Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

[Tony888]

***I SUSPECT yours is the normal condition. WHY?

Because the Bible came through the Catholic Church.

The OT was collected by men known today to ahve been Catholics and the Entire NT was actually authored by Catholics,

Further in is the CC that collected ALL of the Books and set the original Canon of the Bible MANY hundreds of years before there were ANY OTHER Christian faiths and churches.

From the 1st. Word to the Final WORD in the Bible; God always and everywhere insisted on ONLY One God; One set of Faith beliefs and One Church. It is Historical FACT that that Church is todays Catholic Church and a list of consecutive Popes is readly available as evidence of such: starting with Peter all the way to benedict XVI. Todays Pope.***
Pat

To be candid, I find this type of thinking arrogant. Isn’t it more appropriate to say
God the father authored the Gospels by the Holy Ghost through the Apostles?
Then early Christian scribes copied these teachings to preserve and share them.
Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the bible was pulled together and published by what was then called the Catholic Church.

Net, we can claim the Catholic Church was the publisher, not the author (BIG DIFFERNECE)

We can both claim heritage to these Christian scribes, that preserved the word of God

Again, these Christian scribes did not create the bible, they copied it

And, we can all take vicarious credit for the gift they gave us.

 

[pablope]

To be candid, I find this type of thinking arrogant. Isn’t it more appropriate to say
God the father authored the Gospels by the Holy Ghost through the Apostles?
Then early Christian scribes copied these teachings to preserve and share them.
Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the bible was pulled together and published by what was then called the Catholic Church.

Net, we can claim the Catholic Church was the publisher, not the author (BIG DIFFERNECE)

We can both claim heritage to these Christian scribes, that preserved the word of God

Again, these Christian scribes did not create the bible, they copied it

And, we can all take vicarious credit for the gift they gave us.

No…then you would be revising a historical fact, in effect, re-writing history. It is a historical fact and you cannot seem to accept it?

And why do you not think those who wrote the NT were catholics? The CC was in existence prior to any Protestant denomination, and well before the LDS.

 

[Tony888]

No…then you would be revising a historical fact, in effect, re-writing history. It is a historical fact and you cannot seem to accept it?

And why do you not think those who wrote the NT were catholics? The CC was in existence prior to any Protestant denomination, and well before the LDS.

pablope, where am i wrong?

I said early Christians/Catholics transcribed the bible, but did not author it

I said every one of us (Catholic, Protestant, general bible reader) shares a common heritage with these early Christians/Catholics. I have as much chance of sharing their DNA as you do.

The gift of preserving the scriptures is a wonderful gift to all of us by our common ancestors.

 

[PJM]

=Tony888;8120107]To be candid, I find this type of thinking arrogant. Isn’t it more appropriate to say
God the father authored the Gospels by the Holy Ghost through the Apostles?
Then early Christian scribes copied these teachings to preserve and share them.
Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the bible was pulled together and published by what was then called the Catholic Church.

Net, we can claim the Catholic Church was the publisher, not the author (BIG DIFFERNECE)

We can both claim heritage to these Christian scribes, that preserved the word of God

Again, these Christian scribes did not create the bible, they copied it

And, we can all take vicarious credit for the gift they gave us.

No, actually not “Inspired” means give direction too; it does NOT mean dictated.

Yes the **Catholic Scribes **did copy the scripts; BUT what about the NT? And how about selecting and setting the Canon of the Bible And is was ONLY Catholics who authored the entire NT, inspired by God, and relating what many of them knew first hand.

God Bless you my friend,
Pat

 

[Nicea325]

pablope, where am i wrong?

I said early Christians/Catholics transcribed the bible, but did not author it.

So what you are implying the authors of the NT were not Catholics (universal in belief,doctrine,etc) but some obscure Christians who no longer exist?

I said every one of us (Catholic, Protestant, general bible reader) shares a common heritage with these early Christians/Catholics. I have as much chance of sharing their DNA as you do.

Unfortunately heritage is not the same as doctrine and dogma or else there not exist thousands of different denominations.

The gift of preserving the scriptures is a wonderful gift to all of us by our common ancestors

.

And it would be a greater gift if all adhered to what was written and said and not what many want it to say for their own agendas,biased views,etc.

 

[Tony888]

No, actually not “Inspired” means give direction too; it does NOT mean dictated.

Yes the **Catholic Scribes **did copy the scripts; BUT what about the NT? And how about selecting and setting the Canon of the Bible And is was ONLY Catholics who authored the entire NT, inspired by God, and relating what many of them knew first hand.

God Bless you my friend,
Pat

You are describing the work of a Publisher not an Author.

The Apostles did the speaking & writing - **they were the Authors ** (inspired by the Holy Ghost)

The early Christians/Catholics did the scribing and book assembly - **they were the Publishers ** (inspired by the Holy Ghost)

We all respect the role of the Early Church as **Publisher ** (but not Author)

 

[kylemccloughan]

No, actually not “Inspired” means give direction too; it does NOT mean dictated.

Yes the **Catholic Scribes **did copy the scripts; BUT what about the NT? And how about selecting and setting the Canon of the Bible And is was ONLY Catholics who authored the entire NT, inspired by God, and relating what many of them knew first hand.

God Bless you my friend,
Pat

What??

 

[Tony888]

pablope, where am i wrong?

So what you are implying the authors of the NT were not Catholics (universal in belief,doctrine,etc) but some obscure Christians who no longer exist?

Unfortunately heritage is not the same as doctrine and dogma or else there not exist thousands of different denominations.

And it would be a greater gift if all adhered to what was written and said and not what many want it to say for their own agendas,biased views,etc.

Let me try this again.
I believe the Apostles were the authors of the New Testament, through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

• I do consider them as Christians
• I certainly do not think they were obscure!
• I doubt they honestly meet your **modern **definition of Catholic (your doing, not mine)
• I think they met the original meaning of Catholic (universal)

 

[kylemccloughan]

You are describing the work of a Publisher not an Author.

The Apostles did the speaking & writing - **they were the Authors ** (inspired by the Holy Ghost)

The early Christians/Catholics did the scribing and book assembly - **they were the Publishers ** (inspired by the Holy Ghost)

We all respect the role of the Early Church as **Publisher ** (but not Author)

I agree.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

And yet, Jim, there are doctrines in the Catholic Church not shared by the Orthodox, even those claimed to be nacent to the early Church. I understand it.

Back to the original thread, and through all the posts, did I make it clear that Lutherans do understand the history of the Bible, levels of catechesis notwithstanding?

And finally, please know that I always enjoy our conversations.

Jon

Yes, Jon, it’s a pity that the Orthodox didn’t participate in any of the Councils after the seventh. Therefore, they recognize seven and no more. It has been a great hindrance to them, IMO,

As a consequence, for example, they pray for their dead but have no doctrine explaining what the prayers are expected to accomplish. If the deceased are in heaven, there’s no need for prayer. If in hell, they’re beyond the aid of prayer. So why pray for the dead? And they reject “Purgatory,” perhaps because it’s a Latin word used for the process of purification of the soul after death. It was defined at the Council of Florence (1438 - 1445), but the belief and practice come from the Apostles. See also the Council of Lyons (1274). John Henry Newman, in his studies while still an Anglican clergyman, found it in ancient Tradition and concluded that it was “originally given to us from heaven.”

The Orthodox are not into defining doctrine. When asked about many things, they say “it’s a Mystery.” Inquiring minds want to know more.

Again, the Catholic Church has no doctrines of her own and did not establish any doctrines that were not in the Deposit of Faith left to her (and to the Orthodox, who were Catholic until the Great Schism) by the Apostles. One of their official names is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

I, too, enjoy our conversations. You’re one swell guy, JonNC!

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

To be candid, I find this type of thinking arrogant. Isn’t it more appropriate to say
God the father authored the Gospels by the Holy Ghost through the Apostles?
Then early Christian scribes copied these teachings to preserve and share them.
Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the bible was pulled together and published by what was then called the Catholic Church.

Net, we can claim the Catholic Church was the publisher, not the author (BIG DIFFERNECE)

We can both claim heritage to these Christian scribes, that preserved the word of God

Again, these Christian scribes did not create the bible, they copied it

And, we can all take vicarious credit for the gift they gave us.

When she was nearly 400 years old, the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. She is author, selector, collector, compiler, copier, protector, canonizer, publisher. At the same time, she canonized the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of Sacred Scripture she named Tá Biblia, the Bible. That’s documented history. And Protestants reject the Septuagint! Go figure.

QUOTE:
The Church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities. END QUOTE (bold and color added). Excerpt from a Protestant publication, Encycopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, New York and London, 1998, p. 1049.

The Apostles and their disciples who wrote the NT were members of the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. It was probably named Catholic (universal) by the Apostles themselves. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Church at Smyrna in A.D. 107, about 7 years after his teacher, St. John the Evangelist, died: Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Yes, Catholic (Greek: Katholikos) meant universal then and now.

Those weren’t generic Christian scribes who copied the entire OT and NT by hand for fifteen centuries. And they sure weren’t Mormons. They were ***Catholic monks. *** Every Bible in existence ultimately came from the Catholic Church, copied by Catholic hands.

I’m quite amazed that you wrote: “Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the bible was pulled together and published by what was then called the Catholic Church.”

It’s still called the Catholic Church. But how can the Holy Ghost have anything to do with this Church that you allege became totally apostate with the death of the last Apostle in the first century? The Church was nearly 400 years old when she formed the Bible! OOPS! Pardon me for giggling.

Why do you trust a book that came out of a Church that had been “apostate” (so you say) for centuries? Actually, all Protestants also believe the Church became apostate, but they have dozens of conflicting guesses as to when it happened. (It didn’t.) So this Q applies to them also.

Lord have mercy.

Jim Dandy

 

[Conor7]

I’m just going to pop in to note something this thread made me think of. I’m reading a book off and on titled Misquoting Jesus.

The author, Bart Ehrman (Bible Scholar and I think, self-professed atheist) writes that the beloved story of the prostitute about to be stoned - the whole he without sin cast the first stone - was actually added in the margin by a scribe as what appears to be a thought he had while copying the scriptures.

Well the long and short of it is, according to Ehrman, subsequent scribes added it into the text as if it were part of the Gospel all along.

I don’t know what to make of it, but thought it was interesting. At any rate, anyone who’s read anything I’ve ever posted on this forum knows I like to pop in and add random thoughts without any sense of accountability.

 

[PJM]

=Tony888;8120107]To be candid, I find this type of thinking arrogant. Isn’t it more appropriate to say
God the father authored the Gospels by the Holy Ghost through the Apostles?
Then early Christian scribes copied these teachings to preserve and share them.
Through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the bible was pulled together and published by what was then called the Catholic Church.

Net, we can claim the Catholic Church was the publisher, not the author (BIG DIFFERNECE)

We can both claim heritage to these Christian scribes, that preserved the word of God

Again, these Christian scribes did not create the bible, they copied it

And, we can all take vicarious credit for the gift they gave us.

My dear friend in Christ;

CANDOR is good and is the foundation of my comments. Everything I stated is historically TRUE and verifible. I’m TRULY sorry you were unable to accept it in the vain that I shared in it. Everyone is entitlted to KNOW the truth.

Truth can be denined, changed and ignored; BUT none of that actually changes anything. What is truth always remains the truth. True my friend is true:thumbsup:

When the Bible was collected; the NT written, and Codified the ONLY Christian Church in the entire WORLD was todays Catholic Church. It would not be MANY HUNDREDS of years later that other Christian churches came into being. So the Bible is because the Bible ws, and continues to be a catholic Book; shared by the CC with the world.

God Bless you,

Pat

 

[josephback]

Nice try, Joseph.

Jon

I thought so

 

[JonNC]

I thought so

lol, I knew you would. Perahps I should say a unity of all the patriarchates.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m just going to pop in to note something this thread made me think of. I’m reading a book off and on titled Misquoting Jesus.

The author, Bart Ehrman (Bible Scholar and I think, self-professed atheist) writes that the beloved story of the prostitute about to be stoned - the whole he without sin cast the first stone - was actually added in the margin by a scribe as what appears to be a thought he had while copying the scriptures.

Well the long and short of it is, according to Ehrman, subsequent scribes added it into the text as if it were part of the Gospel all along.

I don’t know what to make of it, but thought it was interesting. At any rate, anyone who’s read anything I’ve ever posted on this forum knows I like to pop in and add random thoughts without any sense of accountability.

Conor7,

You are talking about the story in John 8:3-7.

The footnotes in the New American Bible from the Catholic Comparative New Testament has a footnote to this passage:

7, 53—8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations. It is found in different places in different manuscripts: here or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.

I’ve read Misquoting Jesus and few other books by Bart Ehrman (Lost Christianities and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.)

You have to be careful in reading Bart Ehrman’s books. His scholarship is interesting. However, he interprets the history of the Bible through the lens of Agnosticism. (I don’t know if he is now an atheist.)

He argues that proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries, at times, altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons; and those holding beliefs we know as Christian orthodoxy were simply the victors in the battle with different groups like adoptionists, docetists, and Gnostics.

While textual criticism has shown some important variants and alterations of Scripture at different points in history; I believe we can trace Christian orthodoxy all the way back to Apostolic times.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Conor7]

I agree with you Anna. I just thought it was interesting little tidbit. Plus, since my arguments are rarely solid, I wanted to exude an air of intelligence by drawing attention to the fact that I read book.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I agree with you Anna. I just thought it was interesting little tidbit. Plus, since my arguments are rarely solid, I wanted to exude an air of intelligence by drawing attention to the fact that I read book.

Conor7,
I appreciate your sense of humor and you are right, John 8:3-7 is an interesting variant.

One of the most shocking variants (at least to me) involves the word Lucifer (Hebr. helel; Septuagint eosphoros, Vulgate Lucifer): see The Original Catholic Encyclopedia Link to Lucifer, History of the Term: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Lucifer

I was surprised to learn that there was actually a bishop named Lucifer, known as Lucifer of Cagliari. He was born in the early part of the 4th century and died in 371 A.D.
Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm

The word Lucifer is also used in Roman Rite liturgy’s Exultet chant in praise of the paschal candle and refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.”
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Catholic Link: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

---

The word Lucifer is found in the Latin Vulgate 3 times, and is used as a description of Christ in 2 Peter 1:19. The word luciferum appears 2 times in the Latin Vulgate.

Latin Vulgate:
**2 Peter 1:19 **(Latin Vulgate) “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) “quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes”

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) “et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer”

Job 38:32 (Latin Vulgate) “numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis”

Psalms 109(110):3 (Latin Vulgate) “tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum genui te”

---

The word Lucifer is found in the Douay-Rheims once in Isaiah 14:12.

Douay-Rheims:
Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

---

The word Lucifer was carried over to the KJV only in Isaiah 14:12, and became a Protestant proof text for the fall of Satan. This is actually a reference to a Babylonian king. Though one can see Satan behind the actions of the king.

King James Version:
Isaiah 14:12: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

---

The Latin word Lucifer actually became associated with Satan outside the Bible in works like Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and Milton’s Paradise Lost. Though, some ECF’s did adopt the association of lucifer with Satan.

Today, one would have difficulty finding the Latin word Lucifer in an English Bible translation. I searched numerous Bible dictionaries and rarely found a connection of Lucifer with Satan. The word Lucifer quietly vanished from the pages of Scripture; and the connection to Satan quietly vanished from many Christian dictionaries.

The OP’s question is a complicated one, and goes beyond the history of the Biblical Canon. Variants among manuscripts and Bible translations are a serious part of this question. Also, the authors of Bible translations can manipulate the text by what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes.

Peace,
Anna

 

[PJM]

=Tony888;8121377]Let me try this again.
I believe the Apostles were the authors of the New Testament, through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

• I do consider them as Christians
• I certainly do not think they were obscure!
• I doubt they honestly meet your **modern **definition of Catholic (your doing, not mine)
• I think they met the original meaning of Catholic (universal)

Hi again Tony;

What you claim as your doubt ought to be a clear as reading the Bible correctly. The Catholic Church is THEE Bible church “par excellence” as She [the CC] birthed it.

The Catholic Church is a Sacrametal Church; practicing ALL seven sacraments Instituted by Christ, and finally as Paul Precisely states; the CC had to be as it is the ONLY church in existence when these words were spoken and recorded] **Eph. 4: 1-7 “**I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body ******[WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

The catholic church is Founded on the Apostles [the first catholics], and Christ was, Is and shall always be with us as His Warraty og her Teachings on Fait beliefs and Morals.
[John 14: 16-17; John 17:15-19; John 20:19-22, Mt. 16:15-19]. Its ALL right there for you to read and heed my friend,

Why would you say you doubt that they would meet todays undertanding of what being a catholic means?

God Bles,
Pat

Eph. 2: 18-22 “ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,[SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [ALSO SINGULAR].

 

[Nicea325]

Let me try this again.
I believe the Apostles were the authors of the New Testament, through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Correct.

• I do consider them as Christians

Yes…and Catholic.

• I certainly do not think they were obscure!

Most certainly not obscure

• I doubt they honestly meet your modern definition of Catholic (your doing, not mine)

Modern definition? Sorry,the CC does not change doctrine/doagma with every wind change. It was Catholic then and is now-my suggestion to you? Read and learn hisory my friend. How different or how non-Catholic were they? Give examples backed up with evidence. Not my doing,the early church and the term “catholic” has not changed in the past 2,000 years. Was it not the Mormon church which at one time had no Black people? Or is that a lie?

• I think they met the original meaning of Catholic (universal)

Original meaning? The term has changed-seriously?