Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[Gabriel_of_12]

DaddyGirl;14136763]As I recall, the first to put together a list of books for a Christian canon was Marcion of Sinope, a bishop from Asia Minor later categorized as a heretic and excommunicated.

There were other canons including those listed by Catholic Saints in circulation, but none were officially canonized by the whole Catholic Church until Constantine united the Empire under the sign of the Cross and lifted the Roman laws that persecuted the Catholic Church. Granted there were periods when these Roman laws on the books were not exercised, never the less we have many Bishop’s of Rome, Saints who were Martyred by both Jews and Romans for their Catholic Faith in Jesus, these are recorded historical accounts you cannot refute. The blood of Martyrs for the first 400 years give witness to this account.

One can micro manage their way around history to refute different ages of the persecution, but it is the blood of Martyrs that disprove such an overlook of the true history of the Church. Which no one can deny.

Seeing a need to separate and define Christianity from Judaism.

The Jews excommunicated the Christians from their synagogues. I don’t find a history where the Church ever **needed **to define Christianity from Judaism.

If Christianity was to be it’s own religion, it needed it’s own good book.

I know of no history when “Christianity was to be it’s own religion” or if Christianity ever “needed it’s own book”. You may displaying an opinion that probably lacks the full picture of Church recorded history.

It sounds like you are forcing a 19th century mindset into antiquity of the Church that does not exist.

Another reason the church took time to “canonize” the books is because during the first few centuries, everyone thought the end was near as per Jesus’ (and Paul’s?) words. The end was coming in their lifetime! Who needed any books?!

Here’s the just of this subject. By the second century, The Church already possessed the letters from the Apostles and the four gospels, along with the Jewish bible books (Old Testament), by the way; the OT books were not yet canonized by the Church or by the Jews.

These books were already practiced in the Catholic Liturgy, it was Church apostolic Tradition which one the day in keeping Jesus revelations and the apostolic faith practices unchanged. You may be surprised that; it was not the bible alone which kept the apostolic faith fully intact, because the New Testament nor the Old Testament books were never canonized yet.

The Letters of the apostles and the gospels were read at every liturgy practiced in hiding for the first 400 years. While the apostles lived, the gospels were given orally, and when ever an apostle was not present, the Letters were read and the apostolic faith practices were well underway.

What Empire-wide laws are you talking about?
Christians were free to worship their God and follow their religion for a lot of the first four centuries.

Imperial laws, Jewish laws and Eastern Kingdoms such as those where the Nestorians tried to take root, as one example. The Catholic Churches and their bishops were persecuted under imperial laws and violent acts were wrought against them from the locals.

There was that ten-year period when Diocletian instigated the law in 303 that required Christians to give up their books and the demolition of the churches and imprisonment of the high ranking christian officials…that was bad.

How do you account for the Martyred blood of the first 34 bishops just from Rome?

And Trajan had that two year period from 249-251 where every Roman citizen had to perform a sacrifice to the Roman Gods or they would be executed (so this wasn’t a law against Christianity per se, it was a law to ensure everyone also worshipped the Roman Gods as well as any other they chose).

This was one of the law on the books, to which Roman authorities at any time could exercise at the local levels, through out the Roman Empire. We have blood of Martyrs who give witness to these times, who refused to worship the pagan deities.

Are you aware of the Roman law against consuming the Eucharist?

But other than that…christianity wasn’t “illegal”. The local governors dealt with any “problems” regarding Christians locally, sporadically, and occasionally over those first several centuries until Constantine came on the scene.

Constantine was not the first Emperor to lift a ban against Christians.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

When Nero persecuted the christians in 64, it wasn’t because of the religion…it was to blame someone for the fire.

And here it is were we read history differently. I see Nero killing Christians as sheep to the slaughter. You see Nero killing people for political reasons. I will leave both views to the jury.

Plenty the Younger was the governor who arrested Christians because it was against the law for groups to gather because of a fear of political insurgence. But that wouldn’t be a law against Christians, it was a law for everyone to follow.

What you don’t understand about this Church history is; any law which prevented the Church from practicing her liturgy or catechizing believers became a persecution against her.

I will attempt to add to your understanding during these times; The leaders of the Church always taught and preached to follow Roman law, but when Roman religious or political laws came against the apostolic faith, all Christians became outlaws against the Roman Empire.

But to say there were “four centuries of Roman laws that persecuted the Catholic church” and kept Christians from worshipping–in private or public–would be way misleading. And inaccurate

.

I call your attention to the blood of Martyrs, Popes and Saints who give testimony and witness while under persecution. Against any secular scholar.

Huh?
There were many different books because there were many different groups of Christians during those first few centuries whose beliefs varied greatly–much more so than the varied Christian groups today.

Correction; There has always been only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. When all others were exposed as false shepherds teaching a different gospel, by the disciples of Jesus Christ and or apostolic successors to the original apostles.

You said :
… the Church found the Gospels and most letters of the apostles were in different languages but transcribed verbatim.
Which languages and letters are you talking about?

The Gospels.

The New Testament comes down to us in Greek. Saint Jerome transcribed (Old and New) the bible books of the canon from both Hebrew, Arabic and Greek into Latin.

But anyway, after the books of the canon were settled on…the canon was closed. No more changes could be made.
So of course…it’s the same one that is used today

.

Your summary here does not include the fact that the original official canon was canonized in the fourth century. It was not until council of Trent about 13 centuries later, that the canon was officially closed by the Catholic Church.

The New Testament and Septuagint books were contested through out the ages even by Catholic Saints. The miracle is, the original canon survived the test of time to today, which the Catholic church still uses in her Liturgy.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

Sure. It’s more productive to read what some member of a particular confession actually believes than to read an outsider’s assertion about what they think someone of said confession believes.

Well, I agree with that, but it isn’t what I was talking about: I was talking about having a nice “I’m right” “No, I’m right” “No, I’m right” “No, I’m right” back and forth.

 

[benhur]

Exactly what I have been saying in the past how many posts!

hi M,

That is encouraging. All I have time for lately is one liners.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Lutheran scholar, all this talk about canon formation and coucils has me wondering what councils does Lutheranism, or at least your particular branch of Lutheranism accept as authoritative? Acts 15 in Jerusalem and 1 Nicea are accepted by everyone, but any beyond that point?

Thanks

 

[LutheranScholar]

Lutheran scholar, all this talk about canon formation and coucils has me wondering what councils does Lutheranism, or at least your particular branch of Lutheranism accept as authoritative? Acts 15 in Jerusalem and 1 Nicea are accepted by everyone, but any beyond that point?

Thanks

From my quick net investigation ( just got back from work), I can safely say that the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, accepts as authoritative the three ecumenical creeds and the first Four Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Peter_J]

one liners.

We can’t have that!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

From my quick net investigation ( just got back from work), I can safely say that the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, accepts as authoritative the three ecumenical creeds and the first Four Ecumenical Councils.

thank you

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by susanlo View Post
The Old Testament was written by Jewish Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was accepted as Scripture before Jesus was born and confirmed by Jesus during his time on earth.
… Over the early centuries there were a few debates about certain books, but on a whole the Scriptures were widely accepted by those within the church. Eusebius (ca. 260-340) compiled a list of the 27 books mentioning 5 that were disputed: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf…viii.xxv.html Later Athanasius (296-373) writes a complete list:newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm
If the Christians in the centuries before any of the councils could use Scripture and know that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why must someone today who believes the same thing about these writings have to accept the authority of the council?

This is a good summary I found recently about the development of the NT Canon: faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted…wnt-gtj-67.pdf
(end Susanlo post)

From Commenter:
Your post, and the summary on the development of the NT Canon, rely on **“ex post facto” **reasoning. You start out assuming one particular Christianity. You assume certain ancient sources have already been identified as “heretics” or “ECPs”. You pick criteria for the canon that just happen to line up with the NT canon you and they grew up with, excluding criteria that led to other possible canons. You assume certain ancient lists “count” and other ancient lists, like the Gnostics’, don’t count. The summary from Gordon you cite assumes a template of orthodoxy existed, against which we can measure the canonicity of a book. Where did that template come from? This is all ex post facto reasoning.

The OT, as we know it, was not fully “accepted” by Christians as Scripture until a couple centuries after Jesus was born. Some ancient Christians regarded it as non-Scripture, others as the only Scripture, but the Magisterium defined it as Scripture; but taught that parts are superceded by the “NT”, another concept created by the Magisterium. (Catholics and Protestants hope the Magisterium was right on those 2 inventions!) The Jews do not call any book the Old Testament. The context in which you and I read those books comes from the Magisterium. Jews read those books in a very different context.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Well, I agree with that, but it isn’t what I was talking about: I was talking about having a nice “I’m right” “No, I’m right” “No, I’m right” “No, I’m right” back and forth.

Oh, you mean the " I can stroke my ego better than you syndrome?" I read somewhere that part of poetic expression among the Celts was to boast of their heroic accomplishments and maybe embellish the virtues of their own given clan, perhaps at the expense of rival clans. With the catastrophic aftermath of the Battle of Culloden Moor in 1746, that culture was driven so far underground, it became part of a people’s unconscious, a faint echo of a nearly forgotten past. I blame my Scottish heritage. Or, maybe I’m just a blowhard. Probably #2.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

. If my church would have a council and decree that the book of Matthew is canonical, and you think it is canonical, does that mean that you have to believe everything that my church believes as well?

Must have missed this post.

Depends largely upon what sort of pedigree your church actually has. If it’s not apostolic then it’s not claim anyone should take seriously. Just means you’re in agreement with truth on that particular issue

 

[susanlo]

Originally Posted by susanlo View Post
The Old Testament was written by Jewish Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was accepted as Scripture before Jesus was born and confirmed by Jesus during his time on earth.
… Over the early centuries there were a few debates about certain books, but on a whole the Scriptures were widely accepted by those within the church. Eusebius (ca. 260-340) compiled a list of the 27 books mentioning 5 that were disputed: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf…viii.xxv.html Later Athanasius (296-373) writes a complete list:newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm
If the Christians in the centuries before any of the councils could use Scripture and know that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why must someone today who believes the same thing about these writings have to accept the authority of the council?

This is a good summary I found recently about the development of the NT Canon: faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted…wnt-gtj-67.pdf
(end Susanlo post)

From Commenter:
Your post, and the summary on the development of the NT Canon, rely on **“ex post facto” **reasoning. You start out assuming one particular Christianity. You assume certain ancient sources have already been identified as “heretics” or “ECPs”. You pick criteria for the canon that just happen to line up with the NT canon you and they grew up with, excluding criteria that led to other possible canons. You assume certain ancient lists “count” and other ancient lists, like the Gnostics’, don’t count. The summary from Gordon you cite assumes a template of orthodoxy existed, against which we can measure the canonicity of a book. Where did that template come from? This is all ex post facto reasoning.

The OT, as we know it, was not fully “accepted” by Christians as Scripture until a couple centuries after Jesus was born. Some ancient Christians regarded it as non-Scripture, others as the only Scripture, but the Magisterium defined it as Scripture; but taught that parts are superceded by the “NT”, another concept created by the Magisterium. (Catholics and Protestants hope the Magisterium was right on those 2 inventions!) The Jews do not call any book the Old Testament. The context in which you and I read those books comes from the Magisterium. Jews read those books in a very different context.

1 Timothy 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**
Footnotes:
a.1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
b.1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So in the 1st century the book of Luke and the letters of Paul were already considered Scripture by the Apostles themselves.

Before the end of the 1st Century, Clement and the church at Rome wrote to the Corinthians and acknowledged Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was inspired by the Holy Spirit:
“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.” - Chapter 47
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Then we see that in the early centuries in charts like these, that the early theologians were using and referencing the New Testament Scriptures.

truefreethinker.com/sites/default/files/images/Bible,%20manuscript,%20apologetics,%20early%20church%20fathers,%20New%20Testament,%20Old%20Testament.jpg

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/

There were some disagreements about certain books, but they were worked out over time and the NT book list was already accepted before the Councils confirmed the agreed upon list. Do you really think that the Christians were absolutely clueless about what was and wasn’t Scripture until one day when it was instantaneously decided at a council? How did Diocletian burn Christian Scriptures in 302AD if there was no such thing as Christian Scripture until a century later?**

 

[susanlo]

Must have missed this post.

Depends largely upon what sort of pedigree your church actually has. If it’s not apostolic then it’s not claim anyone should take seriously. Just means you’re in agreement with truth on that particular issue

I was making a point about a few of the points made in the original article:

— If the Catholic Church (bishops and pope) had the authority from God to set the New Testament canon, then she cannot be the corrupt and un-Christian “Whore of Babylon” as is claimed by many Protestants.

— If one accepts the canon of the New Testament, one must also accept the authority of the entity who gave it to us, i.e., the Catholic Church.

— If one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, one should and must also reject the canon of the New Testament that came to us through the authority of the Catholic Church. (It makes sense that Martin Luther, the rebel behind the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, wanted to throw out several of the New Testament books that he despised.)

catholicconvert.com/?s=dear+protestant

Since NT Scripture was well known before the church held a council about it, then one can clearly accept the NT Scriptures without accepting the council as authoritative. I see no logic in this argument and mine was meant as a way to express how silly such a claim really is.

 

[mattp0625]

I was making a point about a few of the points made in the original article:

catholicconvert.com/?s=dear+protestant

Since NT Scripture was well known before the church held a council about it, then one can clearly accept the NT Scriptures without accepting the council as authoritative. I see no logic in this argument and mine was meant as a way to express how silly such a claim really is.

Many epistles that were utilized and revered didn’t make the cut.

They didn’t all have the same lists. Why have a council if everyone had the same list ?

For example, the epistles of barnabas and ignatius of Antioch didn’t make the cut.

Lastly, there was not a bound bible until after Jerome and Damascus made it happen.

Even Luther had to admit where the bible came from (the papists)

 

[rcwitness]

There were some disagreements about certain books, but they were worked out over time and the NT book list was already accepted before the Councils confirmed the agreed upon list. Do you really think that the Christians were absolutely clueless about what was and wasn’t Scripture until one day when it was instantaneously decided at a council? How did Diocletian burn Christian Scriptures in 302AD if there was no such thing as Christian Scripture until a century later?

Yes, some Catholics like to tout that because the Canon of Scripture did not exist until mid/late 4th century, that Scripture was inactive. At least that’s strongly how they come across.

Scripture began its purpose the moment it was sent to its recipients. And when the Apostles were finally departed from us, it began the long process of becoming a confirmed body of writings.

But the Canon had its necessary purpose, especially if anyone was going to practice Sola Scriptura. And this relied on the Tradition of one accepted judgment regarding a canon. The way the Tradition was discerned was by many points you have mentioned.

 

[rcwitness]

Since NT Scripture was well known before the church held a council about it, then one can clearly accept the NT Scriptures without accepting the council as authoritative. I see no logic in this argument and mine was meant as a way to express how silly such a claim really is.

Are you suggesting that affirming and closing a Canon was superfluous? Was it unecessary, or without effect?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I was making a point about a few of the points made in the original article:

catholicconvert.com/?s=dear+protestant

Since NT Scripture was well known before the church held a council about it, then one can clearly accept the NT Scriptures without accepting the council as authoritative. I see no logic in this argument and mine was meant as a way to express how silly such a claim really is.

Nearly 200 books vying to make it in the NT in the early Church with debates constantly carrying on.

The earliest snapshot we have of a listing of NT books is the Muratorian fragment dated about 170AD. Check the listing and you will see it does not totally align with the NT we have today.

And even the chief reformer wanted to toss out a few NT books in the 16th century.

So the Church had a good idea what was inspired but it’s not as cut and dry as some make it out to be. For example, the Didache and Clement almost became scripture just to mention a few.

Councils are absolutely necessary ACTS15 and they better be trustworthy. 1 Tim 3:15

Pax

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

susanlo;14138605] the NT book list was already accepted before the Councils confirmed the agreed upon list

.

That’s not reasonable. How can you prove the “the NT book list was already accepted before the Councils confirmed the agreed upon list”, when the council took place they found many liturgies using books written by heretics and or uninspired books.

Do you really think that the Christians were absolutely clueless about what was and wasn’t Scripture until one day when it was instantaneously decided at a council?

Reason informs us that; during this history very few could read. The majority of Christians learned the gospels Orally or by letter being read during the Liturgy.

Hence, It was Apostolic Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture that became the full deposit of the Christian faith. Without Sacred Tradition, the books alone, would of left the Christians clueless. Part of the councils canon = measuring standard used Sacred Tradition from the apostles. You cannot have the full deposit of the Apostolic Christian faith without Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

How did Diocletian burn Christian Scriptures in 302AD if there was no such thing as Christian Scripture until a century later?

Ahh, but there was; Sacred Tradition saved the faith.

I am only offering you a perspective, that get’s missed when Sola Scriptura would of never survived the test of time without Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

Peace be with you

 

[Lenten_ashes]

.

That’s not reasonable. How can you prove the “the NT book list was already accepted before the Councils confirmed the agreed upon list”, when the council took place they found many liturgies using books written by heretics and or uninspired books.

Reason informs us that; during this history very few could read. The majority of Christians learned the gospels Orally or by letter being read during the Liturgy.

Hence, It was Apostolic Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture that became the full deposit of the Christian faith. Without Sacred Tradition, the books alone, would of left the Christians clueless. Part of the councils canon = measuring standard used Sacred Tradition from the apostles. You cannot have the full deposit of the Apostolic Christian faith without Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Ahh, but there was; Sacred Tradition saved the faith.

I am only offering you a perspective, that get’s missed when Sola Scriptura would of never survived the test of time without Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

Peace be with you

Right, I think people make the mistake of not considering the era in which they are referring to.

Early Church had like 98% illiteracy rate. And transportation was a issue and of course no printing press. Each Church under our umbrella was lucky to have maybe 2 or 3 letters or “books” in their possession.

And then we had all these gnostics appearing trying to cause confusion with their phony letters. Would be easy for a Church or churches to fall into deep heresy unless they had the TOTAL deposit of the faith, which is lacking in today’s protestant Churches.

 

[Peter_J]

Do you really think that the Christians were absolutely clueless about what was and wasn’t Scripture until one day when it was instantaneously decided at a council?

On the contrary, I firmly believe that figuring out what was scripture and what wasn’t was a gradual process (involving human beings) but don’t try to tell your Fundamentalist friends that.