The heretics who made the bible

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,635
18,533
Orlando, Florida
✟1,260,046.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
One possibility among many I can easily see is to deny biblical inerrancy or a closed canon, a relatively liberal approach but one that is not necessarily outside the bounds of Protestant orthodoxy.

I consider many aspects of Orthodoxy and Catholicism to be misguided, frankly. I believe not even Jesus' apostles and disciples fully understood his teaching's significance, so why should I believe in an infallible Church hierarchy, why would they be any better?
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,502
9,010
Florida
✟324,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
They are and were the true people of Christ who have all truth, and pure doctrine, the remnant which is God's church(revelation 12:17). There has always been at least one person on earth who has held the true doctrine of Christ, and there always will be. Who they are today, they are still the remnant Church of God existing in relative obscurity more often than not so far apart as to only meet a handful at a time if you do meet them that is(though I should clarify that these are not the only ones that are saved, they are just the only ones with pure doctrine). The Lord sends you to them, or they are sent to you by the Lord, or the Lord reveals the full truth to you and you become part of his remnant and a virgin with pure doctrine. These are the same virgins/remnant spoken of here
Revelation 14:
3And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Does that group include the Coptic Orthodox Church?
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Strangely much of what you have written Catholics and Orthodox would accept, but they would apply that to how the early church was run! :amen:




The Lexicon of the Timothy word is worth checking out the Greek uses a term meaning "profitable" or "useful" to describe scripture but does not necessarily use any words for "all sufficient" (and the mechanics of saying something like that did exist since Greek is a pretty articulate language.) Some Catholic apologists I have read make the apt point that if you read on other subjects like prayer or fasting the Bible says very similar things in regards to them, but it would be a stretch to say that for spiritual maturity all you need to do is to pray or fast! But if you understand the passage in its context it makes sense for the language used. At the time it was written, it was speaking of the OT, it was mentioning how the OT is useful for NT preaching (since as we previously discussed the NT was currently being written and not called "scripture" by early Christians until centuries later when they were all bundled together in the first Bibles)


I actually find the story of the "noble Bereans" of the Book Acts very instructive on issues like this!
1. I had a feeling they would only apply it to the early Church.

2. I agree, the word profitable does not mean all sufficient but when we look at the context and the surrounding words, along with comparing it to the rest of Scripture(this includes the books written down by the apostles), we see that it is indeed saying that the scripture given is all sufficient.
When timothy says "16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." We see that he says first that all scripture is given by God's inspiration(this includes what he has just written, and the letters/books/epistles written up until this time by the apostles). And we know that in Acts 20:26-28 it is said that the Apostles have already declared the full counsel of God, so for a man to be perfect and thoroughly furnished he must study the already written scripture(by the Apostles and by the OT writers), timothy spoke on this previously in chapter two when he says that a man must study to show himself approved, that he may rightly divide the word of truth(2 Tim 2:15 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.)

Looking at the following chapter we get an even better understanding of what timothy was speaking of when he says that all scripture is inspired by god, and is thus profitable, and also necessary, to bring one to be thoroughly furnished and perfect in the Gospel and in the work of God. Timothy says that we must exhort with all long suffering and doctrine(all doctrine) "2 timothy 4:2
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine." He says that we have fully known the Doctrine, and that we must continue in things learned(2 Tim 3:10, 14-15), what doctrine was he speaking of? The doctrine of Christ and the apostles(Acts 2:42, 2 John 9-10,1 Cor 11:1-20), this is the doctrine that was fully made known, the doctrine that was written down and sent out in letters and epistles to each Church just as it was also preached in person. Both the doctrine taught in person and the doctrine taught by epistles were complete and both were the same. If you had one you knew the other, this is why we are told to hold fast to the doctrine taught to us whether by word or by epistle(2 Thess 2:15) since either one was sufficient on its own, and both were being used at the time. Even as far back as Acts 15 we see the Church writing letters detailing the doctrine of Christ and Apostles(though in this chapter it is a very brief letter being sent), this practice continued throughout the lives of the Apostles.

So we see by looking in context and by comparing it to the rest of scripture that timothy was referring to the epistles sent out by the Apostles as well as to the Old testament. But the main point is that timothy was speaking of the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles.
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Does that group include the Coptic Orthodox Church?
To what portion of my response where you referring to brother? The remnant with pure doctrine? Only those who are without a corrupt doctrine will be considered virgins and be part of this remnant. Only those who sigh and weep for the Abominations being done will be spared.

As for the Orthodox Church there are certainty members within the Church that are saved who will be a part of the second remnant/great multitude gathered in. But the Church itself, or the Church as a whole will not be spared or included in the second remnant/great multitude(Isaiah 11:11-12,16). And unless those within the Orthodox Church forgo the beliefs they acquired through orthodoxy they could not be a part of the second remnant(but as this time before the end they can still be saved by faith).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,502
9,010
Florida
✟324,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
To what portion of my response where you referring to brother? The remnant with pure doctrine? Only those who are without a corrupt doctrine will be considered virgins and be part of this remnant. Only those who sigh and weep for the Abominations being done will be spared.

As for the Orthodox Church there are certainty members within the Church that are saved who will be a part of the second remnant/great multitude gathered in. But the Church itself, or the Church as a whole will not be spared or included in the second remnant/great multitude(Isaiah 11:11-12,16). And unless those within the Orthodox Church forgo the beliefs they acquired through orthodoxy they could not be a part of the first remnant.

So, in sum, I have listened to your ramblings and condemnations of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, I have heard you make wholly false and easily disproven accusations against the Church, and in conclusion you condemn any traditions of the Church that don't conform to your own personal opinions.

All of that begs the question, why should I believe you?
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
So, in sum, I have listened to your ramblings and condemnations of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, I have heard you make wholly false and easily disproven accusations against the Church, and in conclusion you condemn any traditions of the Church that don't conform to your own personal opinions.

All of that begs the question, why should I believe you?
1. Everything that I believe is of no private interpretation, but comes only from a true reading of God's word. Not from any other source.

2. I can prove all that I have said from the word of God alone comparing scripture with scripture and letting the word of God interpret the word of God adding nothing from myself neither taking anything away. Don't believe what I say because I have said it(I speak not of myself but only speak the word given by God) believe it because it is the truth proven directly from God's word.

3. If you would like to discuss the word of God and compare doctrines and reason from scripture with one another I would be happy to do so brother.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,502
9,010
Florida
✟324,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
1. Everything that I believe is of no private interpretation, but comes only from a true reading of God's word. Not from any other source.

2. I can prove all that I have said from the word of God alone comparing scripture with scripture and letting the word of God interpret the word of God adding nothing from myself neither taking anything away. Don't believe what I say because I have said it(I speak not of myself but only speak the word given by God) believe it because it is the truth proven directly from God's word.

3. If you would like to discuss the word of God and compare doctrines and reason from scripture with one another I would be happy to do so brother.

Why don't we begin with your patently false assertion that the Orthodox Church "added" something to the bible? Since you can't even tell us what scripture is, how are we to believe you when you tell us what scripture means?
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Why don't we begin with your patently false assertion that the Orthodox Church "added" something to the bible? Since you can't even tell us what scripture is, how are we to believe you when you tell us what scripture means?
1. I have already discussed with you what was added to the orthodox bible. If you would like I could list the books for you?

2. I have already stated what scripture is it is the word of God written in the New testament by the Apostles and the word of God written in the Old testament by the prophets and men of God.

3. Can we discuss scripture now brother?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Well, I am at odds with your assertion that anyone uses "the bible created by Catholics". The Orthodox Church certainly does not use a bible created by the Roman Church.
The Latin Vulgate was an early fifth century translation. The Latin Vulgate was accepted as the Bible of the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century.

The Latin Vulgate was not a product of the Catholic Church.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,502
9,010
Florida
✟324,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The Latin Vulgate was an early fifth century translation. The Latin Vulgate was accepted as the Bible of the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century.

The Latin Vulgate was not a product of the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Church does not use the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate is a translation of the original Greek. As native Greek speakers, the Orthodox never had need of a translation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,502
9,010
Florida
✟324,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
1. I have already discussed with you what was added to the orthodox bible. If you would like I could list the books for you?

2. I have already stated what scripture is it is the word of God written in the New testament by the Apostles and the word of God written in the Old testament by the prophets and men of God.

3. Can we discuss scripture now brother?

By all means, give us a list of books the Church added...
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
By all means, give us a list of books the Church added...
These are the books in the Orthodox bible that should not be there as none of them are the true and full word of God. These are the books added by the Orthodox Church.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
This is NOT a callout thread. I am only offering this for discussion.

I had someone earlier in another thread attempt to convince me that the successors to the apostles are heretics foretold by Peter. To support the idea he quoted, inter alia:

2Pe 2:1 - But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

To prove the point that heretics took over the Church, he quoted the bible. Yet those men accused of heresy are the very same men who decided what the bible is.

So apparently using a bible composed by heretics proves they were in fact heretics. This not the first time I've heard this. And it begs the question:

Was the bible created by heretics?
When you read a number of second and third century letters that quote from the apostles letters. What you notice is their understanding of the Christian gospel varies to some extent from author to author.

Much like today for example; if you asked a large collection of Christians from different churches what the Christian gospel was. You would get a variety of explanations, a variety of doctrines, very few would be 100% correct.

I do know that many of the New Testament letters warn about what constitutes correct doctrine. In effect opposing countless heresies that passed through the early churches. Even the early Christian churches were at times bordering on heresy given how Paul addressed them. Consider the church in Galatia, somehow this church had accepted another gospel altogether, in Paul's opinion they had been bewitched, fallen from grace, heretical.

We owe our New Testament to a heretic by the name of Marcion. If Marcion had not attempted to delete every letter by anyone other than Paul, in his Bible. We probably would not have the New Testament, better still we would have difficulty assembling a New Testament.

It was the reaction to Marcion that gave us the details of the apostles letters and much of their content. A second century source for the N.T letters.

So did heretics compose the New Testament, well it probably exists thanks to a heretic.
 
Upvote 0

Tutorman

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jun 20, 2017
1,637
1,349
52
california
✟103,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, in sum, I have listened to your ramblings and condemnations of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, I have heard you make wholly false and easily disproven accusations against the Church, and in conclusion you condemn any traditions of the Church that don't conform to your own personal opinions.

Also this chap patronizes you calling you brother
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The Orthodox Church does not use the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate is a translation of the original Greek. As native Greek speakers, the Orthodox never had need of a translation.
So what source material was the Orthodox church using and when did the Orthodox church begin?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The Orthodox Church does not use the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate is a translation of the original Greek. As native Greek speakers, the Orthodox never had need of a translation.
The Latin Vulgate is also a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, not the Septuagint.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,502
9,010
Florida
✟324,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Also this chap patronizes you calling you brother

I understand your point, but I don't think he's patronizing. He's being honest in that. I tend to look for the best in everyone. Sometimes I have to be hit over the head to know if someone is trying to slight me. :)
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The question itself, I suppose, is the conundrum. The gold standard for determining heresy is the bible. But if the bible was composed by heretics, the bible is heretical. It becomes circular.
I absolutely disagree with that. First, it is illogical; God has often worked through imperfect, sinful, people. Second, there is no reason to think that the product of a search for which writings were inspired, as opposed to those that were specious, cannot have been correctly done by a heretic of some sort, a person who, for example, disagreed with Apostolic Succession.

But even beyond that, there are problems. For one, the decisions made by the councils that codified the Bible books are not considered to be Ecumenical Councils (and therefore infallible) by any of the churches that today insist that they could not have made a mistake.

For another, it would have to have been the case that EVERY participant in the decision-making process was a heretic before the claim could be made that 'heretics could not have produced the Bible.' No one is claiming that.

And for yet another, these councils did not finally and absolutely decide which books belong in the Bible. The deutero-canonical books were included only provisionally, which is why both the Protestant churches and the Roman church made some changes in the listing of them at a later time. If the hand of God was on the selection process, this indecision would not have been part of the result.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,502
9,010
Florida
✟324,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I absolutely disagree with that. First, it is illogical; God has often worked through imperfect, sinful, people. Second, there is no reason to think that the product of a search for which writings were inspired, as opposed to those that were specious, cannot have been correctly done by a heretic of some sort, a person who, for example, disagreed with Apostolic Succession.

But even beyond that, there are problems. For one, the decisions made by the councils that codified the Bible books are not considered to be Ecumenical Councils (and therefore infallible) by any of the churches that today insist that they could not have made a mistake.

For another, it would have to have been the case that EVERY participant in the decision-making process was a heretic before the claim could be made that 'heretics could not have produced the Bible.' No one is claiming that.

And for yet another, these councils did not finally and absolutely decide which books belong in the Bible. The deutero-canonical books were included only provisionally, which is why both the Protestant churches and the Roman church made some changes in the listing of them at a later time. If the hand of God was on the selection process, this indecision would not have been part of the result.

Hold on now. The accusation was made that the synod that determined the Christian canon was comprised of heretics, and that the Christian canon was heretical.
 
Upvote 0