"Catholics gave us the Bible": Is this a true statement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Believe_God said:
The Word of God had its beginniings with the ancient scribes who put together the Hebrew Bible. By the sixth century they were succeeded by a group known as the Moscoretes, who continued to preserve the Word of God, for the next 500 years. By the tenth century A.D., the Moscoretes of Tiberia, led by the family of ben Asher, carried the text on the 12th century and it was reconized as the only form of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Daniel Bombery printed the first Robbinic in 1515-1525. A second edition by Jacob ben Charyyim was also printed by Bomberg. This was adopted by most King James translators.
The King James draws on manuscripts from the dead sea caves–in a few places the Hebrew became obecure (1611) but has been resolved by the King James through the Hebrew text…the King James follows the Greek speaking churhes and was first published in 1516.
Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and King James are the favored historical pages that carried on the historical manuscripts.
2 Tim. 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God.” The Bibles true writings owe existence to the authority, power and providence of God.
Deu. 4:2 " You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Rev. 22:19 “And if anyone cancels or takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written inthis book.”
The Church claimes to have given the world the Bible. But as stated above (please do your own investigating as to the original writings, not accepting just my word or the word of the church), in Deu. and Rev. the church added to and changed the given word to encompass its own beliefs and dogmas. Thus they gave a bible inspired by man and not of God.
Recalling that Jesus was not Catholic. He was a Jew. The seven churchs listed in the NT were not Catholic. No where in God’s scripture does it tell us the Catholic church is the one and only church. He gave us seven different examples of “church” and we are to take the best from Pauls teachings to the people of the early churchs.
Please do your own history checking to understand the departure that took place.
Click to expand...
Wow. Where do I beigin. Oh yes, sources. What are your sources for this melange of error?
 
NotWorthy said:
The King James draws on the scrolls from the Dead Sea Caves?!? Weren’t these scrolls unearthed in the 1950’s???

I think a quick fact-checking will find your story is riddled with errors. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
You’re quite correct.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1940’s and 1950’s. They were a product of the Essene community – an ascetic group within Judaism.

The King James Bible was translated by teams of scholars in the early 17th century.

Our new friend “Believe God”'s account is riddled with historical inaccuracies.

Luther did a good bit of Scripture translation into German; don’t know what that has to do with the King James version.

Calvin, while writing commentaries on many of the Biblical books was not a translator.

Tyndale was an early translator of the Scriptures into English and was certainly an influence on the King James.

King James was neither a particularly effective king, nor a particularly pious man. He attempted to make sure that both the Puritan party and the High Church party were represented on the translation committee. His own religious persuasions were, at times, guided by what was politically expedient, but tended more toward the “High Church” party, at least toward the end of his life.
 
David_Zampino said:
King James was neither a particularly effective king, nor a particularly pious man. He attempted to make sure that both the Puritan party and the High Church party were represented on the translation committee. His own religious persuasions were, at times, guided by what was politically expedient, but tended more toward the “High Church” party, at least toward the end of his life.
Click to expand...
BTW, what did the KJV draw from as a source. Was it the Latin Vulgate? The Greek Scriptures? I forgot, but it seems to be the same source as the D/R, isn’t it?
 
David is right. His answer highlights some important factors when looking at early Church history. First, before the Edict of Milan, the organization of what later was identified as the Catholic Church was a “work in progress.” It could hardly be otherwise as most adherents lived inside the Roman Empire where the Church was illegal. Instead the various communities that became increasingly interconnected shared their major writings and works listed by David had “made the cut” well before Constantine. I think it important to point out that the Church fathers employed, in most cases, very modern techniques in accepting or rejecting works. The most important factor working in favor of a written source was its age and perceived authorship. Tremendous respect was given to the canonical gospels and Paul’s letters because they were the works of those who had directly seen the Risen Lord or, in Paul’s case, been given a unique vision by Christ himself and was also a close collaborator of Peter, John, James etc. A few of the many later books that were attributed to witnesses of the Lord were perhaps rejected on matters of doctrine. (The Gospel of St. Thomas might fit this category, but we don’t really know.) Most of the works “banned from the Bible” (a nutty concept - as all early Church leaders were legally “underground” nobody had the authority to ban anything with any kind of official sanction) were rejected because authorship was deemed far too late to represent real witness and many were thus laden with outlandish stories that projected the image of magic that the early Church tried to avoid. Many of these later works might not have made it into the canon but some certainly influenced popular teachings of the Church. As always we’d like to know more. Lastly, no Catholic should ever forget that Christian scripture is viewed as inspired but not as the direct word of God. There is no Koran in Christianity.
David_Zampino said:
Essentially, the Scriptures are a product of the Church, not, as some Protestant churches teach, the other way 'round.

This being said, the Canonization discernment process did take a period of some centuries, for a variety of reasons. The need for an official Canon was two-fold: 1) what was to be specifically INCLUDED, and 2) what was to be specifically EXCLUDED. A necessary tension existed between these two factors. For example, Marcion, in order to support his heretical viewpoints, EXCLUDED everything that couldn’t be used to support his point of view. Some of the Gnostic sects INCLUDED texts (spurious or otherwise) which could be used to defend their heretical viewpoints.

Now, while it is true that there were certain books whose inclusion were extensively debated and eventually INCLUDED (II Peter, II, and II John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and while it is true that there were certain books whose inclusion were extensively debated and eventually EXCLUDED (The Didache, I Clement, The Shepherd of Hermes) there was remarkable early virtual unanimity on the core of the New Testament – as can be demonstrated by the 2nd century (at the latest). This “core” included:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew
The Gospel According to St. Mark
The Gospel According to St. Luke
The Gospel According to St. John
The Acts of the Apostles
13 Letters of St. Paul
The First Letter of St. John
The First Letter of St. Peter

All these books enjoyed virtually universal acceptance very early on.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, in answer to “all” who posted back to Believe God on the subject of the church giving the world ‘a’ Bible —as compared to the Word of God given to real people living at the time before, during and after Jesus Christ, information came from: The Associates for Biblical Research, Biblical Archocology, Dr. Bryant Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research (dead sea scrolls) www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr/a023html (www.christiananswers.net).
Masoretes of Tiberias (scribes chosen to decipher and unify the authentic word of God) www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/source/judaism/masoretic,hml
Hank Hanegraaff, (The Bible Answer Man, The Christian Research Institute & can be heard on Bott radio-Christian based), General Editor for the Legacy Study Bible (NKJV), Nelson Bibles, The living legacy of the English Bible. All the information given yesterday came from Hank’s explination given in the beginning of the Legacy Bible.

One statement I will respond to stated that others outside the RCC do not accept the (a) Bible from the Church. You are correct. Because God’s Word is all we need. Not the cannons chosen by men to be added to Gods Word. As stated yesterday, Deut. and Rev. in God’s own words, tells us not to add to or take away from what he has given to us.
Jesus was born both man and God. He was rich in heaven. He gave up everything to be born of a women in order to know our sins, illnessess, etc., and to die on a cross to save us from our own sins so we may spend eternity with Him…provided we accept him as Lord of our lives.
I say this to make this point, the Catholic church says Jesus is not the Rock but Peter. If you read the scripture (without the Catholic interpretation) you see that it says, Jesus who is the Rock, will build the church upon himself but he gives the keys to Peter to carry on his teachings. In understanding that man does sin (no man is sinless, except Jesus himself), and Jesus was and is King, righteous, divine, holy, without blimish, etc., so how could the RCC decide that a sinful man, Peter, should be the one the church was built on? Only to bring its self into a position of authority and in by so doing, it places itself and what it says above Jesus the Son of God.
Now the Church says it can do what it has done because it did so by the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God who indwells the hearts of believers and leads them to understand all things religious.
God and His Holy Spirit would not tell the RCC to put itself above His Son or Himself.
None of the other writers of scripture for the Bible claimed to change things in order to set themselves above Jesus. They took the Holy Word of God and gave it to the world so that all may see and read the Word as given by God.
The Holy Spirit inside of each believer guides them in understanding the Word of God.
God through His Son saves us. Not a man made church. With man made rules, dogmas, traditions etc., that go against everything Christ died to eliminate (OT).
Study the history without the Church…set it to one side and look for yourself. Sixty-six books, forty different human authors, three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), over 1,500 years, on thousands of subjects, yet it is unified and consistent throughout the unfolding message of God’s creation and redemption,throught His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The writers had no idea their works would come together one day in such unity. Yet, this is the unique purpose of a Holy God who calls us to come to know him, abide in him and him in us, and join Him for eternity. Simple truth from God.
 
you mean the New Testament…the story of Jesus! There were many diaries,articles,papers,etc from the first day Jesus began His preaching…the worst being the Gnostic nonsense…one book had Jesus declaring that only men can make it to heaven ,a woman must be changed into a man first etc etc…Yes the founders had several conventions and voted to include so many writings into permanent form…the others deemed in error were discarded…but still the RCC is not a church of a book but of traditions and teachings that existed before the book…biblia…the bible was assembed into one cover as we know it today…after all if Jesus had wanted to leave His teachings in book form He would simply have invented the printing press!!! Consider the problem the Church Fathers had…we have smears like DaVinci code…and Passover plot …imagine how many errors were in existence back then…published by the enemies of our Church.The difference is America has endorsed abortion as OK but the RCC never has and never will…and so it goes…Columbus on his fourth trip carried a note from the Pope condemning slavery ,America had it right up to 1865…
 
Believe_God said:
Hi, in answer to “all” who posted back to Believe God on the subject of the church giving the world ‘a’ Bible —as compared to the Word of God given to real people living at the time before, during and after Jesus Christ, information came from: The Associates for Biblical Research, Biblical Archocology, Dr. Bryant Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research (dead sea scrolls) www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr/a023html (www.christiananswers.net).
Masoretes of Tiberias (scribes chosen to decipher and unify the authentic word of God) www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/source/judaism/masoretic,hml
Hank Hanegraaff, (The Bible Answer Man, The Christian Research Institute & can be heard on Bott radio-Christian based), General Editor for the Legacy Study Bible (NKJV), Nelson Bibles, The living legacy of the English Bible. All the information given yesterday came from Hank’s explination given in the beginning of the Legacy Bible.

One statement I will respond to stated that others outside the RCC do not accept the (a) Bible from the Church. You are correct. Because God’s Word is all we need. Not the cannons chosen by men to be added to Gods Word. As stated yesterday, Deut. and Rev. in God’s own words, tells us not to add to or take away from what he has given to us.
Jesus was born both man and God. He was rich in heaven. He gave up everything to be born of a women in order to know our sins, illnessess, etc., and to die on a cross to save us from our own sins so we may spend eternity with Him…provided we accept him as Lord of our lives.
I say this to make this point, the Catholic church says Jesus is not the Rock but Peter. If you read the scripture (without the Catholic interpretation) you see that it says, Jesus who is the Rock, will build the church upon himself but he gives the keys to Peter to carry on his teachings. In understanding that man does sin (no man is sinless, except Jesus himself), and Jesus was and is King, righteous, divine, holy, without blimish, etc., so how could the RCC decide that a sinful man, Peter, should be the one the church was built on? Only to bring its self into a position of authority and in by so doing, it places itself and what it says above Jesus the Son of God.
Now the Church says it can do what it has done because it did so by the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God who indwells the hearts of believers and leads them to understand all things religious.
God and His Holy Spirit would not tell the RCC to put itself above His Son or Himself.
None of the other writers of scripture for the Bible claimed to change things in order to set themselves above Jesus. They took the Holy Word of God and gave it to the world so that all may see and read the Word as given by God.
The Holy Spirit inside of each believer guides them in understanding the Word of God.
God through His Son saves us. Not a man made church. With man made rules, dogmas, traditions etc., that go against everything Christ died to eliminate (OT).
Study the history without the Church…set it to one side and look for yourself. Sixty-six books, forty different human authors, three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), over 1,500 years, on thousands of subjects, yet it is unified and consistent throughout the unfolding message of God’s creation and redemption,throught His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The writers had no idea their works would come together one day in such unity. Yet, this is the unique purpose of a Holy God who calls us to come to know him, abide in him and him in us, and join Him for eternity. Simple truth from God.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately your dogma of “Scripture alone” was invented by Martin Luther and cannot be found in the Scriptures. Kind of self refuting, dont you think? Your explanation denying Peter as the rock is what I like to call “Scriptural contortion”–you are twisting the Scriptures to fit your own misguided theology. There are seventy-three, not sixty-six books. Both Old and new testaments were established at the same council. So are you saying the Church was right about the NT, but wrong oabout the OT? If they were wrong obaout the OT, how can yo be sure that they got the NT right? Your “simple truth from God” is in actuality a “simple flasehood from Man”
 
Believe_God said:
Hi, in answer to “all” who posted back to Believe God on the subject of the church giving the world ‘a’ Bible —as compared to the Word of God given to real people living at the time before, during and after Jesus Christ, information came from: The Associates for Biblical Research, Biblical Archocology, Dr. Bryant Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research (dead sea scrolls) www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr/a023html (www.christiananswers.net).
Masoretes of Tiberias (scribes chosen to decipher and unify the authentic word of God) www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/source/judaism/masoretic,hml
Hank Hanegraaff, (The Bible Answer Man, The Christian Research Institute & can be heard on Bott radio-Christian based), General Editor for the Legacy Study Bible (NKJV), Nelson Bibles, The living legacy of the English Bible. All the information given yesterday came from Hank’s explination given in the beginning of the Legacy Bible.

One statement I will respond to stated that others outside the RCC do not accept the (a) Bible from the Church. You are correct. Because God’s Word is all we need. Not the cannons chosen by men to be added to Gods Word. As stated yesterday, Deut. and Rev. in God’s own words, tells us not to add to or take away from what he has given to us.
Jesus was born both man and God. He was rich in heaven. He gave up everything to be born of a women in order to know our sins, illnessess, etc., and to die on a cross to save us from our own sins so we may spend eternity with Him…provided we accept him as Lord of our lives.
I say this to make this point, the Catholic church says Jesus is not the Rock but Peter. If you read the scripture (without the Catholic interpretation) you see that it says, Jesus who is the Rock, will build the church upon himself but he gives the keys to Peter to carry on his teachings. In understanding that man does sin (no man is sinless, except Jesus himself), and Jesus was and is King, righteous, divine, holy, without blimish, etc., so how could the RCC decide that a sinful man, Peter, should be the one the church was built on? Only to bring its self into a position of authority and in by so doing, it places itself and what it says above Jesus the Son of God.
Now the Church says it can do what it has done because it did so by the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God who indwells the hearts of believers and leads them to understand all things religious.
God and His Holy Spirit would not tell the RCC to put itself above His Son or Himself.
None of the other writers of scripture for the Bible claimed to change things in order to set themselves above Jesus. They took the Holy Word of God and gave it to the world so that all may see and read the Word as given by God.
The Holy Spirit inside of each believer guides them in understanding the Word of God.
God through His Son saves us. Not a man made church. With man made rules, dogmas, traditions etc., that go against everything Christ died to eliminate (OT).
Study the history without the Church…set it to one side and look for yourself. Sixty-six books, forty different human authors, three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), over 1,500 years, on thousands of subjects, yet it is unified and consistent throughout the unfolding message of God’s creation and redemption,throught His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The writers had no idea their works would come together one day in such unity. Yet, this is the unique purpose of a Holy God who calls us to come to know him, abide in him and him in us, and join Him for eternity. Simple truth from God.
Click to expand...
Friend,

This may well be what you believe. But I don’t think you’re going to do a whole lot of convincing with these “arguments”. There are a lot of well-read, well-versed in Scripture Catholics who post on this forum who have dealt with these questions before. (Including a lot of former Protestants – and even some former Protestant clergy like myself!)

Now if you want to take one issue at a time, and look over that issue seriously and with an open mind and heart, you’ll find a lot of good discussion here. But it will require some thinking through of issues. “Sound-bites” from Hank Hanegraaf won’t cut it.

Blessings,
 
=Holly3278;5241078]Hi everyone! Is the statement “Catholics gave us the Bible.” a true statement? 🤷:confused: 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? 🤷:confused:
Click to expand...
It is a “factual truth” but not necessarily the literal truth.

“The Church” was not in existence until the death of Christ, about the year 33.

The collection of OT historical and prophetic books was accumulated, edited, selected and transcribed by “Catholics”

“Catholics” authored the entire NT

The “Canon of the Bible” is Catholic in origin

The Catholic bible is the first “book” to comprise today’s 73 “books”, including the Torah.

The Catholic bible was the only bible in existence in a “common language… Latin” for about 1,250 years.

So it might be more accurate to say that the Bible came through the Church than the common phrasology you used.

Love and prayers,
 
Believe_God said:
Hi, in answer to “all” who posted back to Believe God on the subject of the church giving the world ‘a’ Bible —as compared to the Word of God given to real people living at the time before, during and after Jesus Christ, information came from: The Associates for Biblical Research, Biblical Archocology, Dr. Bryant Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research (dead sea scrolls) www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr/a023html (www.christiananswers.net).
Masoretes of Tiberias (scribes chosen to decipher and unify the authentic word of God) www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/source/judaism/masoretic,hml
Hank Hanegraaff, (The Bible Answer Man, The Christian Research Institute & can be heard on Bott radio-Christian based), General Editor for the Legacy Study Bible (NKJV), Nelson Bibles, The living legacy of the English Bible. All the information given yesterday came from Hank’s explination given in the beginning of the Legacy Bible.
Click to expand...
So can you ask your sources where the get that the KJV gets its Hebrew source from the Dead Sea Scrolls which weren’t discovered until 1950?
Believe_God said:
I say this to make this point, the Catholic church says Jesus is not the Rock but Peter. If you read the scripture (without the Catholic interpretation) you see that it says, Jesus who is the Rock, will build the church upon himself but he gives the keys to Peter to carry on his teachings.
Click to expand...
Can you please show me where the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is not the rock? I believe Jesus is the Rock (the Bible and the Church teaches that) and that Jesus made Peter Rock (The Bible and the Church teaches that). I would be leery of my sources if I were you, for your information is chock-full of errors. Someone has an axe to grind and you seem to be using this person as your source.

I don’t want to overwhelm you with corrections, so if you can just address these two points, then we can continue. If not, then it looks like you are just spreading falsehood.
 
David_Zampino said:
Friend,
David A. Zampino
Tiber Swim Team – Class of 2005

God is the Lord, of angels, and of men – and of elves.
Legend and History have met and fused.

On Fairy Stories – J. R. R. Tolkien
Blessings,
Click to expand...
I can see why your understanding that Catholic “gave” the Bible is flawed. You seem to like J.R.R Tolkien… A man who like to write mythological characters and fantacy…
 
area52 said:
I can see why your understanding that Catholic “gave” the Bible is flawed. You seem to like J.R.R Tolkien… A man who like to write mythological characters and fantacy…
Click to expand...
He was also a devout Catholic that attended daily Mass rather regularly… Tolkien realized that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible and preserved it through the life-blood of many individuals…and he also knows how to spell fantasy. 😉
 
area52 said:
I can see why your understanding that Catholic “gave” the Bible is flawed. You seem to like J.R.R Tolkien… A man who like to write mythological characters and fantacy…
Click to expand...
The universal, non-divided Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to declare the canon. Pope Damasus then declared the canon closed. I would guess that you prefer the Lutheran canon? Which council did he preside over?
 
area52 said:
I can see why your understanding that Catholic “gave” the Bible is flawed. You seem to like J.R.R Tolkien… A man who like to write mythological characters and fantacy…
Click to expand...
I realize that you intended some sort of clever *ad hominem * attack here, but it fell rather flat!

Can you address any of the several specific points regarding the development of the Canon of Scripture in the Early Church?

And for the record, JRR Tolkien was a fervently devout Catholic, whose scholarship went far beyond the writing of fantasy literature. He was one of the most important philologists of the 20th century and a professor at Oxford for more than 30 years. He was also a student of the Scriptures.

I have all my THEO 001 students read sections from his non-fiction essay “On Fairy Stories” – in which he states quite clearly his belief that the Gospel – the *Evangelium *-- was, and is, the Greatest Story Ever Told – by virtue of its BEING TRUE!

You might also find it interesting that in his masterpiece The Silmarillion the world is created ex niliho! Right in line with Christian belief!

“Dissing” Tolkien on this forum isn’t going to make you any friends, or win you any arguments! 🙂

Peace!
 
Bastoune said:
Jerome’s objections were based on the fact that having studied in Jerusalem and being very familiar with Judaism, he felt that since the Jews rejected the deuterocanonicals in their council of A.D. 90 (bear in mind, this is AFTER the formation of the Catholic Church, who was using the deuterocanonicals!), the Catholic Church should too. But the Jews had no authority to canonize anything!
Click to expand...
Excellent point. If we call to mind the conspiracies and anti-Jesus machinations of the Jewish authorities, it is not a stretch to imagine that their “canon” was a direct response to their obvious concern over the rise of Christianity. Their many plots and attempts to kill Jesus, their imprisonment of the early Christians, their beheading of the martyrs, their absolute authority over Jews in Jerusalem all point to a likelihood that their canon was “edited” to exclude those books that tended to support the growing Christian Church. They desired to kill Jesus almost from His first appearance among them. Once they heard which scripture the Christians quoted from in defense of their new faith, the Jewish authorities would have a substantial motive to exclude those works. I must point out that, 1,500 years later, Luther justified excluding the Deuterocanon by consulting with the Jewish canon. Why would he do this, except out of hardness of heart and hatred of those then in power in the Catholic Church? The truth suffered in both cases by these actions.
 
NotWorthy said:
Today’s Jeopardy Topic is: (Bing) Catholic Answers Forums.

The Answer is: “Great Companion Thread” and “Notworthy”

Yes. Bob?: “What are two phrases you thought you’d never see in the same sentence, Alex?”.

Btw, thanks, Po! 👍
Click to expand...
:tiphat: I know that non-Catholic/Orthodox have a sense of ownership in the bible, since that is all they have to base their faith upon. However, each of their sources for biblical history and interpretation has a man’s name on it, e.g. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and many names who live yet today. When Catholics speak of the formation of the bible, we place the Name of the Holy Spirit upon it. Like they say: The “Sacred Table of Contents” did not fall from the sky. Some authority had to tell the world what it was. It is in the rejection of that authority that problems (30,000 and counting) arise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top