Roman Catholic Epistemology Is Fallacious

[Atwood]

A typical RCC apologetic appears to be the argument that the only reason to accept the Bible as God's Word is that the RCC says the Bible is God's Word; for the RCC determined the canon.

Thus there is this fallacy of circular reasoning if the papist then tries to prove that the RCC is true citing the Bible.

A is so because of B.
B is so because of A.
(circular reasoning).

Thus it is a fallacy to say
1) The Bible is true becs the RCC says so.
2) The RCC is true because the Bible says so.

Now if you papists argue that the Bible is only true because the RCC says so,
then you have to prove that the RCC is true & gives God's Word from some source other than the Bible.

So what is the proof that it is true?

 

[Jackson123]

RCC and Bible teach 2 different doctrine.

If RCC say the bible is true then she admit that she is wrong.

RCC under wraps say the bible is wrong.

Bible said Jesus pay all of our sin.

Catholic said wrong, we have to pay some of our sin in purgatory.

Bible said faith alone is the requirement of salvation, Catholic say wrong, work is also requirement.

Bible said Jesus is the foundation of the Church. Catholic say wrong, Peter is the foundation.

 

[royalscot]

was the disciple peter ever pope.

was paul and peter every in rome.

is the roman tax system, they used in jesus time, still used in modern day countries today.

or is history of the bible there for all walks or sects to start religion ,or a walk with god.

because of the bible going to print , has brought it own trouble with humans , how did a gentile get to read the old testament, to form a better idea of gods , and what god did through the bible.

shooting your selfs in the foot.

 

[kepha]

A typical RCC apologetic appears to be the argument that the only reason to accept the Bible as God's Word is that the RCC says the Bible is God's Word; for the RCC determined the canon.

That is a half truth. It's not so simple. To say the Bible is God's only word because the Bible says so is circular reasoning. For one, it's not in the Bible. For another, "Word of God", wherever it is found in the Bible, does not refer to the written word alone. Thirdly, you cannot attack the RCC without attacking the Bible. If it were not for Sacred Tradition, YOU WOULD HAVE NO BIBLE! Try reading some Protestant scholars on the matter before your headless chicken comments.

Thus there is this fallacy of circular reasoning if the papist then tries to prove that the RCC is true citing the Bible..

A is so because of B.
B is so because of A.
(circular reasoning).

Thus it is a fallacy to say
1) The Bible is true becs the RCC says so.
2) The RCC is true because the Bible says so.

Did you dream this up yourself or did you find it on some "Bible-Christian" hate site?

Now if you papists argue that the Bible is only true because the RCC says so,
then you have to prove that the RCC is true & gives God's Word from some source other than the Bible.

Then provide a verse that lists what books belong in the Bible, without going outside the Bible. The RCC doesn't say it's true because she says so, it's true because it is true in and of itself. Truth stands on its own merits or it's not truth. But heretics can still misinterpret it, which they did. There weren't any sola scripturists around to correct them. If there was no "Bible" as we know it for over 3 centuries, how could a false church produce an infallible book? Oh, yea...the Holy Spirit guided the Church Fathers at the councils that discerned inspired books in between their killing sprees.(duh)

So what is the proof that it is true?

The RCC never claimed to MAKE books of the Bible inspired, they are what they are. I know its hard for you to grasp, but try.

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."- Martin Luther

Do you disagree with Martin Luther, author of sola scriptura?

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...riptures-cannot-alone-scripture-clear-17.html
post #322
Click on that link, scroll to post #322. It explains the role of Tradition in proving inspiration.

 

[Atwood]

was the disciple peter ever pope.

was paul and peter every in rome.

Good morning Royal,

Yes, Paul was in Rome, under house arrest (end of Acts).
The Bible never says that Peter was in Rome. He refers to "Babylon," which some may say is Rome without proof. Aside from the Bible, I know of no contemporary document that puts Peter in Rome. If anyone has something written before AD 200 that says Peter went to Rome, feel free to post it. But if Peter was in Rome, it proves nothing. Many people have been in Rome.

And Rome is not any center of ecclesiastical authority in the Bible.

 

[Atwood]

Kepha, why do you dance around the issue & obfuscate?
I claim that if a Romanist argues:
A proves B, &
B proves A;
That is circular reasoning, fallacy.
Now what is your proof that the RCC speaks God's Word?

You obfuscate on the Bible.
I did not read here that one should believe the Bible is God's word because the Bible says so; that is a red herring & straw man.

If it were not for Sacred Tradition, YOU WOULD HAVE NO BIBLE! Try reading some Protestant scholars on the matter before your headless chicken comments.

Kepha, I hold 5 graduate degrees. I have read and own a huge number of commentaries and Bible studies books. I have consulted scholarly works in English, French, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, & Italian (not that I am fluent in all those languages). I have studied at Roman Catholic libraries.

Did you dream this up yourself or did you find it on some "Bible-Christian" hate site?

I didn't dream up logic. I have observed what appears to me to be a fallacious argument by papists of this form: The Bible is only God's Word because the RCC says so, but the RCC is true becs the Bible says so. No, I didn't borrow the argument.

The RCC doesn't say it's true because she says so, it's true because it is true in and of itself. Truth stands on its own merits or it's not truth.

To say that A is true because A is true, is another circular argument. As proof it is fallacious.

But heretics can still misinterpret it, which they did. There weren't any sola scripturists around to correct them. If there was no "Bible" as we know it for over 3 centuries, how could a false church produce an infallible book? Oh, yea...the Holy Spirit guided the Church Fathers at the councils that discerned inspired books in between their killing sprees.(duh)

Now you are trying to deflect and change the subject. I intend to start another thread on that, but not get deflected here. You seem to be saying that the Bible is true because the RCC says it is true. Now once you do this, you may not argue from the Bible to support the RCC, as that is circular reasoning.

So what good does it do you to come here & say
"I am right because I am right?"
Do you think anyone will believe you on that basis?

A pederast organization says it gives God's Word & must be believed because Kepha says so.
What Luther says is irrelevant. Do you claim he was a prophet of God?

You claim that tradition proves inspiration of the Bible.
If so, what is your proof that tradition is true?
You may not argue:
Tradition is true because the Bible says so. And
The Bible is true because Tradition says so.

You have no proof whatsoever that the RCC is true and gives God's Word.
Not a shred of evidence.
We will not accept it because you say so.
We will not accept that the RCC is true becs the RCC says so.

We will not be gullible & credulous.

 

[Atwood]

the Bible. The RCC doesn't say it's true because she says so, it's true because it is true in and of itself.

Can you please clarify your statement? The antecedent of it's is formally the RCC & she.

As you wrote the statement it says:

The RCC doesn't say that the RCC is true because she says so, the RCC is true because the RCC is true in and of itself.

Is this what you meant?

The RCC doesn't say that the Bible is true because she says so, the Bible is true because the Bible is true in and of itself.


What is your antecedent of it's?

And have you clarified your position?
Is your starting point the Bible or the RCC?
Start with Bible & prove from Bible, or is it
Start with RCC & prove from RCC.

Are you saying:
X assertion.
Bible says it.
QED

Or are you saying:
X assertion,
RCC says it.
QED

???

As I point out, it is illogical circular reasoning to say
RCC, therefore Bible &
Bible, therefore RCC.

 

[Jackson123]

Good morning Royal,

Yes, Paul was in Rome, under house arrest (end of Acts).
The Bible never says that Peter was in Rome. He refers to "Babylon," which some may say is Rome without proof. Aside from the Bible, I know of no contemporary document that puts Peter in Rome. If anyone has something written before AD 200 that says Peter went to Rome, feel free to post it. But if Peter was in Rome, it proves nothing. Many people have been in Rome.

And Rome is not any center of ecclesiastical authority in the Bible.

To my knowledge, Peter die in 67 AD. According to well known Jewish historian that lived in the first century, Josephus

Babylon is code for Rome after AD 70. Peter was death when Babylon as a code for Rome. It make impossible that babylon in Peter Letter refer to Rome.

Babylon is a code for Rome because these 2 great nation have some similarity. Both destroy the temple, and both destroy Jerusalem.

 

[kennethcadwell]

To my knowledge, Peter die in 67 AD. According to well known Jewish historian that lived in the first century, Josephus

Babylon is code for Rome after AD 70. Peter was death when Babylon as a code for Rome. It make impossible that babylon in Peter Letter refer to Rome.

Babylon is a code for Rome because these 2 great nation have some similarity. Both destroy the temple, and both destroy Jerusalem.

It is funny how people want to take and say Babylon and Rome are the same places.
People need to go and look at maps of history, and go back in history studies and see that Rome and Babylon are two different places. Not the same place.

 

[Jackson123]

It is funny how people want to take and say Babylon and Rome are the same places.
People need to go and look at maps of history, and go back in history studies and see that Rome and Babylon are two different places. Not the same place.

Yup. catholic just find a reason to said that Peter ever in Rome. It is manipulation brother. We tray to love them by exposing it. Unfortunately some people accused us as being hatred.
And people who do not care and not trying to remind them considered as a loving and tolerant.

In fact people who do not remind them mean hate and don't care they salvation.

 

[kennethcadwell]

 

[kepha]

Kepha, why do you dance around the issue & obfuscate?
I claim that if a Romanist argues:
A proves B, &
B proves A;
That is circular reasoning, fallacy.
Now what is your proof that the RCC speaks God's Word?

The RCC did not declare inspiration of God's Written Word, because they were already inspired. What part of that don't you understand? But somebody had to prove inspiration, not just assume it. What the Church used to prove inspiration is what you refuse to accept.

You obfuscate on the Bible.
I did not read here that one should believe the Bible is God's word because the Bible says so; that is a red herring & straw man.

Well, I'm glad we agree with that.

Kepha, I hold 5 graduate degrees. I have read and own a huge number of commentaries and Bible studies books. I have consulted scholarly works in English, French, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, & Italian (not that I am fluent in all those languages). I have studied at Roman Catholic libraries.

You should take your degrees back and demand a refund.

I didn't dream up logic. I have observed what appears to me to be a fallacious argument by papists of this form: The Bible is only God's Word because the RCC says so, but the RCC is true becs the Bible says so. No, I didn't borrow the argument.

1)On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it ishistory. 2) From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3) And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible isinspired.
4) This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible isinspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible ishistorically reliable),
5) and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no waybased on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

To say that A is true because A is true, is another circular argument. As proof it is fallacious.

The Bible did not fall out of the sky, it was proven inspired, compiled, canonized, preserved and proclaimed by the Catholic Church. This historical fact must infuriate you.

Now you are trying to deflect and change the subject. I intend to start another thread on that, but not get deflected here. You seem to be saying that the Bible is true because the RCC says it is true. Now once you do this, you may not argue from the Bible to support the RCC, as that is circular reasoning.

The RCC says the bible is true, the same as every Christian church on the planet says its true, but just saying the Bible is true is not the process by which the books of the Bible were made canon (a universal rule). The books were measured up against Tradition, which you take as an obscenity. No Tradition, no Bible. I pointed this out using Protestant scholars quotes in that link you didn't read.

So what good does it do you to come here & say
"I am right because I am right?"
Do you think anyone will believe you on that basis?

That's your insanity, not mine.

A pederast organization says it gives God's Word & must be believed because Kepha says so

.
No, because "the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Not even you can prevail. What year did Jesus' words to Peter expire? Are you one of those history clowns that ignore truckloads of Catholic doctrine that predate Constantine, but fall for the revisionist theory that he started the RCC??? If you fall for that you will fall for anything.
"He who hears you, hears Me." Was Jesus talking to every individual believer or to the Apostles and their successors? Check the context.

What Luther says is irrelevant. Do you claim he was a prophet of God?

Luther was a heretic and mentally ill. I try to find common ground with ignorant anti-Catholic bigots using quotes from someone they would accept. I also quote Protestant scholars but I get dismissed because I am a Catholic. Hate is blinding.

You claim that tradition proves inspiration of the Bible.
If so, what is your proof that tradition is true?

THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
You may not argue:
Tradition is true because the Bible says so. And
The Bible is true because Tradition says so.[/QUOTE] Ok. I won't. THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

You have no proof whatsoever that the RCC is true and gives God's Word.
Not a shred of evidence.

OK. You win. The Bible fell from the sky in 33 A.D. bound in black leather in the King James Version.

We will not accept it because you say so.
We will not accept that the RCC is true becs the RCC says so.
We will not be gullible & credulous.

Who's "we"? This forum has no statements or confessions of faith. But the anti-Catholic bigotry is on the top of the sticky list. Do you mean the Seventh Day Adventist as "we"? Or the numerous fundie cults that started up 10 years ago as "we"? Is spreading lies and hatred against Catholicism your religion? Go feed the hungry or visit the sick and tell me about it. then I'll take your psychotic ranting a little more seriously.

 

[Atwood]

The RCC did not declare inspiration of God's Written Word, because they were already inspired. What part of that don't you understand? But somebody had to prove inspiration, not just assume it.

So let's be clear, you don't say that the Bible is God's Word because the RCC says so.
Now you say that inspiration (theopneustos, God-breathed, expired really) has to be proved.
So we call "The Bible is God's Word" proposition A.

So then you say that the proof of A is B.
So then, I say to you, how do you know that B is true?
Is it more obvious to you that B is true than that A is true?
And if you give proof C of B, I ask you, how do you know that C is true,
and this goes on forever, resulting in NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

What the Church used to prove inspiration is what you refuse to accept.

I haven't seen from you any proof that the Church proved that the Bible is God's Word.
But you seem to assume that the RCC is the Church without proof of it.
(You may not use the Bible to prove it, for the Bible is what you are trying to prove is true.)

1)On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

That is a nebulous statement. Are you saying that there is a singular coherent, indisputable entity called the human reconstruction of history, instead of a huge pool of debate. You are saying that there are 2 reliable contemporary witnesses for every event in history and that these witnesses do not err when they agree.
And you are saying that the human reconstruction of history is true.
And this proves that the Bible is historically reliable (but if it errs it is not reliable).

What is your proof of that?

The Bible makes many historical statements, many of which cannot be validated by secular history; nor is secular history infallible.

2) From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

So you are saying that the Bible is true because unregenerate men's version of history validates that the Bible is God's Word. Then you prove from God's word that an infallible Church was founded. But a generally historically reliable Bible does not prove an infallible Church, for "infallible Church" is not an historical statement, but a theological declaration.

So fallible historians prove that the Bible is inerrant? How do they do that?
And then the Bible says that the Church is infallible.
Now, where does the Bible say that?

Let's see the proof of that one.
From what you are saying then, your starting point is human history; that proves the Bible as reliable, & the reliable (but not necessarily infallible) Bible proves an infallible Church. At least you put the Bible before the Church.

3) And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

Ach! You have done circular reasoning. You have proved the Church from the Bible, & now the Bible from the Church! You are saying that history proves a reliable Bible which proves an infallible Church which proves an inspired Bible. You take a weaker statement "reliable Bible" to prove "infallible Church." A Bible which is generally reliable, but not necessarily God's infallible Word, could prove an infallible Church. This is sophistry.

By going outside the Bible, you cannot prove that the Bible is reliable on its theological statements concerning the Church. Your whole argument breaks down right here.

Reliable Bible as proven by non-Bible history, does not prove infallible Church, for non-Bible history does not validate any Biblical declaration about the Church.

4) This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),

Your claim is circular, though it ends up with claiming more about the starting point than postulated at the start: You say that the Bible is historically reliable and that this proves that the Bible is inspired by inserting the Church in between.

5)

and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

Your claim that a reliable Bible proves an infallible Church which proves an inspired Bible is circular. The fact that your original claim "reliable" is not the same as "inspired" doesn't help your argument, for "reliable" is weaker than "inspired." Inspired implies reliable. And in fact reliable virtually implies inspired, unless you mean "generally reliable," though it may have errors. But if the Bible has errors, it proves nothing.

But when you moved from historically reliable Bible (as proven outside the Bible) to infallible Church, that right there is a non sequitur.

The Bible did not fall out of the sky, it was proven inspired, compiled, canonized, preserved and proclaimed by the Catholic Church. This historical fact must infuriate you.

Scripture was accepted as received by the Body of Christ. There is no canonizing in the Bible. It is preserved by God, using the Church partly (Jews even had a hand in it). We proclaim it. But we, the Church, are not you the papal organization.

The books were measured up against Tradition, which you take as an obscenity. No Tradition, no Bible.

Hog wash. Religious tradition was condemned by the Lord Jesus. The Scripture was not measured up vs tradition.

Whatever prots claim, it prove nothing. God's word is the proof.

No, because "the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

Indeed you will not prevail against the Church. You have proven nothing. There is no RCC in the Bible.

If you wish to prove something to me, the Bible must be used.

And you may not argue successfully:
A) the Bible is true because the RCC says so, and
B) the RCC is true because the Bible is historically reliable.

You have made the Bible depend upon the RCC, & the RCC depend on the Bible.
Circular argument.

Despite your sophistry, that is what your argument resolves into.

Moreover, you cannot show how Bible reliable implies RCC infallible.
There is no RCC in the Bible.

 

[Atwood]

Hx Is An Inadequate Starting Point; RCC Epistemology is Fallacious

Starting Point is important in proving something. The claim has been made as follows:

1) On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

The apologist did not tell us how he does this, and why he confines it to "insofar as it is history."

Systematic consistency is a valid apologetic for the Bible being God's Word, as systematic consistency over 1000's of years is some evidence. Systematic consistency is of more value in disproving that a document is true than in establishing it, however. A document could be wrong & yet consistent in its errors.

I think the apologist meant that non-Biblical historical sources prove that the Bible's history is true. Since he used "reliable," I see some weasel room there. Does the apologist mean "generally reliable" but having some errors possibly? Or if he means it is completely true, that is already infallibility, implying it is God's Word, as none but God is infallible. But the apologist seems to limit it to history, as if one ignores doctrine and morality taught, & focuses only on events recorded (history).

But is it true that secular history proves the Bible is reliable? Proof is too strong a word, as there are many ancient sources of various types; and no ancient historian is infallible. In fact my conclusion from having studied ancient history in the graduate school of the U of Minnesota, is that we really have very poor sources for much of ancient history. I doubt that many ancient events have 2 reliable contemporary witnesses who record what happened.

Moreover, if you study ancient history you will at once find that historical scholars publish dogmatic conclusions contrary to the Bible, and they charge the Bible with error. A survey of historical scholarship would disprove the Bible if you assumed that the historical scholars in universities with Ph.D.'s were correct.

So the claim that secular historians conclusions prove that the Bible is reliable is a bogus claim. We don't have a doctor Who tardis to go back in time and establish history. Scholarly history is just a matter of probabilities, not certainties.

Thus you simply cannot establish that the Bible is historically reliable (whatever that means) by using secular history as accepted & written by scholars.

Secular history is an unsatisfactory starting point. I don't say that history has no value in apologetics, only you are very unlikely to twist the intellectual arm of a scholar to make him a Biblicist by arguing history with him.

I find that the 2 following axioms are self-evident & use them as my starting point:

1) The God of the Bible exists;
2) The Bible is the Word of God.

And I require everyone to affirm them for himself by detecting God directly and by reading the Bible for himself.

Once you adopt these 2 axioms, you can do theology.

I am more sure that they are true than of any particular historical event in ancient history which might agree with the Bible. And I am more sure of these axioms than I am of any particular fulfilled prophecy.

 

[Timeline]

I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I do not really know how to start proving that to anyone.

But, if the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then it is true because it is the Word of God (I'm not trying to prove that, just stating that the Word of God is true). If the Truth declares the RCC to have been established by God, then it would be true. But, if anything, the Bible seems to point out the flaws, not only of the RCC, but of all men. There are more than a few scriptures that point out the Catholic Church's failure to follow scripture. And not only the Catholic Church's failure, but also the failure of all "Churches" that I am aware of, including the one that I attend (many that attend where I do would disagree with me).

If any "infallibility" is to be found among us, it is in Jesus and our sins/wrongs being overlooked.

 

[kepha]

Re: Hx Is An Inadequate Starting Point; RCC Epistemology is Fallacious

Starting Point is important in proving something. The claim has been made as follows:



The apologist did not tell us how he does this, and why he confines it to "insofar as it is history."

Systematic consistency is a valid apologetic for the Bible being God's Word, as systematic consistency over 1000's of years is some evidence. Systematic consistency is of more value in disproving that a document is true than in establishing it, however. A document could be wrong & yet consistent in its errors.

I think the apologist meant that non-Biblical historical sources prove that the Bible's history is true. Since he used "reliable," I see some weasel room there. Does the apologist mean "generally reliable" but having some errors possibly? Or if he means it is completely true, that is already infallibility, implying it is God's Word, as none but God is infallible. But the apologist seems to limit it to history, as if one ignores doctrine and morality taught, & focuses only on events recorded (history).

But is it true that secular history proves the Bible is reliable? Proof is too strong a word, as there are many ancient sources of various types; and no ancient historian is infallible. In fact my conclusion from having studied ancient history in the graduate school of the U of Minnesota, is that we really have very poor sources for much of ancient history. I doubt that many ancient events have 2 reliable contemporary witnesses who record what happened.

Moreover, if you study ancient history you will at once find that historical scholars publish dogmatic conclusions contrary to the Bible, and they charge the Bible with error. A survey of historical scholarship would disprove the Bible if you assumed that the historical scholars in universities with Ph.D.'s were correct.

So the claim that secular historians conclusions prove that the Bible is reliable is a bogus claim. We don't have a doctor Who tardis to go back in time and establish history. Scholarly history is just a matter of probabilities, not certainties.

Thus you simply cannot establish that the Bible is historically reliable (whatever that means) by using secular history as accepted & written by scholars.

Secular history is an unsatisfactory starting point. I don't say that history has no value in apologetics, only you are very unlikely to twist the intellectual arm of a scholar to make him a Biblicist by arguing history with him.

I find that the 2 following axioms are self-evident & use them as my starting point:

1) The God of the Bible exists;
2) The Bible is the Word of God.

And I require everyone to affirm them for himself by detecting God directly and by reading the Bible for himself.

Once you adopt these 2 axioms, you can do theology.

I am more sure that they are true than of any particular historical event in ancient history which might agree with the Bible. And I am more sure of these axioms than I am of any particular fulfilled prophecy.

I should have made myself more clear, I was trying to be brief. I was talking about what Christians did in the 3rd century, not todays secular atheist historians. I never made historicity an exclusive argument, you did. What you seem to be saying is the historical reliability of the Bible (a fact accepted by sane Christians), plus historical facts of the 3rd century and before, that are not in the Bible, plus what we know about human nature and common sense is irrelevant in determining whether or not a Church existed, because no Church was needed to compile and canonize the Bible. Is that what you are saying? If so, how did we get the Bible??? You can't admit to the fact that the Bible came from the Catholic Church. You claim to have read church history. Ever hear of the Council of Rome 382 A.D.?

 

[kepha]

The New Testament Canon



In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today. Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible's self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpretingmaxim of perspicuity. The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon

Sources for N.T. Canon Chart (all Protestant):
1) Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 194-98.
2) Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3) Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.

Explanation of Symbols:
(this is important)
*Book accepted (or quoted)
? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x Book rejected, unknown, or not cited​

​

New Testament Period (c.35-90)
In this period there is little formal sense of a Canon of Scripture

********************************************************
Apostolic Fathers (90-160)
********************************************************
Summary: The New Testament is still not clearly distinguished qualitatively from other Christian writings
Gospels Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture
Acts Scarcely known or quoted
Pauline Corpus Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy: x Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
Hebrews Not considered canonical
? Clement of Rome
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
James Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
1 Peter Not considered canonical
2 Peter Not considered canonical, nor cited
1, 2, 3 John Not considered canonical
x Justin Martyr
1 John ? Polycarp / 3 John x Polycarp
Jude Not considered canonical
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
Revelation Not canonical
x Polycarp
***************************************************
Irenaeus to Origen (160-250)
***************************************************
Summary: Awareness of a Canon begins towards the end of the 2nd century
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use phrase New Testament
Gospels Accepted
Acts Gradually accepted
Pauline Corpus Accepted with some exceptions:
2 Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria
Philemon: x Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Hebrews Not canonical before the 4th century in the West.
? Origen
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
James Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 Peter Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria
2 Peter Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 John Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus
x Origen
2 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
3 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Jude Gradual acceptance
* Clement of Alexandria
x Origen
Revelation Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
x Barococcio Canon, c.206
Epistle of Barnabas * Clement of Alexandria, Origen
Shepherd of Hermas * Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria
The Didache * Clement of Alexandria, Origen
The Apocalypse of Peter * Clement of Alexandria
The Acts of Paul * Origen
* Appears in Greek, Latin (5), Syriac, Armenian, & Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews * Clement of Alexandria

********************************************
Muratorian Canon (c.190) (a false canon)

Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter​

Includes The Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon
********************************************
Origen to Nicaea (250-325)
********************************************
Summary: The Catholic epistles and Revelation are still being disputed

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus Accepted
Hebrews * Accepted in the East
x, ? Still disputed in the West
James x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West
1 Peter Fairly well accepted
2 Peter Still disputed
1 John Fairly well accepted
2, 3 John, Jude Still disputed
Revelation Disputed, especially in the East
x Dionysius
************************************************
Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude
*************************************************
From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397)
*************************************************
Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John Accepted
Hebrews Eventually accepted in the West
James Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350!
2 Peter Eventually accepted
2, 3 John, Jude Eventually accepted
Revelation Eventually accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianz
Epistle of Barnabas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Shepherd of Hermas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Used as a textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius
1 Clement, 2 Clement * Codex Alexandrinus - early 5th century (!)​

Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The New Testament Canon

Atwood, your thread title is fallacious.

 

[Atwood]

Re: Hx Is An Inadequate Starting Point; RCC Epistemology is Fallacious

Kepha You continually seem to confuse the Catholic Church (that's me) with the papal organization (that's you). But be that as it may, your epistemology seems even more confused now:

I should have made myself more clear, I was trying to be brief. I was talking about what Christians did in the 3rd century, not todays secular atheist historians.

Kepha, it appears to me that your starting point is not cogent. Perhaps with further thought you can express it in a coherent fashion. You definitely did start out to prove that the Bible was reliable. Yet it is not even clear what you mean by "the Bible is reliable historically." Actually to be reliable historically would mean that the Bible was infallible, and it could only be infallible if it were God's Word. And that means you have a circular argument into which you insert an infallible Church, though the Bible no where declares the Body of Christ infallible. As an example we can see that Peter was rebuked by Paul for Peter's behavior at Antioch in Galatians 2. As another, we can read the criticisms of prophet Paul to the Corinthians & the Lord to the 7 churches in Revelation. Christians are simply fallible. Christians are not theopneustoi, the Scripture is theopneustos.

What you seem to be saying is

Kepha, I am not saying anything at this point. I am discussing the short-comings of your proof. It is you who need to become cogent in your claims, so at least we can grapple with the content of your assertions.

the historical reliability of the Bible (a fact accepted by sane Christians),

But Kepha, you set out to prove the Bible at the getgo. Are you saying that all Christians are sane or some Christians are sane. I think you are getting into logical quicksand. Are you now going to make your starting point Christians? Sane Christians, therefore, reliable Bible. Is that really a cogent argument? Some Christians are sane, therefore the Bible is reliable??? Probably many psychologists think Christians are delusional.

plus historical facts of the 3rd century and before, that are not in the Bible,

So now we are back to historical facts. Do you mean the conclusions of modern historians about the 3rd century? The 3rd century is long after the last book of the Bible. So how can history of 3rd century prove anything about the Bible? The conclusions of modern historians as to the 3rd century would not prove the Bible was reliable. I doubt that the majority of historians of the 3rd century (who don't already believe the Bible) would endorse the reliability of the Bible. Assuming that the secular history of 3rd century won't prove the Bible. Also, we have very little contemporary historical documents of 3rd century that would give evidence for Bible reliability. How are going to develop this?: "X document exists, therefore, the Bible is reliable."

plus what we know about human nature and common sense is irrelevant in determining whether or not a Church existed, because no Church was needed to compile and canonize the Bible.

You seem to be confused now, Kepha. What is your argument? Are you saying that human nature & common sense prove the Bible is reliable? If so, that argument needs to be laid out. To begin with, I doubt that you could come up with any definition of human nature which would be accepted by university Bible scholars or logicians, definition relative to the reliability of the Bible. Common sense? How are you going to prove what is common sense & how this implies anything about Bible reliability?

If so, how did we get the Bible??? You can't admit to the fact that the Bible came from the Catholic Church. You claim to have read church history. Ever hear of the Council of Rome 382 A.D.?

I have taught Church History in graduate school, Kepha. But why are you asking me questions? You are the one supposedly laying out your epistemology. An argument that the Bible proves the RCC, & then the RCC proves the Bible, is circular reasoning.

Make up your mind. Will you start with the RCC or with the Bible? If you start with the RCC and make it prove the Bible, let's see your proof that the RCC is true without reference to the Bible.

Let's see this argument:
"The Council of Rome 382 AD"
Therefore what?
So some men got together in 382 AD (need to prove the gathering & what it did it from at least 2 contemporary reliable sources)
-- so you establish that (we wait for the proof).
Next, what is the logical implication of such a meeting?
How would such a meeting prove either that the RCC papal organization existed, or that it was true, or that the Bible was true?

Can you not see that you have no valid epistemology.

 

[ThomistColin]

Epistemology




You are speaking of the epistemology of Scripture...meaning how do we know Scripture is Scripture.

I say this because there is no such thing as Catholic Epistemology. There is Aquinian Epistemology, Augustinian Epistemology, Bonaventuran Epistemology, Benedictine Epistemology, etc...

 

[Atwood]

I fail to see what the relevance is of Kepha's post to the thread topic:
Roman Catholic Epistemology is Fallacious.

From what I have seen RCC apologists claim that the Bible is true only because the RCC says so. Then some of them seem to want to prove that the RCC is true because of the Bible. This is circular reasoning. Discussing the Canon is really off the topic. If you wish to claim that the Bible is only true because the RCC says so & you then discuss the canon, that doesn't relieve you from your fallacy of circular reasoning if you then try to prove the RCC from the Bible. So what your task then is, is to prove the RCC true. You cannot use the Bible if the RCC is responsible for creating the Bible & defining the Bible.

The New Testament Canon

This I am answering in the forum thread devoted to this topic, as it has no relevance here. Indeed, demons & men have objected to every true doctrine, starting in the Garden of Eden with "Yea, hath God said." That fact does not relieve you from your circular reasoning fallacy. Where is your proof that the RCC is true?



I