I've been on both sides of the debate. I was a Lutheran who turned Catholic when I got married decades ago. I can't say I agree with all things of the church but then I don't agree with some protestant's beliefs either. You've had good men and corrupt men come and go since Christ's day. Satan hasn't been bound he's still tempting man and man is still making choices to follow God or reject him.
I can tell you from direct experience what happens when the authority of the Bible is undermined. 6:31 I was in the Bible Worship camp for decades, coming from a pretty literalistic point of view. Then a discrepancy that I had seen many times suddenly was too much, and I got an eye full. Wow, the Bible has some flaws. That, along with some life events that slapped me around VERY MUCH, pulled the rug right out from under my feet. The parable of the house built on sinking sand? That was my life. It staggered me and I fell. I'm still recovering, years later. One reason I clicked into this video is that I need to find a way for the Bible to be important again, without taking the throne as it did for so many years.
I can understand where Chesterton is coming from with his viewpoint on people taking the Bible too literally. Where I disagree is the notion of it’s importance. I’d argue that it is critical for Christians to understand in order to have a basis for their faith and to serve as a guideline for what is and is not Christian-like behavior. The churches that haven’t gone off the cliff are the ones who regard the Bible as a key cornerstone of their church and regularly read from it.
I’d like to know the source(s) in which Chesterton wrote his opinion on how we got the Bible…or even the things he said in this video. I’m genuinely curious to know his thoughts on these issues.
Aquinas believes civil disobedience is unacceptable as it prevents the “unity in law and the common good” (p. 1822); he argues that disobedience in itself is unjust.
Maybe pProtestants would pay a little more attention to Catholics if Catholics were a little more truthful and honest about the state of the church in the early 1500s. Or if catholics faced up to the role they played in splitting the whole of the Church - east and west - in 1054.
Maybe Catholics would pay a little more attention to Protestants if Protestants were a little more truthful and honest about the state of their church etc... esp those 'disciples' that first "protested" and rejected Christ (in John 6:60) The past is the past till the end of time
@@se7ve7ns A large part of western Protestantism has been consumed by the End Times delusion of Christian Zionism, a heresy in the truest sense of the word, which - quite frankly - goes against 1900 years of eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and even Reformed doctrine.
Has anyone thought of reading CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity? Believe it or not there is much common ground between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Reformed Churches. Honest pastors preach the sermon on the mount to their flock, and exhort them to love and serve the needy, and in so doing sanctify their minds and hearts.
True but the Church will always have problems. In St.Francis time the church was faulty and he showed the way through his conduct not through rupture, but this approach is hard and takes humility and virtue. Luther approach was more based in hubris and so the fruits were quite different. Jesus warned that a house divided against itself wont stand, so if someone works for the splintering of the church its doing the work of the enemy. Christendom has to be reforged but it will take St.Francis lvl heroes, a generation of saints.
I believe that you don’t need an authority to interpret the bible. The truth is out there. The truth is the true authority. Jesus and the holy spirit is the true authority. Not the catholic church or any ordained priests in fancy clothing. That is idolatry! If the truth is out there, there is no need to have somebody to interpret the truth for us! We all can find the truth if we seek it long enough. If somebody can find it other people can find it too! We need to all look inside ourselves and only then we can find true peace! Only then we can change the world!
yeah but do you really need somebody to find the truth and do the thinking for you. do you really need to rely on an institution? we are all connected and we find that connection within ourselves, with what we all share in common which unites us all. we learn about ourselves in christ this way. when we are in tune with our spirit do we truly find god and find true liberation.
Chesterton defense of Catholicism is where I find his only logical flaw ... well so far. What if protestant are not worshipping the Bible and committing idolatry as GK categorized them, but they are just "venerating" the bible as Catholics venerate saints and sends prayers to them?
@ora et labora Many denominations do not even venerate the bible, which still has healthy aspects, but they instead venerate themselves as the sole true interpreters of scripture.
But the interpretation of the bible WILL BE the subject of private judgement. If God has said something it should be open only to His interpretation. Something catholics tend to ignore.
CJFCarlsson Ensign. Greetings. But that is the whole point! The Bible IS THE subject of private judgement and that of itself becomes the major problem, hence there are well over 40,000 denominations of Christians in the world, with the number increasing year on year. Anyone now can and does make his or her own Church. Pastor Jim Jones anyone? Divinely and infallible scripture requires an infallible interpreter which God provided in the Roman Catholic Church. These days many Protestant Churches often attack the Catholic Church because those leading the Protestant Churches reap or perhaps more appropriately rape massive financial rewards for their own devices, we are talking collectively in the hundreds of millions annually - Osteen, Prince, Joyce Meyer, MacArthur to name only but a few, it is in reality obscene and so they preach in the end not for God, but for themselves. They worship mammon, while preaching God. Preaching then which de facto eventually accedes to becoming opposite to what Christ himself taught. While all the time stands the one true Church of Christ - the Catholic Church, in which its religious take oaths of obedience, chastity and poverty, embarrassing the likes of John MacArthur who attack it unceasingly. Peace. czcams.com/video/-0LKZm2BqZo/video.html
@@allanlindsay8369 Hello, to you too. I meant you will be subject to judgement for your interpretation. So in the end there will be just one denomination.
It is complex to read the Bible: The text can be historical, literal, or symbolic. How can an ordinary man to distinguish among them? Considering that Reading Comprenhension is a very difficult matter (For example Consider taking the TOEFL and obtain 30/30 -even for Native Speakers) it is Impossible to understand 100% of the text -especially if it was written 2000 years ago. For that Reason We need the assistance of the Catholic Church for a correct interpretation. Catholicism are Tradition, Bible & Fathers of Church.
No, I'm just mocking your own penchant for casuistry. Tradition-based reasoning boils down to someone's ipse dixit authority, but the Bible points out that all men are imperfect in their understanding and Rom. 3:4 states the bottomline for Christians: God emits facts while man spews out fictions. That the Bible was written by man would destroy its authority if the men who wrote it weren't inspired by God to write what He wanted written down. Man's suspicions about Biblical authority are really his suspicions about a God whom he "feels" is untruthful. But, if God is Truth, then it's man's "feelings" that are untrustworthy, not God. That's why the Bible's truth criterion is eyewitness testimony (Mt. 18:16). Arguments from silence can't meet the test of eyewitness testimony; they only pass muster if speculative theorizing is infallible (which has no truth criterion to keep it in line). Unfalsifiable theories are unreliable. Does the Bible conform to its own stated truth criterion? Yes, it does. Does man? No, he does not; he ends up being hypocritical, unable to adhere to his own standard(s) for truth. Just look at how man's knowledge has to be continually adjusted (repented of) because he didn't get it right the first time. Num. 23:19 was recorded by Moses but it was Balaam, a Moabite prophet (and a gentile), who spoke the words God put in his mouth. What an enemy of Israel said got recorded as the very word of God. Man doesn't credit his enemies with enough intelligence to tell the truth. So, the Bible refutes man's ipse dixit authority and any notions he has of how it should work. This is why the Bible is the most carefully preserved book in all of human history: it speaks the unvarnished truth about man's pretentiousness. If the Bible is not based on eyewitness testimony, then it contradicts itself. So, that is the avenue of attack Bible critics must take to refute Biblical authority. Have they? Yes!! History is replete with the very examples of this. But, the higher critics ended up shooting themselves in the foot as their theorizing got trampled underfoot by the accumulation of additional facts vindicating the Bible's veracity and falsifying their "infallible" and "authoritative" pronouncements. The best that man can do is to acknowledge that God is truthful and (by comparison) every man a liar.
JMJ "I'm just mocking your own penchant for casuistry.." why thank you.. that's the nicest thing you've said to me.. almost Christian.. if it weren't for the "mocking". I'll stick to thanking n worshiping God over a book any day. But, thank you, I will look into Mr Frend, I am curious n found that it is must in Catholic forums, but I've got GKC n Augustine to fiddle through first God bless, I think we're done :-) Emmanuel
Your conception of God is stunted by the fact that you believe the oral traditions of men over the written word of God. Gen 1:1 isn't something that Moses spoke extemporaneously on the slope of Mt. Sinai; he was reading these words aloud from the first scroll of the Torah that God had told him to write. The oral traditions of men, (whether they get written down eventually or not) is used in contrast to the written word of God in Scripture. Don't you know that the Jewish canon was essentially the only body of knowedge that was written down in ancient Israel? Apart from tax records and other official govt. data, the lore of the Jews was largely oral in nature. The Mishna was the written record of the oral traditions of the Pharisees after the fall of Jerusalem and formed the basis of the Talmud. Why did Jesus condemn these oral traditions? Because they were largely man's theological speculations that led men away from God instead of toward Him. Your god's too small if he is defined and described for you by the oral traditions of men. Today, we don't realize that a science textbook is nothing more than the oral traditions of men written down. Wait 20 years and its contents will change because men can get their theories right the first time. God knew that His written word stands as a check against man's meandering (oral) traditions which wander hither and yon over times to who knows where.
JMJ Unfortunately it is YOUR conception of God that is stunted by the fact that you believe the written extraditions of recent men over The One True Word. (not on the tablets of stone you seem to quest for, ...) All your accusations are completely appropriate for the 'moderns'. What you accuse 'these or those men' of doing YOU are doing right here and now... As I said the last time... (I'm not interested in your 'quarreling') God bless, I think we're done :-) Emmanuel
Christianity existed before the Bible was written, the Bible was compiled from stories told originally as oral tradition. With out oral Tradition there would be no Bible. The ten commandments were created by God, But even those who created the Bible never claimed that God himself wrote it, but that he inspired those that did, but his perfect inspiration was translated through imperfect human minds. No man could perfectly represent the word of God unless that man were God, and the only man who claimed to be God (and had any proper argument to do so) had no no direct hand in its creation. The Bible is a gift from God, it is not God himself.
Comparing the King James Version of the Bible to the Book of Mormon betrays the Roman Catholic Church's contempt for the primary Protestant Bible, which, by the way contains the Jewish canon (Old Testament) without any of the apocryphal books which Catholics added to it. The Christian New Testament is the same for all three branches of Christendom -- Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant -- but only the Protestants got it right: The Judeo-Christian canon (66 books) are the authoritative Word of God and no council of clergy should add to Scripture their man-made doctrines and traditions as Roman Catholicism has. Man's modern theories as to which books of the Bible are authentic are worthless because they are not based on eyewitness testimony but on the presumptions of a lot of Johnny-come-lately's with some sort of humanist axe to grind, and, we know that the humanists based their "enlightenment" deistic beliefs on the junk science of their day -- abiogenesis was just one of the planks in their ideological platform (apparently they ignored the work of the Italian scientist Frederico Redi and his experiment with flies and rotting meat.) So, the back-handed slur of the King-James-Only crowd is really more that that; it impugns all of the other Protestant Bible versions as well as any Bible-based form of Christianity, which Roman Catholicism most certainly is not. The Christianity, what there of it that's left, in Catholicism is mostly dead; for, most Catholics believe in the deity of their Pope and not the deity of Jesus Christ -- He's way down on the list of those "saints" that most Catholics are taught to pray to for the forgiveness of sins.
Comparing.. contempt?? "..The Christian New Testament is the same for all three branches of Christendom -- Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant -- but only the Protestants got it right: The Judeo-Christian canon (66 books).." which some Protestants removed, later restored (like James) "... are the authoritative Word of God and no council of clergy should add to Scripture their man-made doctrines and traditions as Roman Catholicism has" if that were true, then that means you suggest The Bible as whole is lie! If you don't .. then I suggest not just re-read what you wrote, but read the Catechism of Catholic Church... you WILL find, that the only One who can 'forgive' sins is Christ Himself, any Christian that thinks otherwise is uninformed (ignorant} of the Truth
se7ve7ns It is obvious that you do not know the history of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD (contrary to their revisonist history) as Christianity hadn't yet experienced its first real schism. What was of major concern was the inroads that gnosticism was making in the Christian churchs. The bishops present were concerned about the gnostics who were trying to blend Christianity with their paganism into an eclectic religion. The NT documents were established as canonical by the Christian laity long before the Council of Nicea merely put its good housekeeping seal of approval upon what had already been decided by rank and file Christians. It is a gnostic teaching that Scripture can only be understood by an elite group of scholars (usually self-appointed) because just reading them, as one would read any normal book, reveals that Scripture was not intended to be cryptic. It reads like a basic outline of historical events. People who try to say that these events are legends, fables, allegories, and the like, are slapping their own interpretation on the plain meaning of the text. That's eisegesis (inserting meaning into), not exegesis (extracting meaning from) Scripture. The common theme of man's need for redemption is what brings all of these books together into a coherent unity. One doesn't have to be a theologian of any denominational stripe to figure that out; one just has to READ the Bible and keep an open mind while reading it. But Catholics, as a rule, don't read their Bibles (just ask the average Catholic and you'd find that out) especially now that this video on GK Chesterton seems to equate Bible reading by the laity with Bibliolatry. In short, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has what one would call a "strong union" wrestling hold on Christianity (as they see it) and they aim to keep it; hence, their need to denigrate Bible-readers as idolators.
ClemJCES oh, btw, the most original Protestant denominations (eg Anglican, Lutheran etc) Creed still use "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic ..."
ClemJCES Nonsense, the word Catholic was in use as early as 110 and possibly much earlier the way it is written in Ignatius writings. Catholics who go to church get Scripture every week. A faithful church going Catholic gets the whole of the Bible every 3 years of Sunday service. Yes, reciting Chapter and verse is the only standard for "knowing" the bible, but as GK points out, the meaning is lost on the average protestant, not so on the average catholic
ClemJCES "...Roman Catholic Church's contempt for the primary Protestant Bible..." ???? isnt that meant to be the other way around .. isn't that why the Protestant Bible (faith) is called "Protestant" because of the 'contempt' by 'men' to accommodate their 'wants' ... The Catholic Church has NO want or need of "contempt" for any Holy Scripture, even corrupted ones (all are trying to 'Come Home' to God) ".. but only the Protestants got it right.." yeah... when the put back James after removing it ... I have to say that some of our shining new evangelists(like Dale, the producer/ presenter of this GKC program) have dumped 'protesting' and are converts to the Catholic Church!
The satire introduction is tame compared to what goes on today.
The trouble with the introductory parody is that it is way to close to the reality of academic propaganda that has passed for education for decades.
"way to close" what?
what is closing, and why do we need a way to do it?
You are the only bible some leoole will ever read, that good teaching i goten
"they're lazy" 😂 it's true for me, but I'm working on it.
I've been on both sides of the debate. I was a Lutheran who turned Catholic when I got married decades ago. I can't say I agree with all things of the church but then I don't agree with some protestant's beliefs either. You've had good men and corrupt men come and go since Christ's day. Satan hasn't been bound he's still tempting man and man is still making choices to follow God or reject him.
I can tell you from direct experience what happens when the authority of the Bible is undermined. 6:31 I was in the Bible Worship camp for decades, coming from a pretty literalistic point of view. Then a discrepancy that I had seen many times suddenly was too much, and I got an eye full. Wow, the Bible has some flaws. That, along with some life events that slapped me around VERY MUCH, pulled the rug right out from under my feet. The parable of the house built on sinking sand? That was my life. It staggered me and I fell. I'm still recovering, years later. One reason I clicked into this video is that I need to find a way for the Bible to be important again, without taking the throne as it did for so many years.
It's the Catholic Church, that's how you make the bible important without worshipping it.
I can understand where Chesterton is coming from with his viewpoint on people taking the Bible too literally. Where I disagree is the notion of it’s importance. I’d argue that it is critical for Christians to understand in order to have a basis for their faith and to serve as a guideline for what is and is not Christian-like behavior.
The churches that haven’t gone off the cliff are the ones who regard the Bible as a key cornerstone of their church and regularly read from it.
I’d like to know the source(s) in which Chesterton wrote his opinion on how we got the Bible…or even the things he said in this video. I’m genuinely curious to know his thoughts on these issues.
the source(s) is in the Catholic Church
I believe he meant that he wishes to know from which book by Chesterton he expresses the opinions we see in the video
9:59 is he saying it's rational or irrational?
Aquinas believes civil disobedience is unacceptable as it prevents the “unity in law and the common good” (p. 1822); he argues that disobedience in itself is unjust.
@@se7ve7ns Does the Catholic church officially say that, like even under Nazi Germany you can't rebel against the government?
Maybe pProtestants would pay a little more attention to Catholics if Catholics were a little more truthful and honest about the state of the church in the early 1500s. Or if catholics faced up to the role they played in splitting the whole of the Church - east and west - in 1054.
Maybe Catholics would pay a little more attention to Protestants if Protestants were a little more truthful and honest about the state of their church etc...
esp those 'disciples' that first "protested" and rejected Christ (in John 6:60)
The past is the past till the end of time
@@se7ve7ns A large part of western Protestantism has been consumed by the End Times delusion of Christian Zionism, a heresy in the truest sense of the word, which - quite frankly - goes against 1900 years of eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and even Reformed doctrine.
Has anyone thought of reading CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity? Believe it or not there is much common ground between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Reformed Churches. Honest pastors preach the sermon on the mount to their flock, and exhort them to love and serve the needy, and in so doing sanctify their minds and hearts.
True but the Church will always have problems. In St.Francis time the church was faulty and he showed the way through his conduct not through rupture, but this approach is hard and takes humility and virtue. Luther approach was more based in hubris and so the fruits were quite different. Jesus warned that a house divided against itself wont stand, so if someone works for the splintering of the church its doing the work of the enemy. Christendom has to be reforged but it will take St.Francis lvl heroes, a generation of saints.
I believe that you don’t need an authority to interpret the bible. The truth is out there. The truth is the true authority. Jesus and the holy spirit is the true authority. Not the catholic church or any ordained priests in fancy clothing. That is idolatry! If the truth is out there, there is no need to have somebody to interpret the truth for us! We all can find the truth if we seek it long enough. If somebody can find it other people can find it too! We need to all look inside ourselves and only then we can find true peace! Only then we can change the world!
Really?,
only me, myself n I?
that's all 'you' need to find the Truth?
sounds like someone 'ordained'
themselves to 'idolatry' of the self
yeah but do you really need somebody to find the truth and do the thinking for you. do you really need to rely on an institution? we are all connected and we find that connection within ourselves, with what we all share in common which unites us all. we learn about ourselves in christ this way. when we are in tune with our spirit do we truly find god and find true liberation.
@@henrypaul8823
It sounds like you are doubting yourself, understandable.
Chesterton defense of Catholicism is where I find his only logical flaw ... well so far. What if protestant are not worshipping the Bible and committing idolatry as GK categorized them, but they are just "venerating" the bible as Catholics venerate saints and sends prayers to them?
then a sense of humour would come in handy ,,,,
"Veneration" (regarding with great respect) of the Bible is due and just fine
@ora et labora Many denominations do not even venerate the bible, which still has healthy aspects, but they instead venerate themselves as the sole true interpreters of scripture.
But the interpretation of the bible WILL BE the subject of private judgement. If God has said something it should be open only to His interpretation. Something catholics tend to ignore.
CJFCarlsson Ensign. Greetings. But that is the whole point! The Bible IS THE subject of private judgement and that of itself becomes the major problem, hence there are well over 40,000 denominations of Christians in the world, with the number increasing year on year. Anyone now can and does make his or her own Church. Pastor Jim Jones anyone? Divinely and infallible scripture requires an infallible interpreter which God provided in the Roman Catholic Church. These days many Protestant Churches often attack the Catholic Church because those leading the Protestant Churches reap or perhaps more appropriately rape massive financial rewards for their own devices, we are talking collectively in the hundreds of millions annually - Osteen, Prince, Joyce Meyer, MacArthur to name only but a few, it is in reality obscene and so they preach in the end not for God, but for themselves. They worship mammon, while preaching God.
Preaching then which de facto eventually accedes to becoming opposite to what Christ himself taught. While all the time stands the one true Church of Christ - the Catholic Church, in which its religious take oaths of obedience, chastity and poverty, embarrassing the likes of John MacArthur who attack it unceasingly. Peace.
czcams.com/video/-0LKZm2BqZo/video.html
@@allanlindsay8369 Hello, to you too. I meant you will be subject to judgement for your interpretation. So in the end there will be just one denomination.
@@CJFCarlsson ditto ... and .... ditto
It is complex to read the Bible: The text can be historical, literal, or symbolic. How can an ordinary man to distinguish among them? Considering that Reading Comprenhension is a very difficult matter (For example Consider taking the TOEFL and obtain 30/30 -even for Native Speakers) it is Impossible to understand 100% of the text -especially if it was written 2000 years ago. For that Reason We need the assistance of the Catholic Church for a correct interpretation. Catholicism are Tradition, Bible & Fathers of Church.
No, I'm just mocking your own penchant for casuistry. Tradition-based reasoning boils down to someone's ipse dixit authority, but the Bible points out that all men are imperfect in their understanding and Rom. 3:4 states the bottomline for Christians: God emits facts while man spews out fictions. That the Bible was written by man would destroy its authority if the men who wrote it weren't inspired by God to write what He wanted written down. Man's suspicions about Biblical authority are really his suspicions about a God whom he "feels" is untruthful. But, if God is Truth, then it's man's "feelings" that are untrustworthy, not God. That's why the Bible's truth criterion is eyewitness testimony (Mt. 18:16). Arguments from silence can't meet
the test of eyewitness testimony; they only pass muster if speculative theorizing is infallible (which has no truth criterion to keep it in line). Unfalsifiable theories are unreliable. Does the Bible conform to its own stated truth criterion? Yes, it does. Does man? No, he does not; he ends up being hypocritical, unable to adhere to his own standard(s) for truth. Just look at how man's knowledge has to be continually adjusted (repented of) because he didn't get it right the first time. Num. 23:19 was recorded by Moses but it was Balaam, a Moabite prophet (and a gentile), who spoke the words God put in his mouth. What an enemy of Israel said got recorded as the very word of God. Man doesn't credit his enemies with enough intelligence to tell the truth. So, the Bible refutes man's ipse dixit authority and any notions he has of how it should work. This is why the Bible is the most carefully preserved book in all of human history: it speaks the unvarnished truth about man's pretentiousness.
If the Bible is not based on eyewitness testimony, then it contradicts itself. So, that is the avenue of attack Bible critics must take to refute Biblical authority. Have they? Yes!! History is replete with the very examples of this. But, the higher critics ended up shooting themselves in the foot as their theorizing got trampled underfoot by the accumulation of additional facts vindicating the Bible's veracity and falsifying their "infallible" and "authoritative" pronouncements. The best that man can do is to acknowledge that God is truthful and (by comparison) every man a liar.
JMJ
"I'm just mocking your own penchant for casuistry.." why thank you.. that's the nicest thing you've said to me.. almost Christian.. if it weren't for the "mocking".
I'll stick to thanking n worshiping God over a book any day.
But, thank you, I will look into Mr Frend, I am curious n found that it is must in Catholic forums, but I've got GKC n Augustine to fiddle through first
God bless, I think we're done :-)
Emmanuel
Your conception of God is stunted by the fact that you believe the oral traditions of men over the written word of God. Gen 1:1 isn't something that Moses spoke extemporaneously on the slope of Mt. Sinai; he was reading these words aloud from the first scroll of the Torah that God had told him to write. The oral traditions of men, (whether they get written down eventually or not) is used in contrast to the written word of God in Scripture. Don't you know that the Jewish canon was essentially the only body of knowedge that was written down in ancient Israel? Apart from tax records and other official govt. data, the lore of the Jews was largely oral in nature.
The Mishna was the written record of the oral traditions of the Pharisees after the fall of Jerusalem and formed the basis of the Talmud. Why did Jesus condemn these oral traditions? Because they were largely man's theological speculations that led men away from God instead of toward Him. Your god's too small if he is defined and described for you by the oral traditions of men. Today, we don't realize that a science textbook is nothing more than the oral traditions of men written down. Wait 20 years and its contents will change because men can get their theories right the first time. God knew that His written word stands as a check against man's meandering (oral) traditions which wander hither and yon over times to who knows where.
JMJ
Unfortunately it is YOUR conception of God that is stunted by the fact that you believe the written extraditions of recent men over The One True Word.
(not on the tablets of stone you seem to quest for, ...)
All your accusations are completely appropriate for the 'moderns'. What you accuse 'these or those men' of doing YOU are doing right here and now...
As I said the last time... (I'm not interested in your 'quarreling')
God bless, I think we're done :-)
Emmanuel
Christianity existed before the Bible was written, the Bible was compiled from stories told originally as oral tradition. With out oral Tradition there would be no Bible. The ten commandments were created by God, But even those who created the Bible never claimed that God himself wrote it, but that he inspired those that did, but his perfect inspiration was translated through imperfect human minds. No man could perfectly represent the word of God unless that man were God, and the only man who claimed to be God (and had any proper argument to do so) had no no direct hand in its creation.
The Bible is a gift from God, it is not God himself.
Doesn’t canon derive from tradition ?
If it's written who is to interpret it?😆
Comparing the King James Version of the Bible to the Book of Mormon betrays the Roman Catholic Church's contempt for the primary Protestant Bible, which, by the way contains the Jewish canon (Old Testament) without any of the apocryphal books which Catholics added to it. The Christian New Testament is the same for all three branches of Christendom -- Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant -- but only the Protestants got it right: The Judeo-Christian canon (66 books) are the authoritative Word of God and no council of clergy should add to Scripture their man-made doctrines and traditions as Roman Catholicism has. Man's modern theories as to which books of the Bible are authentic are worthless because they are not based on eyewitness testimony but on the presumptions of a lot of Johnny-come-lately's with some sort of humanist axe to grind, and, we know that the humanists based their "enlightenment" deistic beliefs on the junk science of their day -- abiogenesis was just one of the planks in their ideological platform (apparently they ignored the work of the Italian scientist Frederico Redi and his experiment with flies and rotting meat.)
So, the back-handed slur of the King-James-Only crowd is really more that that; it impugns all of the other Protestant Bible versions as well as any Bible-based form of Christianity, which Roman Catholicism most certainly is not. The Christianity, what there of it that's left, in Catholicism is mostly dead; for, most Catholics believe in the deity of their Pope and not the deity of Jesus Christ -- He's way down on the list of those "saints" that most Catholics are taught to pray to for the forgiveness of sins.
Comparing.. contempt?? "..The Christian New Testament is the same for all three branches of Christendom -- Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant -- but only the Protestants got it right: The Judeo-Christian canon (66 books).." which some Protestants removed, later restored (like James)
"... are the authoritative Word of God and no council of clergy should add to Scripture their man-made doctrines and traditions as Roman Catholicism has"
if that were true, then that means you suggest The Bible as whole is lie!
If you don't .. then I suggest not just re-read what you wrote, but read the Catechism of Catholic Church... you WILL find, that the only One who can 'forgive' sins is Christ Himself, any Christian that thinks otherwise is uninformed (ignorant} of the Truth
se7ve7ns
It is obvious that you do not know the history of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD (contrary to their revisonist history) as Christianity hadn't yet experienced its first real schism.
What was of major concern was the inroads that gnosticism was making in the Christian churchs. The bishops present were concerned about the gnostics who were trying to blend Christianity with their paganism into an eclectic religion. The NT documents were established as canonical by the Christian laity long before the Council of Nicea merely put its good housekeeping seal of approval upon what had already been decided by rank and file Christians. It is a gnostic teaching that Scripture can only be understood by an elite group of scholars (usually self-appointed) because just reading them, as one would read any normal book, reveals that Scripture was not intended to be cryptic. It reads like a basic outline of historical events. People who try to say that these events are legends, fables, allegories, and the like, are slapping their own interpretation on the plain meaning of the text. That's eisegesis (inserting meaning into), not exegesis (extracting meaning from) Scripture. The common theme of man's need for redemption is what brings all of these books together into a coherent unity. One doesn't have to be a theologian of any denominational stripe to figure that out; one just has to READ the Bible and keep an open mind while reading it. But Catholics, as a rule, don't read their Bibles (just ask the average Catholic and you'd find that out) especially now that this video on GK Chesterton seems to equate Bible reading by the laity with Bibliolatry. In short, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has what one would call a "strong union" wrestling hold on Christianity (as they see it) and they aim to keep it; hence, their need to denigrate Bible-readers as idolators.
ClemJCES oh, btw, the most original Protestant denominations (eg Anglican, Lutheran etc) Creed still use "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic ..."
ClemJCES Nonsense, the word Catholic was in use as early as 110 and possibly much earlier the way it is written in Ignatius writings.
Catholics who go to church get Scripture every week. A faithful church going Catholic gets the whole of the Bible every 3 years of Sunday service. Yes, reciting Chapter and verse is the only standard for "knowing" the bible, but as GK points out, the meaning is lost on the average protestant, not so on the average catholic
ClemJCES "...Roman Catholic Church's contempt for the primary Protestant Bible..." ???? isnt that meant to be the other way around .. isn't that why the Protestant Bible (faith) is called "Protestant" because of the 'contempt' by 'men' to accommodate their 'wants' ... The Catholic Church has NO want or need of "contempt" for any Holy Scripture, even corrupted ones (all are trying to 'Come Home' to God)
".. but only the Protestants got it right.." yeah... when the put back James after removing it ...
I have to say that some of our shining new evangelists(like Dale, the producer/ presenter of this GKC program) have dumped 'protesting' and are converts to the Catholic Church!