Bible put together by Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatherineofA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Della:
I don’t know who is teaching you but this is just plain nonsense. Maybe you should try reading about these events from a unbiased point of view?
Click to expand...
This is how I understand the story of Martin Luther as well, in a nut shell, a little detailless.
 
40.png
Neilbass2:
are you implying that somebody actually has been teaching you that the bible was put together at the time of, or as the result of, the reformation? Are you aware that this is complete hogwash? :eek:
Click to expand...
That is not how I think she meant to put it, or so I hope.
 
April Hosen,

If you look at your first thread,

Yup!
Praise God for the Catholics!!! I am actually studying that in school right now! I think thats what started the split of the church, or my understanding of it anyway. The Catholics of that time, not everyone even the high officials were following what the Bible said, so Luther said something and then the Church excommunicated him. Its a cool story.

it appears you are saying that at the time of the original bible compilation the church split. I knew what you were saying but it wasn’t too clear.
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
I am not Catholic. However, I was having a short discussion with some fellow Protestants. I mentioned that it was my understanding that the books that were chosen that make up the Bible were chosen by men who were Catholics. They were members of the church. They met in councils, etc. and the books were chosen to make up the collection we have today. Correct? Do you have anymore background information on these people being Catholics who were members of the church?
Click to expand...
How are you defining “Catholic”?

All Christian churches existing today derive from the early “Catholic” Church. The Roman Catholic Church in the West, together with the various Eastern churches (Orthodox in communion with Constantinople; “Uniate” Eastern Catholic Churches; Non-Chalcedonian churches such as the Copts, Armenians, etc.; and the Assyrian Church of the East), have the most direct connection. National churches that became Protestant at the Reformation, such as the C of E, the Scottish Presbyterians, the Lutheran/Reformed “Landeskirchen” in Germany, the Scandinavian Lutherans, etc., also have a well-demonstrated organizational continuity with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. Other Protestant churches have more remote connections, but that remains their ancestry. Historically Protestants have used the word “Catholic” for themselves, or more ecumenically for all Trinitarian Christians; certainly not as a synonym for “Christians in communion with Rome.”

For Protestants, the church calling itself “the Catholic Church” is best defined by the dogmas of the Council of Trent (since it was at that point that Protestantism and Catholicism formally defined themselves so as to exclude each other). Obviously the early Christians had not heard of those dogmas. A good case can be made that their teachings were closer to those of Trent than to those of the Protestant confessions of the 16th century–but that’s something you should decide by reading the relevant documents for yourself (the Reformers certainly claimed otherwise). Certainly early “Catholicism” was not identical in doctrine and practice with any modern form of Christianity.

I hope this is helpful. I do not apologize if it’s confusing. The truth is often confusing. Simplistic caricatures of history serve ideological purposes (on all sides) but do not serve the Truth.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
I am not Catholic. However, I was having a short discussion with some fellow Protestants. I mentioned that it was my understanding that the books that were chosen that make up the Bible were chosen by men who were Catholics. They were members of the church. They met in councils, etc. and the books were chosen to make up the collection we have today. Correct? Do you have anymore background information on these people being Catholics who were members of the church?
Click to expand...
You can check out the councils of Carthage, Rome, and Hippo. They all talk about the cannon and they include the deuterocanonicals.
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
Try these sites for Bible history:

Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
I have many more too!
Click to expand...
Sir,
The site you link to have factual errors about the cannon of scripture. Prots claim the 100AD Jewish council is the authority to follow and that council tossed books the Catholics retain to this day. However, that coucil took place, clearly, after Jesus’ time and changed the OT for MOST Jews but not all for they had no over-arching authority to dictate diddly to the entire body of Judaism. Regardless their change in 100AD failed to be retroactive, meaning the OT the Apostles and more importantly, Jesus, used is the SAME OT we Catholics use today.

But I have admired many of your other posts. I only caution that Catholics should avoid Prot sites when researching history for they have slanted records in their favor.

Cheers,
 
It’s interesting how Protestants want to follow the “authority” of early Jews who rejected Christ. Apparently those non-Christian Jews are better at deciding the canon for the Christian Bible than the early Jews who ACCEPTED Christ and the deuterocanicals and were CHRISTIAN.

It is sad.
 
The Jewish synod of Jamnia did not, as is commonly supposed, decide any kind of Canon for the Jewish Scriptures.

It was merely a series of rabbinical debates, which featured arguments regarding certain books which were in dispute, and their worthiness or unworthiness to be regarded as Scriptural: e.g., Esther, Song of Solomon, etc.
 
The first synod to canonize the Bible as we have it today was the Roman Catholic synod, with Pope Damasus I presiding.

Pope Damasus decreed (AD 382):
"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book [included Baruch]; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to
Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. "
Click to expand...
Were these the “Catholics” that we are talking about?

The Protestant Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232) states:
A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament … which is identical with the list given at Trent.
Click to expand...
 
From Martin Luther:
We are compelled to concede to the papists that they have the Word of God; that we received it from them, and that without them we should have had no knowledge of it at all"
Click to expand...
(Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John)
Click to expand...
 
Br. Rich SFO:
That is correct. Catholics were the only Christians up until after the 1400’s. The Catholic Church councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 300’s first listed the books officially… They were listed prior to that and were listed officially because of the attempts of some to assert other material as being Scripture.
Click to expand...
What about the Eastern Orthodox? They were not Catholic and existed prior to 1500?
 
40.png
Pjs2ejs:
It’s interesting how Protestants want to follow the “authority” of early Jews who rejected Christ. Apparently those non-Christian Jews are better at deciding the canon for the Christian Bible than the early Jews who ACCEPTED Christ and the deuterocanicals and were CHRISTIAN.

It is sad.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. I have to file it away and use it. Super point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top