Bible Origins

[mo3]

Well not to be uncharitable, but your questions are leading questions. We all know God did not author the table of contents, or an index, or break the text of His word into chapters with headings and verses. that is a human device to make the text understandable… and??? so what are you trying to achieve.

Thank you for admitting you know the Bible is not inspired “cover to cover.” This is what I was trying to achieve. I also hope to have you recognize there are HUGE differences between Bibles.

It seems you are stuck on an arbitrary point. You know perfectly well i can’t find a verse saying cover to cover, but it is assumed to be the case as God is the author.

Actually, i can take that back,

[2 Peter 1:20] Knowing this first, that **no prophecy of the scripture **is of any private interpretation. [21] For **the prophecy came not **in the old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The bible is scripture from cover to cover, and no scripture came by the will of any man, but God spoke, and the man was moved to write by the Holy Ghost.

Does this mean you accept the NAB Bible with 73 books? I pray you do. However, it might mean you accept any Bible like the Jehovah Witness Bible? Remember this thread is about the origins of the Bible and therefore it is important to recognize there are differences between many Bibles.

Every page in the bible is straight from the mouth of God, there isn’t one page in the bible that comes from the mind of a man, no prophecy, no historical account, no parable, no vision, no dream, no speaking in tongues, nothing written in the bible, from cover to cover, is from the mind of any human being.

the book in question would be the bible. Yes bible is not a word in the bible, but that is already understood. The name we give to the scripture is bible.

any more questions?

Please let me know if you accept the NAB Bible with 73 books? It contains all of the inspired scripture.

Please answer my questions from post #16.

God bless.

 

[Bengoshi]

Are you saying the NAB Bible is the only Bible? Remember it has “all the inspired” text we are aware of which means there are 73 books in the complete Bible.

Did you really understand my post? Please read it again. Did I say that any specific TRANSLATION is the ONLY Bible?

In a sense, you may be correct that “all Christian denominations” use accepted translations. But in this sense, it is important to recognize that the Catholic Church is not a “denomination.” It is the “Church.”

Actually, it’s really good that some Protestants consider the RCC as a denomination rather than a cult as others do. Noted scholars like Drs. Geisler and Rhodes only view the RCC as cultic but not a cult because of our shred adherence to the essential doctrines of The Way. It is just plain arrogance on the part of the RCC to clain that it is the only Church, and that aspect makes it no different from the cults.

However, it would not be true to say “all Christians” use accepted translations. Catholics would not accept the translations. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world which is more than all the other Christians put together. Most Christians are Catholic.

I know a lot of Catholics, even priests, who accept/use “Protestant” translations. Sometimes, it’s just Catholic pride which prevents you from accepting “Protestant” translations, which are really very scholarly and well-done, such as the ESV, NRSV, NIV, etc.

Most Christians are Catholic and therefore should not accept the KJV.

The KJV is definitely not perfect, no translation is, even RC ones. The usage of a certain translation is really a matter of choice. However, it is of course advisable to read different translations for us to get the fuller meaning of the text.

What text are you talking about? Translated text of the NIV? Most Christian (since most Christians are Catholic) should disagree.

You are making broad sweeping statements that are not accurate.

The manuscripts in the original languages, not the translations. By the way, Catholics do not usually use the NIV, ESV, NLT, CEV, etc. because your priests discourages them to. Otherwise, it would be just as fine, if not better, if Catholics would also refer to your so-called “Protestant” translations, instead of just sticking to one translation.

God bless.

 

[Bengoshi]

Thank you for admitting you know the Bible is not inspired “cover to cover.” This is what I was trying to achieve. I also hope to have you recognize there are HUGE differences between Bibles.

Does this mean you accept the NAB Bible with 73 books? I pray you do. However, it might mean you accept any Bible like the Jehovah Witness Bible? Remember this thread is about the origins of the Bible and therefore it is important to recognize there are differences between many Bibles.

Only the NWT and maybe a few unknown others, are heretical translations. So I guess in discussing the Bible, the NWT (JW Bible) should not even be considered since the WBTS has deliberately tampered and mistranslated it to suit their doctrines.

Please let me know if you accept the NAB Bible with 73 books? It contains all of the inspired scripture.

Please answer my questions from post #16.

God bless.

Protestants/Evangelicals accept the NAB except the apocrypha which it contains. By the way, there are also “Protestant” translations which contain the apocrypha, but that doesn’t mean it is accepted as canon. It is more for an FYI purpose. Even the Jews do not accept the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals.

 

[inkaneer]

Protestants/Evangelicals accept the NAB except the apocrypha which it contains. By the way, there are also “Protestant” translations which contain the apocrypha, but that doesn’t mean it is accepted as canon. It is more for an FYI purpose. Even the Jews do not accept the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals.

That is not true. Some Jews did not before and do not today accept the deuteros. But not all. For instance the Ethiopian Jews hold to the Septuagint version which contains the deuteros. Same with the Jews in Russia and in other partsof the world. There is no consensus in Jewery on what is canonical. But, even if there was a consensus amongst the Jews, holding up what books the Jews accept as the standard by which christians determine which books are inspired is doomed from the start. After all, these are the same people who rejected the entire New Testament.

 

[james62]

That is not true. Some Jews did not before and do not today accept the deuteros. But not all. For instance the Ethiopian Jews hold to the Septuagint version which contains the deuteros. Same with the Jews in Russia and in other partsof the world. There is no consensus in Jewery on what is canonical. But, even if there was a consensus amongst the Jews, holding up what books the Jews accept as the standard by which christians determine which books are inspired is doomed from the start. After all, these are the same people who rejected the entire New Testament.

…and on a larger point, they reject Jesus as the Messiah.

This is the part i’ve never understood once i learned about it, and most Prots don’t have an answer (mainly because most are never taught this): Prots are quick to use the early Christian Church for their authority in choosing the New Testament - which rejects the Jewish opinions, but for the Old Testament it is the exact opposite - they accept the Jewish version and reject the early Christian Church’s opinion. It’s a shifting standard of authority that continues through other ideology as well.

 

[Pawel_J]

Yes, the bible came from the catholic church. It is well known fact that Peter was a catholic and went to church and it is him that is the head of the church, so from the beginning they built churches and told people about the pope (Peter was the first pope).

Luke and John and all the other apostles were catholics and they wrote the rest of the bible and they met together (although they hadn’t moved to Rome yet). So the bible was written by our holy mother the church and although Jesus started out a Jew he finished his life as a catholic and all his apostles were catholic.

The people that say otherwise just don’t know their history.

If Peter was the first pope, what function had Paul and James (the Just), the brother of Jesus? We cannot say about such function as pope at that time. Early Christianity was not an episcopal church then. There was no single main center for Christians. All Christian churches (or communes) were more or less independent, lead by elders (for example in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antiochia, later also in Rome).
You cannot also say the authors of Gospels were Catholics. They did not even know such a word. They were Christians, the followers of Jesus Christ. The term Catholic was introduced later, I am not sure, but probably in the third or fourth century. It has been in general use since the Reformation to identify the faith and practice of Christians in communion with the pope.

 

[Bastoune]

If Peter was the first pope, what function had Paul and James (the Just), the brother of Jesus? We cannot say about such function as pope at that time. Early Christianity was not an episcopal church then. There was no single main center for Christians. All Christian churches (or communes) were more or less independent, lead by elders (for example in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antiochia, later also in Rome).
You cannot also say the authors of Gospels were Catholics. They did not even know such a word. They were Christians, the followers of Jesus Christ. The term Catholic was introduced later, I am not sure, but probably in the third or fourth century. It has been in general use since the Reformation to identify the faith and practice of Christians in communion with the pope.

You should REALLY read up on your re-Nicaean Church Fathers! Pope Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp… all knew the Apostles and refer to them.

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. " — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation. ”

It is from the word katholikos that the word “catholic” comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word “Catholic”, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation “Catholic Church” with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.

 

[james62]

…and let us not forget that the “catholic church” is one of the tenets of the Apostles Creed, “written” finally probably in the late first century, though it developed orally alongside albeit independently of scripture. In fact, it could easily be argued that the early church chose the books they did for the New Testament due in large as to whether said book(s) reflected what the church was already teaching. Growing up Protestant, if i had heard anything about the origins of the bible, i would’ve heard it taught quite backwards from that last statement. Once again, history, logic, reason, and the deepest faith in Christ seems to be on the Catholic side…

 

[Pawel_J]

You should REALLY read up on your re-Nicaean Church Fathers! Pope Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp… all knew the Apostles and refer to them.

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. " — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation. ”

It is from the word katholikos that the word “catholic” comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word “Catholic”, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation “Catholic Church” with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.

Of course the word katholikos has been in use, since the greek language started to exist, meaning ‘universal’. It does not mean however, we had the Catholic Church already then. The practice was very diversified, there was no general canon as to how to do certain things. Reality was not always satisfying, therefore Paul and later Church Father’s have written so many exhorting letters to leaders of local Christian communities.
By the way, the letter you mention was written after Ignatius’ imprisonment in the year 110 - 117.

 

[jmcrae]

Of course the word katholikos has been in use, since the greek language started to exist, meaning ‘universal’. It does not mean however, we had the Catholic Church already then.

Of course we did - Jesus appointed Peter to be the first Pope in 33 AD - we see it recorded in John 21:15-19 - “chief shepherd” is the Pope.

The practice was very diversified, there was no general canon as to how to do certain things. Reality was not always satisfying, therefore Paul and later Church Father’s have written so many exhorting letters to leaders of local Christian communities.

Right, they were bringing everybody into line with the same norms - and they had the authority to do this because all of those churches were in union with the Apostles - all in one Universal (Catholic) Church.

By the way, the letter you mention was written after Ignatius’ imprisonment in the year 110 - 117.

There are some who place the martyrdom of St. Ignatius in the year 107 AD - in any case, the seven letters were written when he already knew he was going to the lions to be killed.

 

[Bengoshi]

…and on a larger point, they reject Jesus as the Messiah.

This is the part i’ve never understood once i learned about it, and most Prots don’t have an answer (mainly because most are never taught this): Prots are quick to use the early Christian Church for their authority in choosing the New Testament - which rejects the Jewish opinions, but for the Old Testament it is the exact opposite - they accept the Jewish version and reject the early Christian Church’s opinion. It’s a shifting standard of authority that continues through other ideology as well.

Not to be simplistic about it, but it really is quite simple: The OT is Jewish Scripture, while the NT is Christian Scripture.

 

[james62]

Not to be simplistic about it, but it really is quite simple: The OT is Jewish Scripture, while the NT is Christian Scripture.

: ) to which OT do you refer - the Jewish one, the early Christian one, or the Protestant one?

 

[Bengoshi]

That is not true. Some Jews did not before and do not today accept the deuteros. But not all.

These books were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture, but throughout the early history of the church there was a divided opinion on whether they should be part of Scripture or not. In fact, the earliest Christian evidence is decidedly against viewing the Apocrypha as Scripture, but the use of the Apocrypha gradually increased in some parts of the church until the time of the Reformation.

The fact that these books were included by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of
the Bible (completed in A.D. 404) gave support to their inclusion, even though Jerome
himself said they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church” that were helpful and useful for believers. The wide use of the Latin Vulgate in subsequent centuries guaranteed their continued accessibility, but the fact that they had no Hebrew original behind them, and their exclusion from the Jewish canon, as well as the lack of their citation in the New Testament, led many to view them with suspicion or to reject their authority. For instance, the earliest Christian list of Old Testament books that exists today is by Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about A.D.
170:9

"When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms,10 two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom,11 Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.

It is noteworthy here that Melito names none of the books of the Apocrypha, but he includes all of our present Old Testament books except Esther. Eusebius also quotes Origen as affirming most of the books of our present Old Testament canon (including Esther), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as canonical, and the books of Maccabees are explicitly said to be “outside of these [canonical books].” Similarly, in A.D. 367, when the great church leader Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Paschal Letter, he listed all the books of our present New Testament canon and all the books of our present Old Testament canon except Esther. He also mentioned some books of the Apocrypha such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit, and said these are “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.”15 However, other early church leaders did quote several of these books as Scripture.

There are doctrinal and historical inconsistencies with a number of these books. E.J. Young notes:

“There are no marks in these books which would attest a divine origin…both Judith and Tobit contain historical, chronological and geographical errors. The books justify falsehood and deception and make salvation to depend upon works of merit…Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon inculcate a morality based upon expediency. Wisdom teaches the creation of the world out of pre-existent matter (Wisd. 11:17). Ecclesiasticus teaches that the giving of alms makes atonement for sin (Eccl. 3:30). In Baruch it is said that God hears the prayers of the dead (Bar. 3:4), and in I Maccabees there are historical and geographical errors.”

It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). It is significant that the Council of Trent was the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of Martin Luther and the rapidly spreading Protestant Reformation, and the books of the Apocrypha contain support for the Catholic teaching of prayers for the dead and justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone. In affirming the Apocrypha as within the canon, Roman Catholics would hold that the church has the authority to constitute a literary work as “Scripture,” while Protestants have held that the church cannot make something to be Scripture, but can only recognize what God has already caused to be written as his own words.18 (One analogy here would be to say that a police investigator can recognize counterfeit money as counterfeit and can recognize genuine money as genuine, but he cannot make counterfeit money to be genuine, nor can any declaration by any number of police make counterfeit money to be something it is not. Only the official treasury of a nation can make money that is real money; similarly, only God can make words to be his very words and worthy of inclusion in Scripture.)

Thus the writings of the Apocrypha should not be regarded as part of Scripture: (1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testament writings; (2) they were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated; (3) they were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the New Testament authors; and (4) they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. We must conclude that they are merely human words, not God-breathed words like the words of Scripture. They do have value for historical and linguistic research, and they contain a number of helpful stories about the courage and faith of many Jews during the period after the Old Testament ends, but they have never been part of the Old Testament canon, and they should not be thought of as part of the Bible. Therefore, they have no binding authority for the thought or life of Christians today.

 

[fermat]

Thus the writings of the Apocrypha should not be regarded as part of Scripture: (1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testament writings; (2) they were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated; (3) they were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the New Testament authors; and (4) they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.

That is all well and good except for the fact that (particularly #4) that this list is not how someone decides if it is canonical.

But I’m willing to listen. Since you have the ability to determine what is Scripture and what is not, is this Scripture?

** The Presbyter to the beloved Gaius whom I love in truth.

Beloved, I hope you are prospering in every respect and are in good health, just as your soul is prospering.

I rejoiced greatly when some of the brothers came and testified to how truly you walk in the truth.

Nothing gives me greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

Beloved, you are faithful in all you do for the brothers, especially for strangers;

they have testified to your love before the church. Please help them in a way worthy of God to continue their journey.

For they have set out for the sake of the Name and are accepting nothing from the pagans.

Therefore, we ought to support such persons, so that we may be co-workers in the truth.

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to dominate, does not acknowledge us.

Therefore, if I come, I will draw attention to what he is doing, spreading evil nonsense about us. And not content with that, he will not receive the brothers, hindering those who wish to do so and expelling them from the church.

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does what is good is of God; whoever does what is evil has never seen God.

Demetrius receives a good report from all, even from the truth itself. We give our testimonial as well, and you know our testimony is true.

I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink.

Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.

Peace be with you. The friends greet you; greet the friends there each by name.

**

What are your thoughts? The Word or not?

 

[Bengoshi]

That is all well and good except for the fact that (particularly #4) that this list is not how someone decides if it is canonical.

But I’m willing to listen. Since you have the ability to determine what is Scripture and what is not, is this Scripture?

** The Presbyter to the beloved Gaius whom I love in truth.

Beloved, I hope you are prospering in every respect and are in good health, just as your soul is prospering.

I rejoiced greatly when some of the brothers came and testified to how truly you walk in the truth.

Nothing gives me greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

Beloved, you are faithful in all you do for the brothers, especially for strangers;

they have testified to your love before the church. Please help them in a way worthy of God to continue their journey.

For they have set out for the sake of the Name and are accepting nothing from the pagans.

Therefore, we ought to support such persons, so that we may be co-workers in the truth.

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to dominate, does not acknowledge us.

Therefore, if I come, I will draw attention to what he is doing, spreading evil nonsense about us. And not content with that, he will not receive the brothers, hindering those who wish to do so and expelling them from the church.

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does what is good is of God; whoever does what is evil has never seen God.

Demetrius receives a good report from all, even from the truth itself. We give our testimonial as well, and you know our testimony is true.

I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink.

Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.

Peace be with you. The friends greet you; greet the friends there each by name.

**

What are your thoughts? The Word or not?

Did you even read and consider the entire post before you posted your comment?

I have no idea. I am not God. I am not so arrogant as to claim to have the sole power or authority to declare something as canon or not, unlike the RCC. If you quoted that from the Bible, excluding the Apocrypha, then it is Scripture; if not, then it is not Scripture.

Moreover, I just quoted from Dr. Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, who in turn quoted from early church fathers and Jewish leaders.

 

[Bengoshi]

: ) to which OT do you refer - the Jewish one, the early Christian one, or the Protestant one?

The Tanak. The Jewish Scripture which became the Christian OT. There is really no need to distinguish. As I have said, since the OT came from the Jews, then it is just but right that we follow the canon of the Jews. On the other hand, the NT being written after Christ, then it is Christian Scripture. In this regard then should the canon of Church be followed.

 

[unacanta]

I know that the Holy Bible was born from the heart of the Catholic Church. I hear the name Saint Irenaeus of Lyons. I saw in a book that the bible was made inside the Catholic Church in a very slow manner. I am always being asked, “Why do you say that the Bible came from the Catholic Church?” they say that the Bible already exist even before the “Catholic Church” was born. I’m Catholic, I told them that the Catholic Church was there before the Bible. Then they say that even the first catholics don’t baptize infants, they don’t pray to Mary, etc etc. I know they are wrong, I’ve seen sources before but right now I am looking for one.

1. Do you have sources/links that I can read clearly that the Bible Originated inside the catholic Church?
2. Is there any oldest written scriptures about praying to the Blessed Mother and other Catholic Practice that are not what they called, “Biblical”?

The best sources I think are:
1: The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha by William Webster
2. The Origin of the Bible F.F. Bruce, J.I. Packer, Philip Comfort, Carl f. H. Henry

 

[mo3]

Did you really understand my post? Please read it again. Did I say that any specific TRANSLATION is the ONLY Bible?

You said:

There is only one Bible, although many different translations.

If what you said is true, then the NAB is part of “only one Bible”. At least now you are admitting when you speak of the “only one Bible”, you don’t really mean “ALL” Bibles.

Actually, it’s really good that some Protestants consider the RCC as a denomination rather than a cult as others do. Noted scholars like Drs. Geisler and Rhodes only view the RCC as cultic but not a cult because of our shred adherence to the essential doctrines of The Way. It is just plain arrogance on the part of the RCC to clain that it is the only Church, and that aspect makes it no different from the cults.

Are you sure it is not “arrogance” for others to claim the Catholic Church is “not” the one true Church?

I know a lot of Catholics, even priests, who accept/use “Protestant” translations.

This is an old debate tactic that is not logical, intellectual, or valid and avoids stating your churches position. I am sure I could find someone from a Protestant church that does not accept “Protestant” translations and even a Protestant minister. Then once I found this person, it would “totally” refute your argument.

Sometimes, it’s just Catholic pride which prevents you from accepting “Protestant” translations, which are really very scholarly and well-done, such as the ESV, NRSV, NIV, etc.

Are you aware there are “scholarly and well done” translations that would “totally” disagree? The point is how do you know which scholars to trust? Can you quote “chapter and verse” about which scholars to trust?

Catholics are trusting apostolic succession to know who to trust. The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

God bless.

 

[mo3]

Protestants/Evangelicals accept the NAB except the apocrypha which it contains.

This confirms the point. When you speak of the “Bible”, you don’t really mean “all” Bibles. You only mean the Bibles which you accept based upon your scholarly research. Other scholars may agree with you but many scholars will disagree.

By the way, there are also “Protestant” translations which contain the apocrypha, but that doesn’t mean it is accepted as canon. It is more for an FYI purpose. Even the Jews do not accept the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals.

This is true. However, are you willing to trust your eternal soul to the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ?

God bless.

 

[james62]

re: #72 - so begoshi,

are your final earthly ecclesial authorities St. Jerome, and Melito? i understand your post, and while it was well-written and well-researched, it seems more like you - like most of us! : ) - are simply looking into the past to see which early fathers agree with the canon you use today. i used to do the same thing. most all of these questions come down to who a person sees as their ultimate EARTHLY authority (because we all know and agree that Jesus is THE head of His Church, His Body, His Bride.)

so, do you accept all of Jerome and Melito’s other ideas regarding the Christian faith? do you agree with their thoughts on the sacraments, the bishop of Rome, etc.?