Bible way to Heaven

[Nay_Sayer]

Sweetie, what did and didn't make it into the bible was decided by simple vote of majority during the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century AD....16 out of the 20 gospels didn't have the luck. Care to explain what basis they used to determine which of the many many writings were truly the word of god....even if they referenced ones that weren't?

Don't bother, I can tell you: they kept what was popular and cut the rest. It's laughable really, that anyone would take such a misstitched Frankenstein's monster of a book seriously.

Again,another Fool! the Vatican put together the bible.

---

elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospel and the general epistles such as James, 1 & 2 Peter) as provisional documents by St. Paul to address to particular audiences for particular purposes.
Most of the epistles were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g. 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.”
The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.
How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books have been left out of the canon? Again who decided?
The Catholic Church did. A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the Book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?
The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). All christians wether Catholic or Protestant, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical and no others.
Have you ever even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries older that the originals. Like it or not, you are trusting in the Catholic Church for that in fact those copies are accurate as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures.
If you happen to have the writings of the early Church Leaders, this would be a good time to read from them. The writings are, at least in the case of the Apostolic Fathers, rather short, and you can demonstrate that these writings seem every bit as orthodox and inspiring (not to confuse the term with “inspiration”) as the New Testament writings themselves. Then read aloud the book of Philemon or 3 John or some other short canonical book.
What’s in these books that so obviously makes them inspired? If you didn’t know that Philemon was written by Paul or that 3 John was written by John, would you give either a second reading? Would you automatically assume they belong in the Bible as canonical Scripture? It’s not disrespectful to say they don’t have much doctrinal content in them–and that’s not surprising, since they’re too short to contain substantial doctrinal discussions. One can imagine the Christian Church surviving well enough without either.
Again neither book claims inspiration for itself. If there is, as a matter of fact, more solid Christian meat in these other, non-canonical writings (that is–if they contain more Christian truths and no religious errors)– then how can you say it’s obvious which books are inspired and which aren’t?”
The fact is, the only reason we have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine (an early church leader) put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.’ Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.
The reason people accept these books is that they were in the Bible someone gave them when they first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of “Tradition”, because Tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on Tradition rather than on Scripture itself!
The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Most can not give satisfactory answer and aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture alone or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.
After you answer that question–and there’s really only one answer that can be given–you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Protestants even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’
We Agree on the Essentials, but we disagree on secondary matters.
Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such the Eucharist, or baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the justifying process?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible. All claim to be ‘Bible only Christians,’ but which Protestant Church is right?”
If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God–if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth–why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many bibles?
The Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles which were collect and burned by the Catholic Church in times past, were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the Holy Word of God. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ’s Gospel. King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry’s advisers: “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects.” In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those “Bibles” precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were indeed replaced by accurate editions. No Christian scholar today will dispute that the Wycliff and Tyndale translations that the Catholic church is accused of collecting up and burning, were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics alike.

BIBLE ALONE OR BIBLE PLUS TRADITION
The Catholic Church bases her teaching upon one source: The word of God. This divine revelation is transmitted in two ways: through Scripture and apostolic tradition. Many assume that only the writings of the apostles are the word of God. However, their oral transmission of the faith is also considered the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).
1 Cor 11:2 – hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 – hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 – shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 – not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 – heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20:35 – Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2 Tim 1:13 – follow my sound words; guard the truth
2 Tim 2:2 – what you heard entrust to faithful men
2 Pet 1:20 – no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1 Pet 1:25 – God’s eternal word=word preached to you
Rom 10:17 – faith comes from what is heard
1 Cor 15:1-2 – being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 – go to whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 – chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
St. Athanasius (360 AD): “let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian …. “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28. Origen (c. 230 AD) “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2.

---

Did a very poor job of it too.