Who wrote the Gospels from scripture alone?

If the apostle Matthew didn't write Matthew wouldn't that be important?

That is the question. Where do the Gospels say they are the inspired and inerrant word of God? Where does the book of Hebrews or the book of Revelation or 1 and 2nd John say they are the inspired word of God?
Since they don't claim to be inspired, why do we consider them inspired?

 

That's right. They could be written by someone else. THey also don't claim to be inspired.

Yes I believe John wrote John.

Nowhere does the author of "Luke" identify himself as Luke in either Acts or the Gospel according to "Luke". That title is added by the publisher.Both writings are anonymous.

WHere does that say that Mark wrote a Gospel? Why isn't the Epistle of Barnabas in the bible. I have it and it is very good. I could even say it is inspired.

Again that just mentions his name. It doesn't say he wrote anything inspired.

Lots of names are in the bible. It doesn't say Mark and Luke wrote inspired Gospels.

.
Hebrews doesn't claim to be inspired. Who decided that it was? The Epistle of Barnabas could be inspired for all we know.

That is the Catholics point. You say it is "scripture" but you can't prove it from the books themselves because they don't claim to be inspired scripture.

.
John doesn't claim to be the inspired word of God. You are assuming it is.

Please show me the chapter and verse which says Luke wrote Acts. If we believe in scripture alone we have to be able to do that. Otherwise the bible is NOT the only authority.

 

.
Where? Paul doens't mention Luke's Gospel.

OK

OK

OK. Where does Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1,2 and 3 John, Hebrews,Philemon,James,Jude,and Revelation make that claim?

As the Catholic will say it as the Holy Spirit who guided the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in AD 381 to declare the New Testament. The bible is silent. So far no one has given me any good answer to refute the Catholic claim.

 

Obviously the Church had God given authority to declare what is and isn't inspired scripture thus the bible cannot be our only authority. In Matthew 18:15 we are told to take it to the church not to the scriptures.

 

Unless someone can show me where scipture says "There shall be 27 books in the New Testament and they are...." then the Catholic position is solid.

Can you please show me the chapter and verse where scripture states it is the "sole authority for all matters concerning salvation and spiritual growth"
THe bible never says that.

All I need is a verse that says the bible is the sole authority.THere isn't one. SCripture says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. That sounds pretty strong in support of the Church.

.
How do you know that what you are reading is "scripture?" That is the question.

.

You keep mentioning the word "scripture". Can you prove to me that Hebrews,Matthew,Mark, Luke, Acts, Jude, James, Revelation is inspired scripture?

.
If we can't prove from scripture "alone" what is inspired then we might as well be reading the Book of Mormon.

Because Mark doesn't claim to be the inspired word of God. What if it isn't?
In Col. 4:16 Paul says to read the letter from Laodicea. Why isn't that letter in the bible.? By what authority did the Catholic Church have to say it was a forgery?

YOu are now going outside the bible. You are proving the Catholics position. The early Church says Mark, a student of Peter, wrote his Gospel. THe bible doesn't say that, the early Church makes that claim. They also said it is inspired. By what authority did the Catholic Church have to make that claim?

Then he is refuting scripture "alone".

.
Paul tells us it is inspired. He doesn't say that about all the New Testament writings.

If it took 300 years to decided on what is and isn't inspired scripture that the bible cannot be our only authority. An extra-biblical source apparently also has authority.

THis has to be answered. If we can't infallibly say what is inspired then how can we say what true doctrine is.

You are saying the Catholic is right. THe Church gave us the bible.

 

THe scripture is saying the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. That can't be ignored. Scripture also says we are to "take it to the church" in Matthew 18.

I"ve been in discussion with this Catholic for over a year. He does "prove" all of the above from scripture. All I can say is his interpretation is wrong but he believes what he believes from scripture and Tradition which Paul mentions.

I appreciate everyones input but I am still at square one. I don't want to quote R.C. Sproul who said we have a "Fallible collection of infallible books". That makes no sense.

 

No scholar believes "According to Matthew" is in the originals. This was added as copies were made.

You can't say it was "clearly "written by the same author when both writings are anonymous.

.
True the bible is silent on who can write inspired scripture. By that measure the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul and the letter to the Laodecians could be in the bible but they aren't. Someone made that decision.

How do we infallibly know it is inspired when it never makes that claim?

My Catholic friend believes they are scripture because the Catholic Church tells him it is. My question is how do non-Catholics know the 27 books are inspired and inerrant scripture when the books themselves, with a couple of exceptions, never claim to be the inspired word of God? Seems to me we are accepting the authority of the early Church to make that decison for us and therefore there seems to be an authority in addition to the scriptures.

 

I have no problem with that.

I made that point with my Catholic friend and it really doesn't hold water. There is no use in denying it. Historical writings show that what we regard as scripture was in dispute in the year 350. THere was no bible as we know it until AD 381 when the Bishops of the Catholic CHurch met in Rome and voted on the Canon that we have today.

If the Church can "err like everybody else" than we have no certainity that what we call scripture is really scripture.

 

.
That argument isn't going to win over my Catholic friend. Hebrews,Matthew, Mark, Acts, Jude, James, Revelation never claim to be the inspired and inerrant word of God. If they don't claim to be inspired, why do we consider them inspired?

 

I would love to tell my Catholic friend that the bible is our "sole rule of faith and practice" but he will ask where the bible states that.

This doesn't work in my argument. The Catholic will simply ask "what is the bible according to the bible?". THe bible doesn't say "There shall be 27 books and they are....."

We're back to square one. First we have to infallibly know that what we are reading is inspired scripture and the bible doesn't tell us.

1 Tim 3:16 doesn't tell us what is and what isn't inspired. If Paul would have listed the 27 books it would be an open and shut case but he doesn't. I can't deny the historical fact that there was no recognized Canon of Scripture until AD 381.

 

My Catholic friend makes very sound historical and biblcal arguments that the New Testmant Church is the Catholic Church of today but that is beside the point. Even it it isn't the same Church, there was a Church that existed in the second, third and fourth century that made the decision on what our Canon of Scripture is.

THen show me from the book of Matthew that he was the author. The book is written in the third person. Look at the list of the apostles in Matthew 10. Why doesn't the author say "and then I Matthew the the tax collector was chosen". He doesn't. It sounds as if someone else is writting the book. Same with Mark and Acts and First, Second and Third John and others.

That's my problem, He quotes from the Church Fathers. They are the ones who declare what is inspired and what isn't and they make the decision as to who the authors are and they make the decision that there should only be 27 books even though there were over 200 books that some thought to be the inspired word of God.

 

I truly appreciate everyones input but I find the answers given to be lacking. I have been taught that all we need is the bible yet my Catholic friend is convincing me that is false. Without the early Church we wouln't even have a bible. They, whoever they were, determined what is and isn't inspired. Yes I believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit to make that decision but they didn't use scripture alone to make that decision.

It matters greatly because because I am becoming convinced that he is right and I am wrong. His arguments on everything from justification to what the Church, according to scripture, actually is goes against what I have been taught the Church is.
I am beginning to believe that todays Catholic Church is in fact the ancient Church found in the Acts of the Apostles and the early Church Fathers were Catholic Bishops and are no different that today's Catholic Bishops.
He has planted doubt into what I have always believed. What he says is beginning to make sense.