Breaking News
Home / Jesus is Muslim / The Bible / Do Church Father quotes prove Bible authenticity?

Do Church Father quotes prove Bible authenticity?

Church Father Quotes Cannot Prove Bible Authenticity

A common evidence used to prove that the Bible was preserved is the quotes of the Early Church Fathers, but actually the first Early Church Fathers who extensively quotes from the Bible lived at the end of the second century as Irenaeus and Tertullian, those who were before them as Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas and Justin Martyr quoted very few verses from the Bible especially the New Testament, may be Justin Martyr quoted a lot from the Old Testament, but his quotes from the New Testament were very few, besides, a large portion of these few quotes were not really quotes, but they were only narrations by meaning, what I mean is that it could have been that a common source from where the Gospels copied, and there is already a theory telling that there was a common source for the Synoptic Gospels called the Q source, and many theologians adopt this theory. You can make sure of what I am saying concerning the quotes of the Church Fathers by downloading E-sword program from e-sword.net and installing the book of Ante-Nicene Fathers on the program, it will be highlighting the scripts, and you can easily distinguish them with no need to read all these books.

Church Fathers prove the Bible

Heresies of Early Church Fathers

Besides, many Early Church Fathers had heretical opinions, let’s see the opinions adopted by early church fathers:

Theophilus of Antioch:(c. 183 AD)

In his book “To Autolycus”, Theophilus of Antioch said in Chapter 15 that the Tinity is “God, His word and His Wisdom”, and in Chapter 10 that the Word is the Spirit of God which is against what the Trinity teaches that it is God, His word and His spirit. And for sure the word is NOT the spirit as this will lead to the Monarchian heresy which tells that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit not that they are three different persons.

Papias of Hierapolis: (c. 155 AD)

Papias tells about Judas’ death saying ” Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out. ”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.iii.html

which doesn’t match at all with what the Gospels say:

 Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and
departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

Note: Papias is commonly used as an evidence by Christian scholars to prove the authenticity of Gospel of Matthew, it seems that he really knew it well 🙂

Irenaeus (c. 202AD)

Ireneous who said that Jesus was more than 50 yrs when he died

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html

Which is also against Christian teachings that Jesus died at 33.

Tertullian (c.225 AD)

Tertullian was actually following the heretical Montanus who claimed to be the Paraclete as recorded by Philip Schaff:

He (Montanus) fell into somnambulistic ecstasies, and considered      himself the inspired organ of the promised Paraclete or Advocate, the      Helper and Comforter in these last times of distress. His adversaries      wrongly inferred from the use of the first person for the Holy Spirit      in his oracles, that he made himself directly the Paraclete,

This link talks about Tertullian and his relationship with Montanus:

In Africa there was a lot of interest in the new prophecy, and Tertullian came to believe that it was genuine, accordingly mentioning it and defending it strongly in his later works.  Unfortunately his work in defence of it, De ecstasi, in 7 books is lost. Tertullian fiercely attacks those who condemned the new prophecy, and in attacking the church authorities as more interested in their own political power in the church than in listening to the Spirit, he foreshadows the protestant reaction to papal claims.

 http://www.tertullian.org/montanism.htm

Origen: (c.253 AD)

 Although being a main source for Christians as an early church father, Origen actually adopted many heretical opinions, Philip Schaff tells concerning him:”For — and in this too he is like Schleiermacher — he can by no means be called orthodox, either in the Catholic or in the Protestant sense. His leaning to idealism, his predilection for Plato, and his noble effort to reconcile Christianity with reason, and to commend it even to educated heathens and Gnostics, led him into many grand and fascinating errors.”.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xxix.html

All this proves that the Christian belief wasn’t settled at that time, which gives the conclusion that the real Gospels were not that genuine, and that a lot of theological problems happened at that critical time even among early church fathers whom are supposed to be a main evidence for the Bible through their quotes, how could they be an evidence to the Gospels and epistles and Christian belief when they are actually adopting opinions that are obviously against what the Gospels tell and what Christians believed? Aren’t these church fathers orthodoxy Christians who were filled with the Holy Spirit and were actually quoted by Christians as the conquerors of heresy? How could they be conquerors of heresy when they adopted heresies?

Follow me onFacebooktwittergoogle_plusyoutubetumblrinstagrammailby feather
Share onFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather