Did the Church hand down Scripture to us?

[Freedom63]

That is just what we need, more doubt and less credibility concerning Paul
Here is what I came up with on google search concerning Paul's credibility on CF
[this is one reason I have that wanted poster of Paul on my profile board in case any are wondering]

site:christianforums.com paul false apostle christian forums - Google Search

To say that Paul may not have written the Timothy epistles is not the same as saying I doubt Paul.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To say that Paul may not have written the Timothy epistles is not the same as saying I doubt Paul.

Ahhh..glad to hear that

 

[Optimax]

The poll is flawed. You assert that the Church not handing down Scripture to us is somehow "non-Catholic." Who could possibly vote in such a poll other than a RC?

But Suncritter's question stands: what is "the Church?" It was THE APOSTLES who brought what we consider NT Scripture to us, unhindered by anyone else within "the Church." It was NOT the modern invention that is today's RC organization that brought us the NT, nor the OT, nor the Apocrypha, nor the ECF's. (I'll let you claim the pseudoapocrypha though

Yes!

What he said.

 

[Freedom63]

Ahhh..glad to hear that

Thanks. Actually I have great confidence in Paul as an apostle and love to read him. But there is much in Timothy that does appear to contradict him in some ways and lend credibility to the doubt that he was the author. Textual analysis as well shows it to be largely inconsistent with his other writings. I do not take a stance with certainty on it yet as I am still searching for truth on this issue, but it is because of my respect for Paul that I would be greatly troubled by any pollution of his words by an impostor.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks. Actually I have great confidence in Paul as an apostle and love to read him. But there is much in Timothy that does appear to contradict him in some ways and lend credibility to the doubt that he was the author. Textual analysis as well shows it to be largely inconsistent with his other writings. I do not take a stance with certainty on it yet as I am still searching for truth on this issue, but it is because of my respect for Paul that I would be greatly troubled by any pollution of his words by an impostor.

I now use google search to search for topics on CF and decided to see if there were any threads on that for you to view.
I hope this isn't off topic

site:christianforums.com paul and Timothy christian forums - Google Search

There is an interesting discussion on 1 Tim 3 here:

1 Timothy chapter 3 - Christian Forums
Personally, I've always thought that Paul had nothing to do with the writing of 1 Timothy anyway, and it reflects a much later church tradition ...

Not being a conservative evangelical, I don't believe that the Bible is an infallible, authoritative rule book for our life.
1 Timothy was a letter written, probably sometime late in the first century, probably by someone from a church with historical associations with Paul who used Paul's name to give his letter authority, and it gives his view of leadership at that time. I don't see it as normative for us today.

 

[Erose]

Actually the Church did not 'give' us the scriptures. The Church coveted the scriptures for itself for centuries. Wycliffe was relentless persecuted by the Church for daring to 'give' us the scriptures.

this is a historically false statement drummed up by anti-Catholics with no proof whatsoever. Wycliffe was not the first person or group to translate the bible in the vernacular but he is one that tweaked his translation to support his heretical positions.

Anyway your statement is complete false.

 

[Erose]

Thanks. Actually I have great confidence in Paul as an apostle and love to read him. But there is much in Timothy that does appear to contradict him in some ways and lend credibility to the doubt that he was the author. Textual analysis as well shows it to be largely inconsistent with his other writings. I do not take a stance with certainty on it yet as I am still searching for truth on this issue, but it is because of my respect for Paul that I would be greatly troubled by any pollution of his words by an impostor.

So Timothy should be thrown out of the Bible?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

this is a historically false statement drummed up by anti-Catholics with no proof whatsoever. Wycliffe was not the first person or group to translate the bible in the vernacular but he is one that tweaked his translation to support his heretical positions.

Anyway your statement is complete false.

According to whom?
I didn't realize he was deemed heretical?

 

[ivebeenshown]

It is? What happened to Tradition?

Whether a person believes Scripture is the ONLY authoritative source or that Scripture and Tradition are both authoritative, the person can say that Scripture is an authoritative source without necessarily excluding Tradition.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The poll is flawed. You assert that the Church not handing down Scripture to us is somehow "non-Catholic." Who could possibly vote in such a poll other than a RC?

The doctrine of the Trinity is a Catholic doctrine but you don't have to be in communion with the Catholic Church to accept the doctrine. The poll is not flawed.

But Suncritter's question stands: what is "the Church?" It was THE APOSTLES who brought what we consider NT Scripture to us, unhindered by anyone else within "the Church." It was NOT the modern invention that is today's RC organization that brought us the NT, nor the OT, nor the Apocrypha, nor the ECF's.

It was the Church that preserved and handed down Scripture through the ages. The Apostles wrote the New Testament, yes, but the Church preserved and handed down those writings. If nobody preserved and handed down Scripture, we would not have it today!

(I'll let you claim the pseudoapocrypha though

There is no 'pseudoapocrypha', but there are 'pseudepigrapha.'

 

[Freedom63]

So Timothy should be thrown out of the Bible?

I have already indicated I have not formed my final view on Timothy as of yet so it would be premature for me to answer your question directly.

Indirectly I will state that as we discover certain portions of text that have been added at some point later which were clearly not in the original version...those should indeed be removed.

 

[Standing Up]

Most likely yes. Unfortunately it was not uncommon for early church writers to write in the name of an apostle to either show respect for the Apostle or, in a less noble gesture, to attempt to lend added credibility to their own writings.

2 Thes. 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

It's highly unlikely that any of the letters in the bible ascribed to Paul are forgeries. They, for example, tossed in the trash the false one at Thessalonica.

 

[Standing Up]

The doctrine of the Trinity is a Catholic doctrine but you don't have to be in communion with the Catholic Church to accept the doctrine.

That was at one time the definition of Catholic Church (believe in the Trinity). But that is not what came later to be called the Roman Church, which came later to be called Roman Catholic, which came later that some now call Catholic Church.

It was the Church that preserved and handed down Scripture through the ages. The Apostles wrote the New Testament, yes, but the Church preserved and handed down those writings. If nobody preserved and handed down Scripture, we would not have it today!

So, keeping in mind the above distinction about the Church (simply the Body of Christ), one could say it was handed down as divine.

It's an interesting problem, though, because the Church agrees on the NT scripture, but disagrees on the OT scripture.

 

[Erose]

I have already indicated I have not formed my final view on Timothy as of yet so it would be premature for me to answer your question directly.

Indirectly I will state that as we discover certain portions of text that have been added at some point later which were clearly not in the original version...those should indeed be removed.

If we followed that line of thinking it would make the OT a much faster read because you probably have to throw out at least a 3rd of the OT.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It's an interesting problem, though, because the Church agrees on the NT scripture, but disagrees on the OT scripture.

Sure is an interesting problem, but not because the Church disagrees on OT Scripture... in fact, the Church agrees with itself. It's just that these other churches that were founded by men without any authorization from God may not agree with the canon.

Really now, regardless of what you're going to say about the Catholic Church, there is no doubt that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Miller, White, and so on started new organizations. The only valid organization is that which was founded by Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

this is a historically false statement drummed up by anti-Catholics with no proof whatsoever. Wycliffe was not the first person or group to translate the bible in the vernacular but he is one that tweaked his translation to support his heretical positions.

Really? Do you have 3 examples?

 

[Standing Up]

Sure is an interesting problem, but not because the Church disagrees on OT Scripture... in fact, the Church agrees with itself. It's just that these other churches that were founded by men without any authorization from God may not agree with the canon.

Yikes, where are the OO and EO when you need one. They would completely disagree with your opinion. All three Churches have different OT canons.

So, you're getting entrenched, eh?

 

[Standing Up]

If we followed that line of thinking it would make the OT a much faster read because you probably have to throw out at least a 3rd of the OT.

Don't know about 1/3, but there are at least a few lines, like the 'Moses buried and no one found it to this day'.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yikes, where are the OO and EO when you need one. They would completely disagree with your opinion. All three Churches have different OT canons.

Three different organizations, three different doctrines.

 

[Erose]

According to whom?
I didn't realize he was deemed heretical?

The only church around at that time in Europe, the catholic church. He was a lollard which was a heretical group.

Also the Catholic church did not condemn wycliffe's bible because it was translated into English. No it was condemned because it was a revised translation. A modern comparison would be the JW bible.