I believe it is because Catholics wrote the New Testament and came up with the entire Biblical canon. Am I right or am I wrong? In a nutshell yes. OT had been written. When the NT was written and it was needed to have both testaments together it was the Catholic Church that did that.Hi everyone! Is the statement “Catholics gave us the Bible.” a true statement?
I would be tempted to ask thos who dispute it to ask where the Bible did come from if not from the ChurchHi everyone! Is the statement “Catholics gave us the Bible.” a true statement?
According to Martin Luther, the Catholic Church gave Lutherans the bible!!
In a manner of speaking. Catholics are responsible for the Bible in it’s present form but there were early canonizations that the Catholic Church was not responsible for.
Such as?
Oh really? What were they?
There was Marcion’s compendium, Origen’s compendium, etc. all while the Catholic Church was still engaging in cut-throat debate about which books should or shouldn’t be officially canonized.
So these are opinions of what the Canon should be, until the true Canon was being made official.
The canon generally consisted of those Scriptures that were read during the Divine Liturgy. By and large, these were separate books. The Pauline epistles, however, seem always to have been part of a bundle, with the pastorals perhaps commentaries on the teachings found in his undoubted works. “Romans” is first because it is a kind of comprehendium of his views. John’s Apocalypse was the last to be accepted as part of the collection known as the New Testament, and maybe not by the Eastern churches. John’s letters were as well-accepted as his gospel.
Uh… ok.
Maricon created his own “Bible” which included 10 of the Epistles of Paul plus the Gospel of Marcion. Origens’ “Bible” was really the first to combine the Old and New Testaments into a single book almost exactly the way it is today. Of course, both were considered heretics and there were many cannons floating around before the official canonization.
So these “canonization” weren’t really canonizations at all…just selections of what individuals thought.
That’s my thoughts, too.
Most of them were just selections of what individuals thought should be but Marcion’s cannon was developed for his own sect of Christianity.
At any rate, a heretic’s view of the Canon is not valid. The Bible as it is now is the result of the Holy Spirit working through the Church. These prior “canonizations” are irrelevant to the discussion.
Origen was the first great commentator on the whole Bible. A genius. He fell out of favor and we don’t have the bulk of what he wrote. I don’t think he ever became a formal heretic like Tertullian. He speculated so much that some of his stuff was too wild to be accepted by the Church, but he also wrote a lot of good stuff. I THINK that Jerome was at first an admirer of Origen but then not.