{"id":59357,"date":"2008-02-16T21:13:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-17T03:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/?p=59357"},"modified":"2023-02-16T21:26:14","modified_gmt":"2023-02-17T03:26:14","slug":"the-roman-catholics-1486-ad-and-the-title-page-argument","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/the-roman-catholics-1486-ad-and-the-title-page-argument\/","title":{"rendered":"The Roman Catholics, 1486 AD, and the “Title Page” Argument<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\tby Terry W. Benton\n

The Argument:<\/h2>\n

“..the Roman Catholic church in 1486 AD arbitrarily placed the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John –before the cross — (MMLJBC) in the New rather Old Testament by placing an erroneous New Testament “title page” between the books of Malachi and Matthew.<\/i><\/p>\n

Answer:<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Everyone already knew that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by “ministers of the new covenant” in the new covenant age and long after the Old Testament had been complete and nailed to the cross.<\/li>\n
  2. Therefore, the “title page” never<\/em> messed anyone up or confused anyone.<\/li>\n
  3. No one (except Mr. Billingsly, and anyone who agrees with him today), has ever been confused by the “title page”. It is exactly where it should be if we were going to distinguish the scriptures of the Old Testament from the scriptures written by ministers of the new covenant.<\/li>\n
  4. No one ever<\/em>\u00a0thought, until Mr. Billingsly,\u00a0that New Testament ministers took it in hand to write additional attachments to the old covenant and have their new writings post-nailed again to the cross.<\/i><\/b><\/li>\n
  5. The “title page” of 1486 is still much older<\/em> than Mr. Billingsly’s testament of Acts 2 through Revelation 22. Billingsly says that he would place the “title page” between Acts 1 and Acts 2. That would mean that history would look back to 1995 or so(over 500 years later than even the “1486” placement of a “title page”) to find when a title page was first placed between two chapters<\/em>\u00a0of the\u00a0same book<\/em>. Who can give that any credibility?<\/li>\n
  6. The evidence clearly shows that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were long considered New Testament books, long before 1486, and long before<\/em>\u00a0the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, if we show that early writers before 250 AD (which is long before the Roman Catholic Church) believed that the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were\u00a0New<\/em>\u00a0Testament books, then we will have further proven the above argument and its author to be wrong again, and making a false claim that he will need to repent of, and an argument he will need to\u00a0cease<\/em>\u00a0making.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Irenaeus (120-202AD)<\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. “<\/i>For all the apostles taught that there were\u00a0indeed two testaments<\/b>\u00a0among\u00a0the\u00a0two peoples<\/b>; but that it was one and the same God who appointed\u00a0both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were\u00a0given) who were to believe in God,…”\u00a0<\/i>(Irenaeus, Against Heresies<\/i>, Book IV, 32:2).\n<\/i>Here Irenaeus recognized\u00a0two<\/b>\u00a0testaments, and that these testaments were carried by two people (i.e., the Jews and the Christians). I’ll bet that you can guess that the Jews did not carry PART of the testament of Christians. The Jews carried one testament (Gen.-Malachi) and the Christians carried the other testament (Matthew-Revelation).
      \n<\/i><\/li>\n
    2. “<\/i>Now I have shown a\u00a0short time ago that the church is the seed of Abraham; and for this reason,\u00a0that we may know that\u00a0He who in the New Testament “raises up from the<\/b>\u00a0stones children unto Abraham,”<\/b>\u00a0is He who will gather, according to the Old\u00a0Testament, those that shall be saved from all the nations, Jeremiah says:\u00a0“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The\u00a0LORD liveth, who led the children of Israel from the north, and from every\u00a0region whither they had been driven; He will restore them to their own\u00a0land which He gave to their fathers.” “<\/i>\u00a0(Irenaeus,\u00a0Against Heresies<\/em>, Book V, Ch.34:1).\nWe observe now that Irenaeus recognized that it was the New <\/b>Testament that talks about God Who “raises up from stones children unto Abraham”. This is a reference to what the New<\/em>\u00a0Testament says in Matthew 3. Thus, as early as Irenaeus, it was already an accepted\u00a0fact<\/em>\u00a0that Matthew was in the New Testament.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Tertullian (145-220AD)<\/h3>\n
        \n
      1. “<\/i>Persons are still living who\u00a0remember them, – their own actual disciples and successors, – who\u00a0cannot therefore deny the lateness of their date. But, in fact, by their own\u00a0works they are convicted, even as the Lord said. For since\u00a0Marcion<\/b>\u00a0separated the New Testament from the Old<\/b>, he is (necessarily) subsequent\u00a0to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to\u00a0separate what was (previously) united. Having then been united previous\u00a0to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the\u00a0subsequence also of the man who effected the separation“<\/i>\u00a0(Second Part,\u00a0On Prescription Against Heretics<\/em>, Ch.30).\nNote: Tertullian is addressing a heresy of Marcion tampering with two<\/em> testaments when Christians had long kept the two testaments together. We observe that there were two<\/em>\u00a0testaments, and they were early recognized as two important kinds of witnesses that Christians held together as a marvelous unit.<\/li>\n
      2. “<\/i>This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly\u00a0edged with\u00a0the two testaments of the law and the gospel<\/b>\u00a0– sharpened\u00a0with wisdom, hostile to the devil, arming us against the spiritual enemies\u00a0of all wickedness and concupiscence, and cutting us off from the dearest objects for the sake of God’s holy name.”\u00a0<\/i>(Book 3:14, Tertullian against Marcion)<\/li>\n
      3. “<\/i>We lay it down as our first position, that\u00a0the evangelical Testament<\/b>\u00a0has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore,\u00a0John and Matthew first<\/b>\u00a0instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men,\u00a0Luke and Mark<\/b>\u00a0renew it afterwards. These all start with\u00a0the same principles of the faith<\/b>, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion.” (Book 4:2).\nNote: We observe that the “evangelical Testament”, which is not the Old but the New <\/b>Testament, has the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John at the start of the collection even as early as the days of Tertullian.<\/li>\n
      4. “The same<\/b>\u00a0authority of the apostolic churches<\/b>\u00a0will afford evidence to the other\u00a0Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and\u00a0according to their usage – I mean the\u00a0Gospels of John and Matthew<\/b>\u00a0–\u00a0whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose\u00a0interpreter\u00a0Mark<\/b>\u00a0was. For even\u00a0Luke’<\/b>s form of the Gospel men usually\u00a0ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples\u00a0publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a\u00a0strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted\u00a0them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as\u00a0if they, too, had not had free<\/b>\u00a0course in the churches<\/b>, as well as\u00a0Luke’s Gospel, from the beginning<\/b>. Nay,\u00a0it is even more credible that they existed from the very beginning; for,\u00a0being the work of apostles<\/b>, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the\u00a0churches themselves.” (Book 4:5).\nNote: The apostolic churches recognized these four gospels early on “from the very beginning”. These four Gospels were not<\/em>\u00a0carried by the Jews in the Canon of Old Testament books. But, these four gospel accounts were connected with the kingdom, the church of Christ.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Origen (185-254)<\/h3>\n
          \n
        1. \u00a0“And in the\u00a0New Testament<\/b>\u00a0we have abundant\u00a0testimonies, as when the Holy Spirit is described as having descended\u00a0<\/b>upon Christ<\/b>, and when the Lord breathed upon His apostles after His\u00a0resurrection, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit;” and the saying of the angel\u00a0to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon thee;” the declaration by Paul,\u00a0that no one can call Jesus Lord, save by the Holy Spirit.” (Book I, 3).\nNote: As early as Origen, long before the Roman Catholic Church, and long before Billingsly’s “1486”, the\u00a0New Testament<\/b>\u00a0included the story of the Spirit coming down upon Jesus (before the cross) and what Jesus said after His resurrection. Origen\u00a0clearly<\/em>\u00a0recognized the four gospels to be\u00a0in the New <\/em>Testament.<\/li>\n
        2. “And\u00a0from the New Testament<\/b>\u00a0also they quote the saying of the Savior, in\u00a0which He makes a promise to His disciples concerning the joy of wine,\u00a0saying, “Henceforth I shall not drink of this cup, until I drink it with you\u00a0new in My Father’s kingdom.” “<\/i>\u00a0(Book II, XI,2).\nNote: The quote from the New<\/em>\u00a0Testament comes from Matthew 26:26f in the record before the cross. The book of Matthew was early recognized as in the\u00a0New<\/em>\u00a0Testament.<\/li>\n
        3. “Let us now look also to the\u00a0New Testament<\/b>,\u00a0where Satan approaches the<\/b>\u00a0Savior, and tempts Him<\/b>: wherein also it is stated that evil spirits and\u00a0unclean demons, which had taken possession of very many, were expelled\u00a0by the Savior from the bodies of the sufferers, who are said also to be\u00a0made free by Him. Even Judas, too, when the devil had already put it in\u00a0his heart to betray Christ, afterwards received Satan wholly into him; for it\u00a0is written, that after the sop “Satan entered into him.” ” (Book 3, 2:1b).\nNote: Look how many things are described as being in<\/em>\u00a0the New\u00a0<\/em>Testament. These things are described in the four gospels and\u00a0not<\/em> in Acts 2 through Revelation 22. Therefore, it is the case that all early Christians recognized Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as part of the New Testament.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          In\u00a0no<\/em>\u00a0history before 1486 or before Dan Billingsly has\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0Christian ever recognized a New Testament that contained only Acts 2 through Revelation 22. While Billingsly wants to make much out of the issue of the “title page” of 1486, there is simply no substance to the argument. Even\u00a0if<\/em> Bibles did not have such title pages, it does not prove that it was placed in the wrong place, and it does not mean that Roman Catholics deceived anyone by so placing the page.<\/p>\n

          Thus, we must conclude that the title page is exactly where it should be because all Christians have always recognized that the four gospels, written by four New Testament Christians, had to be a part of the New Testament, even if it did describe events that included Jesus’ life under the law, his miracles, death, burial, and resurrection. The argument is wholly fabricated to deceive, and it will not stand the test of facts and scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          by Terry W. Benton The Argument: “..the Roman Catholic church in 1486 AD arbitrarily placed the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John –before the cross — (MMLJBC) in the New rather Old Testament by placing an erroneous New Testament “title page” between the books of Malachi and Matthew. Answer: Everyone already knew that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[34,799,268,1599],"class_list":["post-59357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-false-teaching","tag-new-testament","tag-old-testament","tag-roman-catholic-church"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":57686,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/the-jesus-came-to-israel-only-argument\/","url_meta":{"origin":59357,"position":0},"title":"The “Jesus Came To Israel Only” Argument","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"January 5, 2004","format":false,"excerpt":"by Terry W. Benton The Argument Stated: \"MMLJ -- before the cross -- was taught only to the Jews of Israel.\" I keep seeing the argument expressed that Jesus spoke only to the lost sheep of Israel, or only to Israel. The conclusion drawn from that fact is that \"therefore\"\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5790,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/justifying-divorce-and-remarriage-by-claiming-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-are-old-testament-books\/","url_meta":{"origin":59357,"position":1},"title":"Justifying Divorce and Remarriage by Claiming Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Old Testament Books","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"June 8, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: What a tragedy! There are actually some members in the church that teach that Christians need to divorce their present mate because of having been previously involved in a divorce. Wow! This is an absolutely and pitifully deceptive teaching!\u00a0 And these sorts of doctrines need to be settled and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":84654,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/matthew-mark-luke-and-john-old-testament-or-new-testament\/","url_meta":{"origin":59357,"position":2},"title":"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: Old Testament or New Testament? (Robinson)","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"February 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Garland M. Robinson If you reject the Gospel records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (including Acts 1) being any part of the Lord's New Testament, then you have to accept the conclusion that nothing the Lord said or taught while on earth is valid for the church today.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":16531,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/confidence-in-the-canon\/","url_meta":{"origin":59357,"position":3},"title":"Confidence in the Canon","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"December 7, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"by Allen Dvorak \u201cThe Lost Books of the Bible! Are you missing books from your Bible?\u201d It is not uncommon to see such advertisements in the supermarket rags or at bookstores. Sometimes they hint at the idea that there has been some deliberate and\/or covert effort to exclude certain books\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2115,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/why-is-john-the-baptist-the-last-prophet-in-the-bible\/","url_meta":{"origin":59357,"position":4},"title":"Why is John the Baptist the last prophet in the Bible?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"March 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Why is John the Baptist the last prophet in the Bible? (Luke 16:16) Answer: \"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it\" (Luke 16:16). \"From the days\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":11888,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/how-do-i-convince-a-roman-catholic-that-infant-baptism-is-wrong\/","url_meta":{"origin":59357,"position":5},"title":"How do I convince a Roman Catholic that infant baptism is wrong?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: A Catholic and I debated the topic of infant baptism. He used the argument of \"household\" referring to babies as well. When I told him that households could mean teens or servants he said that he would rather follow the practice of infant baptism followed by earlier Christians 2000\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59357","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}