Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But did Bishops and leaders in the churches think that these were actually written by Apostles? I am pretty certain that they didn’t. They wrote much against the Gnostics trying to combat their heresy. I think that some uneducated Christians were getting fooled by some of these gospels, but I don’t think that the educated church leaders were confused.
I agree, again. The majority of Christianity was probably uneducated laity, though. But several books were not so distinguishable.

Here the books listed in the Decretum Gelasius which were to be rejected: tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
 
It is my hope that you will ascertain that John Cardinal Newman, one of the most important Protestants of the 19th century, understood from his study of history that he was on the wrong side of the Tiber, and that like Newman (and me), you will correct that deficiency in your walk with Christ. 👍
I haven’t read everything that you have written, so apologies if I’m misunderstanding. My question is, do you regard Newman as a Protestant prior to his becoming RC?
 
The text doesn’t specify who wrote it. While we can not know for certain, many early Christian writers who were closer to the source have identified that it was John Mark who worked closely with Peter.

theopedia.com/gospel-of-mark
Right, no where in scripture does it read… “I, Mark”

So that means we trust in the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church to tell us who authored it and that it is, indeed, inspired.

Thanks.
 
But did Bishops and leaders in the churches think that these were actually written by Apostles? I am pretty certain that they didn’t. They wrote much against the Gnostics trying to combat their heresy. I think that some uneducated Christians were getting fooled by some of these gospels, but I don’t think that the educated church leaders were confused.
Some books in the NT were not written by apostles, some that were attributed to apostles (probably wrongly, but at this point we don’t really know) are not in the NT. But in any event, you are assuming the NT should only include books from apostles. Can you prove that to be true?

You also are assuming the Gnostic Christian scriptures are wrong, and thus not canonical, because the (Catholic) bishops and leaders criticized their “heresy”. But of course the Gnostic Christian leaders equally criticized the Catholic books, and the Catholic “heresy”.

Does that mean the Catholic Christian books, like the familiar 27, should be excluded because some Christian leaders criticized them? Actually there were other Christian groups, with other Christian scriptures, besides the Catholics and Gnostics. According to the Catholics - the movement that “won” - those other Christian scriptures were all “heretical”, and some Catholic authority demanded only the familiar 27 books be used.

Someone will argue that “the Gnostics, and others, weren’t Christian!” But they claimed to be Christian. All their teachings are scriptural, if you accept their scriptures. You might say "We know the Gnostics were heretics, because they are on this “List of Heretics”, and taught this List of False Teachings; and –
we know these other people are reliable, because they are on this “Early Church Fathers” list. Well, who made those lists? Probably the same agency that authorized the canon.

Christians, in 2016, are taking for granted a certain template of what the NT is supposed to look like. We have that template in our minds because we grew up with it. But there were other ancient Christian templates claiming to be succeeding the apostles. It looks to me like one hierarchy persuaded, or imposed, its view, and defeated the others. The tiny NT canon does not look at all like the product of consensus.
 
I agree Kliska and neither do I agree that to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant anymore than it is to cease to be Catholic.
I think many of us were lied to, or misled and told misconceptions such as the Catholic Church added 7 books to the bible at Trent. But then they go and do their own research and find out the truth and are not happy campers.

So in that respect, being steeped in history does lead one towards Catholicism…or at least a lot less hostile towards it.
 
Great article by Steve Ray: catholicconvert.com/

The quick answer:

The Catholic Church officially determined and set the canon of of the New Testament approximately 400 years after Christianity began. The canon was declared by the body of Catholic bishops at the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) and confirmed by Pope Boniface (419 A.D.).
Hi Randy Carson,

This is also a good link: The Emergence of the New Testament Canon

There was an interesting Bible translation development in the 20th Century. The RSV and NRSV are used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, The Catholic Bible Association had to obtain permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV.
Code:
**Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition**
“Scripture quotations contained herein are adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.”

So, the Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued as The Ignatius Bible (there may be other titles at this point.)

This is a quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:
Code:
“This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible  has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the  Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain.
It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . .

A small committee of members of the Catholic Bible Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave warm welcome to the proposal."

There were very few changes made to produce the RSV-Catholic Edition. Most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes in the case of variants among early manuscripts. While commentaries reflect Catholic theology, the translation remains essentially unchanged.

Even though the RSV and NRSV are considered ecumenical translations, the Catholic Bible Association found the need to explain their use of translations, used primarily by non-Catholics—as reflected in this quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

"For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions.

It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike."

The Catholic Bible Association chose to adopt the RSV and NRSV, rather than using a translation purely from Catholic sources. I found this to be quite surprising, given all the resources of the Catholic Church. However, it does show how things have changed in a positive way.

Peace and Blessings,
Anna
 
The Catholic Bible Association chose to adopt the RSV and NRSV, rather than using a translation purely from Catholic sources. I found this to be quite surprising, given all the resources of the Catholic Church. However, it does show how things have changed in a positive way.

Peace and Blessings,
Anna
It is hardly surprising at all considering that the Bible is a Catholic book. 😉

If it contains the Deutero-canonicals and the Church considers the translation appropriate, then why not? They may have their purpose especially if the language deemed suitable for certain audience and usage.

It is those Bibles which are translated purposely to fit their doctrines that are unacceptable.

Peace.
 
I haven’t read everything that you have written, so apologies if I’m misunderstanding. My question is, do you regard Newman as a Protestant prior to his becoming RC?
Of course. He was an Anglican clergyman.
 
I appreciate your genuine honesty. Especially because I know you have studied this.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9294-key

I believe the Keys given to Peter is essential context of the Catholic Tradition of Binding and Loosening.
Good morning RC, I have noticed something before in your wordage of the term “binding and loosing” which changes the meaning. Loosing as a verb means to let go or set free…loosening means to ease off or not constrain so tightly, which I don’t think was the original intent in Jesus’ statement. Probably a typo? Or do I have it wrong?
 
What are the hundreds of books that were known and used by Bishops in the church that were not canonized?

I know the Muratorian Canon (circa 200AD) mentions the Apocalypse of Peter (though it can’t be read in church) and the Shepherd of Hermas (but it shouldn’t be made public). It also lists 22 of 27 books leaving out Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, and 3 John (may be 2nd John instead of 3rd John). Then Eusebius (circa 260-340) made a complete list, but noted that James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2&3 John are questioned by some churches. Then Athanasius (293-373) made a list in his 39th Festal Letter that lists the complete NT canon.

Are there other lists that mention other books?

ntcanon.org/table.shtml
I note the caution from the moderator, and apologize if any of my posts have been “ad hominem”, or “ad womanem” 🙂 I sometimes get a tad abrasive.

There were hundreds of potential ancient NT scriptures. In the final stage maybe they were looking at 25 to 35 serious candidates, but some authority had already ruled out the vast majority. (How?) Even if you cite “criteria” to select certain books, some authority had to decree “these are the criteria that should be used”. And not other criteria. Using other criteria would produce other canons.

When the Mormon Christians added scriptures in the 1800s, there was a huge outcry from all other Christians. “The canon is closed!” Adding scriptures was more outrageous than adding wives. But why outrageous?

Does the closing of the canon look like something that arose by consensus, or decree by some authority?
 
Good morning RC, I have noticed something before in your wordage of the term “binding and loosing” which changes the meaning. Loosing as a verb means to let go or set free…loosening means to ease off or not constrain so tightly, which I don’t think was the original intent in Jesus’ statement. Probably a typo? Or do I have it wrong?
ok. I guess I just wrote it that way without realizing a difference.
 
I appreciate your genuine honesty. Especially because I know you have studied this.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9294-key

I believe the Keys given to Peter is essential context of the Catholic Tradition of Binding and Loosening.
Thanks for the links that explain the Biblical origin of the term binding and loosening and the function of the Key too. Sometimes we make the mistake of reading the Gospels without tracing the origins of the phrases and interpreting them according to our modern understanding thus missing out on their real meaning.
 
So IOWs, the Catholic Church got it right, but it wasn’t necessarily binding? Is there any such thing as binding?
Hi. Could you elaborate on what difficulty you’re referring to? I agree that different people make different claims (e.g. Catholics claim e.g. that the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus (1854) was binding, a claim that Protestants and even Orthodox obviously disagree with), but I believe the question here is: do *you *believe there is any such thing as binding?
 
Thanks for the links that explain the Biblical origin of the term binding and loosening and the function of the Key too. Sometimes we make the mistake of reading the Gospels without tracing the origins of the phrases and interpreting them according to our modern understanding thus missing out on their real meaning.
If I am not understanding this correctly please show me where I am wrong. Is not Kaufman Köhler in the first link saying exactly what you just stated when he points out that Tertullian and the church fathers came up with “clavis ordinis?”
 
I appreciate your genuine honesty. Especially because I know you have studied this.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
Thank you for sharing these. I don’t want to get off-topic, but I just wanted to mention a few things about them.
I have seen this first one before. I am puzzled as to why in the section about “In the New Testament” it cites as a reference a letter that is spurious. The Letter of Clement to James has many historical inaccuracies such as Peter passing power directly to the 4th Pope and skipping the 2nd and 3rd Pope. tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-43.htm Most scholars consider this to be a forgery.
Also, it cites that binding and loosing now means: “this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins.” But I don’t think Tertullian believed that this was what binding and loosing meant. In Chapter 21 of his On Modesty he writes in much detail that the keys are not about remitting sin, nor were they given to anyone but Peter. He doesn’t believe that they are passed to the church. newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm This was written to Pope Callistus when there were some conflicts going on and there were a lot of complexities. But, I don’t know anywhere where Tertullian wrote otherwise about the keys or where someone else from his time period agreed to the church forgiving sins on behalf of God (as opposed to church discipline).
I have concerns about the evidences used in this article.
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9294-key

I believe the Keys given to Peter is essential context of the Catholic Tradition of Binding and Loosening.
This one does talk about the key to the house of David in Isaiah 22:22. This key is in the possession of Jesus in Revelelation 3:7. This article doesn’t claim that the ‘keyS’ given to Peter are the same as the ‘key’ to the house of David. I have heard this idea, but I don’t think that this was understood to be the same in the early centuries. I don’t know when Peter’s keys were first compared to the key on the shoulder in Old Testament times. What exactly was the authority that was bestowed in the keys? I am not sure.
 
This one does talk about the key to the house of David in Isaiah 22:22. This key is in the possession of Jesus in Revelelation 3:7. This article doesn’t claim that the ‘keyS’ given to Peter are the same as the ‘key’ to the house of David. I have heard this idea, but I don’t think that this was understood to be the same in the early centuries. I don’t know when Peter’s keys were first compared to the key on the shoulder in Old Testament times. What exactly was the authority that was bestowed in the keys? I am not sure.
Why would this article claim that the keys given to Peter are the same as to the House of David? This article is from the Jewish Encyclopaedia. The Jews do not believe that Jesus possessed the keys, let alone the power to give them away.
 
I am not exactly sure what is meant by binding in the biblical sense. It seems like that term has many definitions. I am confused about what it means.
From the top of my head, I think they were in the packaging business. There were packages that need binding while others had to be loosened for whatever reason. And then the key was to lock and to open the store where the packages were kept. Not sure about the part that they were doing the same thing in heaven though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top