasted strongly even in that century, but it may have weakened.

Anyway, the word of Christ is plain and simple and I don't doubt the current canon. These are just interesting questions I enjoy debating.

>>10017563
You should actually research the history of the canon rather than relying on whatever simplistic Catholic apologetics you've read. The fact that you think the Deuterocanonical books had some sort of universal acceptance prior to the Reformation is laughable.

t.non-Protestant

>>10017648

The recognition of the inspiration of the books that make up the NT and their acceptance on a par with the OT developed gradually. The Catholic church needed to sift through more than 50 Gospels, 22 Acts and many other writings during the gradual process of determining which Christian writings should be included in the NT. This process was completed by a decree of Pope St. Damasus I in 383, and confirmed at the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 and 419. Subsequently, the councils of Second Nicea in 787, Florence in 1441, and Trent in 1546 approved the identical canon of the bible that Catholics still recognize today as divinely inspired. The Church made this determination by drawing on Sacred Tradition, which is the authority to make these sorts of decisions that was given to the apostles and passed on in succession.

Essentially, the firsthand physical influence of Jesus doesn't matter so much because we believe that the Church that he founded is protected from teaching error. The belief is supported by a number of texts, but most importantly Matthew 16. The key imagery indicates that Peter will be given the office of prime minister in Jesus' Church, the power to bind and loose gives Peter and his successors the power to absolve sins and to make definitive judgement in matters of faith and morals. Therefore Peter and his successors are protected from teaching error, because God who is truth binds and looses in heaven what Peter binds and looses on earth.

>>10017675


The historical evidence is overwhelming that the scriptures of the first Christian centuries was the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical books. It was well into the third century when Jewish rabbis started rejecting these books as part of the Jewish canon.

The noted protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly affirms that the Christian church of the first two centuries accepted the deuterocanonicals as inspired, and the Baptist scholar Lee MacDonald affirms that there is no evidence to support the idea that the Jews had a different canon from the Septuagint between the period of the second century BC to the second century AD. The Septuagint was widely used by Jews throughout the Roman Empire, and it was also commonly used in Israel. This explains why its use spread with amazing rapidity among Christians even where the Hebrew texts were available. All the evidence points to the fact that the scriptures for the early Christians were "the same widely diverse body of scriptures that were considered inspired and therefore authoritative by Pharisaic Judaism or the various Jewish sects that existed before the separation of the church from the synagogue."

>>10017678
>The Church made this determination by drawing on Sacred Tradition, which is the authority to make these sorts of decisions that was given to the apostles and passed on in succession.

Would this mean that this sucession is still effective in our days, legitimizing the power of the Pope? Because as we have been seeing, the last popes and the current one is advocating things that are not even in the Bible.

And what about the sacraments? The Eucharist is based on the word of Jesus, but some as Confession are not entirely based on his exact words. Should we trust them as tradition, considering they were defined by the Holy Church, and as you said, legitimized by spiritual authority? Is the church infallible?

I am not catholic, but I am a step away from becoming one. These are probably the last doubts I have, and I will probably convert into one if I have them answered. Thank you.

>>10017751

Yes we believe that the Holy Spirit is still protecting the pope and the magisterium from teaching error, and we believe that it will continue doing so until the end of the world. Jesus did promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church after all. I'm not sure I understand your second question because the sacrament of confession is found in the Bible, which itself is a part of Tradition. See 2 Cor. 5:11-21 for example. To compound on that even the Eucharist relies on tradition to clarify and define many aspects which is why many Protestants don't accept it at all or consider it merely a metaphor for Jesus' body and blood. It's not enough to say that we should accept or not accept something purely on what the Bible says because the Bible doesn't say a lot of very important things.

>>10017780
>>10017751

I got carried away and forgot to add that the Holy Spirit is protecting the pope and the magisterium from error in regards to specific teachings. Not everything they say or teach is protected. We believe they're infallible, not impeccable. I personally believe that Francis says a lot of dumb shit, especially when it comes to capitalism and immigration but when it comes to matter of faith and morals he is a guide.

>>10017675

Instead of simply telling others to research history why don't you try adding something to the conversation? What's the point of even saying that?

>>10017563
>When taken simply as just a reliable human document
Well I don't need to read the rest of your post now. It's demonstrably not reliable therefor shouldn't be taken as such.

>>10018000
The New Testament is considered to be a historically accurate document by historians, and the resurrection is quite plausible for being so well-documented. Plus, even if it weren't, it's a matter of faith.

>>10018000

The post isn't intended to persuade anyone of the historicity of the New Testament and that's also not what this thread is about so I don't know what you expected.

>>10017467
"1787 [The source of revelation].Furthermore, this supernatural revelation, according to the faith of the universal Church, as declared by the holy synod of Trent, is contained "in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself; or, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit have been handed down by the apostles themselves, and have thus come to us" [Council of Trent, see n. 783]. And, indeed, these books of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the same Council, are contained in the older Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and canonical. But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself (can. 4)."

This is what the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically about the scripture. FIrst hand documents are always the clearest.