Have Christians read the book WHERE DID WE GET THE BIBLE

[Bill_Pick]

IMHO it could do with being brought up to date; it was written in 1911, which is a very long time ago in some ways.​

I,m sorry you got so confused It was not baiting it was just a question . Are you upset because I used the word Christian,Cathloic and prost are Christian, right or do you have a new name you like better. Have a good day and may Our Lord bless you

 

[NDfan]

NDfan,

Did not Jesus Christ leave his Church to guide us? Truth is Agustine believed that Jesus Christ did leave his church to guide us, therefore he believed through the Grace of God.

Don’t let your studies on Agustine go to waste, believe has he believed:thumbsup:

Ufamtobie

I’m not sure what your point is here. I’m not studying Augustine specifically. Just mentioning as a compliment to Bill’s question that Augustine would not have believed scripture unless the church declared them to be true. To answer your question yes Christ built a church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. And that’s my point. We need the church to affirm the scriptures otherwise no one would know what to believe.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m not sure what your point is here. I’m not studying Augustine specifically. Just mentioning as a compliment to Bill’s question that Augustine would not have believed scripture unless the church declared them to be true. To answer your question yes Christ built a church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. And that’s my point. We need the church to affirm the scriptures otherwise no one would know what to believe.

See if this logic makes sense…

Jesus founded a Church guided by the Holy Spirit. That Church produced Sacred Writings, which over the course of time and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it decided which ones were inspired and which ones were not. These writings became the NT. At that time, the guidance of the Holy Spirit ended and all that was needed for a believer is the Bible.

 

[Church_Militant]

IMHO it could do with being brought up to date; it was written in 1911, which is a very long time ago in some ways.

Quite true Gottle. Things were somewhat different at that time.

Still I found it a rather excellent read.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Quite true Gottle. Things were somewhat different at that time.

Still I found it a rather excellent read.

Well the last book of the Bible was written in 90-100 ad do we need to up date it also,smile. Have a good day

 

[NDfan]

See if this logic makes sense…

Jesus founded a Church guided by the Holy Spirit. That Church produced Sacred Writings, which over the course of time and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it decided which ones were inspired and which ones were not. These writings became the NT. At that time, the guidance of the Holy Spirit ended and all that was needed for a believer is the Bible.

Ralph I guess I don’t see the church as actually choosing which books were inspired and which ones were not. The church always claimed they received the canon. Key word there is received not chose. If we look at how books were canonized it wasn’t because the pope sat down one day and said “well the holy spirit revealed this to me”. The pope may have ratified the canon but all that did was confirm what the church already considered to be canon. By the time the official canon was issued the works that made up the canon were already being read and accepted as divinely inspired. That was part of the criteria the church used to create the NT.

I’m not downplaying this at all as the Catholic church protected scripture and brought it forward through all the persecution. On the contrary I see scripture as being questionable at best unless the church steps forward and verbally affirms that scripture is true. That’s where my appreciation of oral tradition is priceless. But even Augustine claimed the leaders of the church can err. So I don’t subscribe to the notion that the church infallibly interprets scripture. I know we will differ on this and I fully respect your position. But if we study church history very carefully we will see that varying interpretations of scripture always existed. The original Nicene creed saw many flip flop positions taken that it was almost insane. The council at Chalcedon had the same issue. Everyone had their own opinion on the nature of Christ. How do you know who was right and who was wrong?? In many cases it came down to who the Emperor supported. So in the end we can all say the Holy Spirit guided us but who’s right and who’s wrong?

 

[emarc]

I disagree completely.

Fr. Graham simply factually takes the allegations of his n-C/a-C opponents and exposes them for the errors that they are. He does so with no polemics or vitriol, but with the honesty that one expects from someone involved in a debate.

You might try objectively reading it again. This time focus on the facts. If they are accurate then you have cause to question what you currently hold as true.

i agree w/ you. his style was factual and authoritative that protestants reading the book may have the misinformation of rev graham being anti-protestants. great info for someone who wants to know where we got the Bible.
God bless.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph I guess I don’t see the church as actually choosing which books were inspired and which ones were not. The church always claimed they received the canon. Key word there is received not chose. If we look at how books were canonized it wasn’t because the pope sat down one day and said “well the holy spirit revealed this to me”. The pope may have ratified the canon but all that did was confirm what the church already considered to be canon. By the time the official canon was issued the works that made up the canon were already being read and accepted as divinely inspired. That was part of the criteria the church used to create the NT.

I’m not downplaying this at all as the Catholic church protected scripture and brought it forward through all the persecution. On the contrary I see scripture as being questionable at best unless the church steps forward and verbally affirms that scripture is true. That’s where my appreciation of oral tradition is priceless. But even Augustine claimed the leaders of the church can err. So I don’t subscribe to the notion that the church infallibly interprets scripture. I know we will differ on this and I fully respect your position. But if we study church history very carefully we will see that varying interpretations of scripture always existed. The original Nicene creed saw many flip flop positions taken that it was almost insane. The council at Chalcedon had the same issue. Everyone had their own opinion on the nature of Christ. How do you know who was right and who was wrong?? In many cases it came down to who the Emperor supported. So in the end we can all say the Holy Spirit guided us but who’s right and who’s wrong?

Not that I dispute what you are saying, but I wasn’t really clear.

I guess I should be asking how the Church COULD have had the Holy Spirit to guide her in this process then, since the Bible was complete, she no longer needed it or the Holy Spirit just flat left.

In other words, shouldn’t it be all or nothing? Jesus never said write a thing.

 

[FightingFat]

Also to deny that there is more to the Christian faith than the writings it created seems a non sequitor argument to me. Even the Evangelists themselves explain that there were many more things Jesus did but they were not written down or they should fill all the books in the world!

We have the sensus plenior that is implicit in the belief of the Church, for example the Trinity. It is implicit in Scripture; if we say “Jesus is Lord” (Kyrios) then implicitly there is Trinity. That doesn’t mean it was expressed or explained in the Gospel, rather it is drawn out by the Holy Spirit afterwards. Likewise the doctrine of Our Blessed Mother being Theotókos- the God-bearer. To dent this as Nestorius did was felt to be wrong by the Early Church Fathers, eventually we came to see the why-- because it endangers our very salvation to deny that Mary gave birth to anything other than Jesus Christ who was the God-man.

 

[NDfan]

Not that I dispute what you are saying, but I wasn’t really clear.

I guess I should be asking how the Church COULD have had the Holy Spirit to guide her in this process then, since the Bible was complete, she no longer needed it or the Holy Spirit just flat left.

In other words, shouldn’t it be all or nothing? Jesus never said write a thing.

Ralph I see what you are saying. This is a very interesting question as my brother-in-law and I just had this very discussion. He’s a devout Roman Catholic but is of the belief that GOD through the Holy Spirit revealed the canon to us but then left it up to the free will of men to work with it. He doesn’t see the intervention of the Holy Spirit to protect the canon whereas I do.

Even though we don’t formally read Jesus commanding to write anything we know that Jesus placed a high value on scripture. So I personally believe Jesus fully expected the Apostles to write something. If HE didn’t then we wouldn’t consider scripture to be inspired. Remember Paul tells us that all scripture is breathed out by GOD. So I think the question that remains is the one you are proposing, the idea of all or nothing. I believe it’s all but we have to keep in mind that man still has free will. Does the Holy Spirit force itself on the church to interpret scripture properly? I see many Catholics that say the church is protected from error but we certainly never read that anywhere. We just know the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Thoughts??

PEACE

 

[Peter_J]

Have Christians read the book Where Did We Get the Bible?

Don’t know. But it certainly would be ironic if the people who have read it are all non-Christians.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph I see what you are saying. This is a very interesting question as my brother-in-law and I just had this very discussion. He’s a devout Roman Catholic but is of the belief that GOD through the Holy Spirit revealed the canon to us but then left it up to the free will of men to work with it. He doesn’t see the intervention of the Holy Spirit to protect the canon whereas I do.

Even though we don’t formally read Jesus commanding to write anything we know that Jesus placed a high value on scripture. So I personally believe Jesus fully expected the Apostles to write something. If HE didn’t then we wouldn’t consider scripture to be inspired. Remember Paul tells us that all scripture is breathed out by GOD. So I think the question that remains is the one you are proposing, the idea of all or nothing. I believe it’s all but we have to keep in mind that man still has free will. Does the Holy Spirit force itself on the church to interpret scripture properly? I see many Catholics that say the church is protected from error but we certainly never read that anywhere. We just know the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Thoughts??

PEACE

Ok, I think that we are starting from the same point.

Now, I do think that the Holy Spirit does protect the Church. I do use the passage about the gates of hell not prevailing. I add to that, as no single passage of Scripture was ever meant to stand alone, with the part where Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth. I also see where Jesus promised to be with us always, even until the end of time. That all leads me to think that the Church cannot err when it comes to faith and morals.

I also have another angle on it. The Church is the Body of Christ. Now, we know that Christ was sinless and perfect. Could the Body of Christ be perfect? Yes and no. As it is made of sinful me, it can never be perfect in that way. However, is it crazy to think that, like Jesus, she is always perfect in teaching?

The Church is also the Bride of Christ. Same concept. She is spotless only in the sense that she teaches correctly.

Free will is the grimlin in the whole clock. Man can ignore what the Church says. Man can deny the Holy Spirit. I do not think that man’s free will can overpower the will of God.

 

[Hypothesis]

Yes it is on line I have it bookmarked

Could you please share the link. Thank you.

 

[ufamtobie]

I’m not sure what your point is here. I’m not studying Augustine specifically. Just mentioning as a compliment to Bill’s question that Augustine would not have believed scripture unless the church declared them to be true. To answer your question yes Christ built a church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. And that’s my point. We need the church to affirm the scriptures otherwise no one would know what to believe.

NDfan,

You are correct Jesus Christ did build a Church that is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit!

What Church do you believe has the authority by the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us not only regarding scripture but on all things?

Ufamtobie

 

[graceandglory]

I beg to differ. You posted this in NCR where it will to some degree bait n-Cs.
.

You know, it’s weird…I didn’t see the baiting, I saw the question.
Here’s how I understood the question, (Correct me if I’m dead wrong, OP)

Have Christians (non Catholic bible believers who call themselves Christian) read the book (and understand the concept) Where Did we get the Bible?

And my quick response, was…

Probably not.
Speaking as a former evangelical bible believing protestant,
“In the beginning was the WORD, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Since the “Word of God” means the Bible… :banghead:
it always was from the beginning, It’s inspired it’s inerrant.
So,…where it came from, how it was written, etc… is just sort of a moot point.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Could you please share the link. Thank you.

A quick search on Yahoo produced this link:

geocities.com/militantis/biblecontents.html

God bless

 

[Peter_J]

Ralph I guess I don’t see the church as actually choosing which books were inspired and which ones were not. The church always claimed they received the canon. Key word there is received not chose.

Hi NDfan. If I may “butt in” here, I think you’re making a false dichotomy.

When you hear someone speak of “choosing” the canon, you might associate the word “choosing” with “Cafeteria Catholicism” (well, maybe you personally wouldn’t ) and other such things. In other words, you might think “choosing” in the sense of personal preference with no right or wrong answer.

But the word “choose” in-and-of-itself doesn’t imply that – as when Moses told the Israelites to “choose” in Deuteronomy 30 (see below). So I think that “choosing which books were inspired and which ones were not” (properly understood) is actually correct.

"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

• Deuteronomy 30:19-20

 

[Peter_J]

Ok, I think that we are starting from the same point.

Now, I do think that the Holy Spirit does protect the Church. I do use the passage about the gates of hell not prevailing. I add to that, as no single passage of Scripture was ever meant to stand alone, with the part where Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth. I also see where Jesus promised to be with us always, even until the end of time. That all leads me to think that the Church cannot err when it comes to faith and morals.

I also have another angle on it. The Church is the Body of Christ. Now, we know that Christ was sinless and perfect. Could the Body of Christ be perfect? Yes and no. As it is made of sinful me, it can never be perfect in that way. However, is it crazy to think that, like Jesus, she is always perfect in teaching?

The Church is also the Bride of Christ. Same concept. She is spotless only in the sense that she teaches correctly.

Ralphinal,

I thought I was with you, until I got to this post – or, more specifically, the second half of this post.

The way I see it, the Church, the spotless Bride of Christ, is both sinless and infallible. We, who are members of the Church, are both sinful and fallible.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralphinal,

I thought I was with you, until I got to this post – or, more specifically, the second half of this post.

The way I see it, the Church, the spotless Bride of Christ, is both sinless and infallible. We, who are members of the Church, are both sinful and fallible.

You are correct. I was not as clear as I wanted to be.