History of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter rben20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rben20

Guest
I need some historical proof that the Bible was put together and given to the world by the Catholic Church. I won’t get into saying that the writers were Catholics to the protestants that I am evangelizing to (just yet :D), but I know some councils put together the books of the Bible that they believed were inspired and others reaffirmed the original canon. I am getting a lot of heat from protestants because I tell them that logically the very Bible they say has all authority should mean the Church who decided which books were were inspired should have all authority as well.
 
rben20 said:
I need some historical proof that the Bible was put together and given to the world by the Catholic Church. I won’t get into saying that the writers were Catholics to the protestants that I am evangelizing to (just yet :D), but I know some councils put together the books of the Bible that they believed were inspired and others reaffirmed the original canon. I am getting a lot of heat from protestants because I tell them that logically the very Bible they say has all authority should mean the Church who decided which books were were inspired should have all authority as well.
Click to expand...
I can “tell” you the “who”, “what”, “where”, and “when” but my experience is that simply citing historical fact will not convince Protestants that the Old and New Testiment canons came from the Church. However, here are the facts that most certainly will be challenged by those Protestants that you are attempting to evangelize.
  1. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.
  2. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
  3. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
  4. The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Catholic list today.
  5. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to the Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
  6. Since the Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. This DOES NOT mean that prior to this the Church had no canon. It simply means that up until this point the canon had not been in question and now it was being questioned so the Church had to defend the canon.
  7. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Catholics came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. Again, this does not mean that the canon wasn’t already accepted and being used by the Church prior to this point; only that it was now an absolute (infallible).
 
rben20 said:
I need some historical proof that the Bible was put together and given to the world by the Catholic Church. I won’t get into saying that the writers were Catholics to the protestants that I am evangelizing to (just yet :D), but I know some councils put together the books of the Bible that they believed were inspired and others reaffirmed the original canon. I am getting a lot of heat from protestants because I tell them that logically the very Bible they say has all authority should mean the Church who decided which books were were inspired should have all authority as well.
Click to expand...
Free online video on “Origin of the Bible” here: alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html
 
Tietjen said:
I can “tell” you the “who”, “what”, “where”, and “when” but my experience is that simply citing historical fact will not convince Protestants that the Old and New Testiment canons came from the Church. However, here are the facts that most certainly will be challenged by those Protestants that you are attempting to evangelize.
  1. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.
  2. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
  3. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
  4. The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Catholic list today.
  5. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to the Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
  6. Since the Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. This DOES NOT mean that prior to this the Church had no canon. It simply means that up until this point the canon had not been in question and now it was being questioned so the Church had to defend the canon.
  7. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Catholics came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. Again, this does not mean that the canon wasn’t already accepted and being used by the Church prior to this point; only that it was now an absolute (infallible).
Click to expand...
AMEN!!!
 
NotWorthy said:
A little shameless self-promotion, eh? 😉

Seriously, spend some time on this site and you’ll find a wealth of good information! 👍
Click to expand...
Well, it’s not really my video. I’m just providing a link to it. 🙂

I think a lot of folks have more time to absorb good Catholic info via video/audio than to sit and read about it. Kind of hard to read while you’re commuting or jogging. LOL That’s why I made the site.
 
Scoobyshme said:
Well, it’s not really my video. I’m just providing a link to it. 🙂

I think a lot of folks have more time to absorb good Catholic info via video/audio than to sit and read about it. Kind of hard to read while you’re commuting or jogging. LOL That’s why I made the site.
Click to expand...
You have a very good memory, Scooby! I’m impressed! 😉
 
I agree with Tietjen that somehow the facts just don’t convince many Protestants.

Give them the facts, but ask them where they think the Bible came from (they will probably say the early Church fathers before the Catholic Church existed - be prepared for that). Ask them what authority Martin Luther had to change the Holy Bible after 1,000 years and why every Protestant denomination accepts his incomplete version. Ask them why the Bible is interpreted in a multitude of wildly different ways by thousands of different Protestant denominations. Finally, ask them which side of their own denomination has the correct interpretation on issues of sex, marriage, abortion, etc. if the Bible needs no interpretation.

I don’t think that you will “win” any argument, but it may get them thinking and lead to seeking the truth.
 
lutherlic said:
I agree with Tietjen that somehow the facts just don’t convince many Protestants.

Give them the facts, but ask them where they think the Bible came from (they will probably say the early Church fathers before the Catholic Church existed - be prepared for that). Ask them what authority Martin Luther had to change the Holy Bible after 1,000 years and why every Protestant denomination accepts his incomplete version. Ask them why the Bible is interpreted in a multitude of wildly different ways by thousands of different Protestant denominations. Finally, ask them which side of their own denomination has the correct interpretation on issues of sex, marriage, abortion, etc. if the Bible needs no interpretation.

I don’t think that you will “win” any argument, but it may get them thinking and lead to seeking the truth.
Click to expand...
This is a good point.

And to expound on it,

Until the 1930’s (when the Anglican Church changed their stance), every Christian denomination taught that Contraception was sinful. After the Anglican Church’s reversal, every major Christian denomination - each claiming to be based solely on Scripture - has also reversed their teaching on the morality of Contraception.

Ask them did Scripture change? Or did the Truth change? Or did each church denomination cave into their flock? :whistle:
 
lutherlic said:
I agree with Tietjen that somehow the facts just don’t convince many Protestants.

Give them the facts, but ask them where they think the Bible came from (they will probably say the early Church fathers before the Catholic Church existed - be prepared for that). Ask them what authority Martin Luther had to change the Holy Bible after 1,000 years and why every Protestant denomination accepts his incomplete version. Ask them why the Bible is interpreted in a multitude of wildly different ways by thousands of different Protestant denominations. Finally, ask them which side of their own denomination has the correct interpretation on issues of sex, marriage, abortion, etc. if the Bible needs no interpretation.

I don’t think that you will “win” any argument, but it may get them thinking and lead to seeking the truth.
Click to expand...
I agree it all comes down to the Holy Spirit leading people, and it is the broader context that can make people think. The reason is that saying the Catholic Church gave us the bible inthe 4th century and always used the deuterocanonical books is overly simplistic. Now, I believe the church had the ability to define the canon and it was a work in proress. At the same time, there are examples that the vast majority of the Bible did have acceptance much earlier. In addition, since even Jerome at a point, and later leaders held reservations about the deuterocanonical books. It will just look like an overly simplistic argument to a well versed protestant.

The much bigger issue is, if they look at those early church fathers on both sides of the issues that had defined most of the books of the Bible, and either supported or rejected the deuterocanonical books, what else did they believe. In almost all cases, they supported the real presence, infant baptism, a church of apostolic succession, etc. If someone wishes to accept that these Fathers provide insight that the Bible came earlier than the establishment of the Roman Church, they have to recognize that they also handed down a tradition that more closely reflects the current Catholic Curch. Now I think our protestant brothers deserve much respect for searching and learning the scriptures, however in order to fully support their position on the Church, you really have to believe that Christ allowed his Church on Earth to essentially die off for a long period of time. You have to believe that even today, when the majority of people can’t read, they are incapable of fully knowing Christ without someone explaining it to them, and he allowed that support to leave Earth for a long time.
 
Truly refreshing especially the link provided by RealCatholicTV. I have shared this with my friend who recently left the Catholic Church for a “bible” church. I don’t know if he will view it or not, but I pray that he does pay attention to the what I am trying to tell him. Thanks once again!
 
The ONLY infallible decree concerning the canon of the Bible came from Trent. Although Pope Damasus I “commissioned” St. Jerome to “put together” the Latin Vulgate that was to ultimately serve the Catholic Church for over 1000 years, we know very little on the exact REASONS why certain books were chosen over others.

After all, the Bible did not come with a table of contents or a user’s manual 🙂

For the poster who said that he had a friend leave the Catholic Church for a “bible” church, perhaps you want to remind him:

If he took the time (1 hour each weekend and on Holy Days, plus about 40 minutes for weekday masses) to attend Holy Mass every day, he will have read (after the three year cycle during which we change readings every three years to one of three cycles of different readings) or heard read to him, approximately 85% of the ENTIRE BIBLE.

I know of NO OTHER DENOMINATION that reads that much of the Bible while meeting as a congregation for a “worship service”.

So much for Catholics not being a “bible based church”. We read more of the Bible at Mass than do all other fundamentalist sects combined, and yet WE are supposed to “defend” the charge that we don’t follow the bible. I know I need to keep my composure and be charitable, but hearing people refer to the Catholic church as not being a “bible based church” really makes my blood boil :mad:

Well, there goes another thing to confess this coming weekend before our Latin Mass :o
 
Salvatore123 said:
So much for Catholics not being a “bible based church”. We read more of the Bible at Mass than do all other fundamentalist sects combined, and yet WE are supposed to “defend” the charge that we don’t follow the bible. I know I need to keep my composure and be charitable, but hearing people refer to the Catholic church as not being a “bible based church” really makes my blood boil :mad:
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration as I too feel this at times. I have been trying to get the message of the Church across to my friend, but he does not give it a fair and timely view. I have known him for awhile so I can say that it is just laziness and unfortunately he is lazy with his own faith. The Faith requires lots of study, prayer, and action. Unfortunately I don’t think he is willing to commit much time at this moment or worse in the future (though I pray for him that this does not happen). When I confessed my own anger to my priest, he told me that to always keep trying since there was so much wisdom in the Church. I liken it to leaving wine of France for wine of California 😛
 
My review of early church fathers revealed many quotations from the deutrocanon books well before the councils in the late 300’s.
 
rben20 said:
I understand your frustration as I too feel this at times. I have been trying to get the message of the Church across to my friend, but he does not give it a fair and timely view. I have known him for awhile so I can say that it is just laziness and unfortunately he is lazy with his own faith. The Faith requires lots of study, prayer, and action. Unfortunately I don’t think he is willing to commit much time at this moment or worse in the future (though I pray for him that this does not happen). When I confessed my own anger to my priest, he told me that to always keep trying since there was so much wisdom in the Church. I liken it to leaving wine of France for wine of California 😛
Click to expand...
OK - I was with you rben right up to that France over California (wines) part… 😛
 
rben20 said:
I need some historical proof that the Bible was put together and given to the world by the Catholic Church. I won’t get into saying that the writers were Catholics to the protestants that I am evangelizing to (just yet :D), but I know some councils put together the books of the Bible that they believed were inspired and others reaffirmed the original canon. I am getting a lot of heat from protestants because I tell them that logically the very Bible they say has all authority should mean the Church who decided which books were were inspired should have all authority as well.
Click to expand...
I know that some of this will be overlap with other posters, but I put together this list of councils ALL of which took place before the protestant reformation which shows that the 73 book canon was consistantly accepted in both the east and the western Churches.
**Council of Rome (382) **
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
**Council of Hippo (393) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
**Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405) **
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
**Council of Carthage (419) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
**Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441) **
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

There is also the matter of the many - many books, letters etc. that were in circulation in the first 3 centuries, all claiming apostolic authority and all enjoying at least some measure of acceptance within various regions of the Church.
For a listing that shows over 200 of these, See HERE.

Having said all of this, I agree wtih the others here that it is difficult to convince someone that the bible came through the offices of the Catholic Church…To them the Bible came from God and that is that.

One tactic that I have used is, when I run into a stout evangelical type, and they start in with a Bible only speal is to ask them “which bible”…This draws them up short for a moment. The normal response is “THE Bible”, to which I reply, yes but which one.
“Well the KJV”, they retort.
“Oh the one missing books 7 books”, I reply.

This of course opens the discussion of - If the Bible is the full and unchangable word of God, then why different books?
Their response is usually something about how Trent added the books, but our obvious response, supported by the councils above, is that Trent added no books, and the Christian Bible canon before the Protestant reformation aLways contained 73 books.

They will sometimes stand on the closing verses in Revelation about adding to or taking from from this book, which of course only refers to revelation and not the entire canon, but even if we allow for thier interpretation of this, then from ca 400 AD when Revelation was first incorporated, by church council, along with the other books into the canon we know today, to ca 1600 AD there were 73 books in the canon. So who is gulty of making a change, Trent for affirming what had already been long accepted? Or was it Luther and others who removed the books from the canon of Scripture.

I seem to be gitting abit windy here - - - Sorry about that…
I guess my main point is this. It is unlikely you will entirely convince your frined on this matter, but perhaps you will be able to plant a seed or two that causes him to question some of the things he has been told by his protestant friends.
Once he starts doing this, and begins investigating, he’ll soon discover that the reason he has a bible in his hands is because the Catholic Church compiled, copied, protected, defended, promulgated and taught from it for 1000 years before the Protestant reformation.

Peace
James
 
If I might suggest:

Ask him: “If not from the Catholic Church, then WHERE did the Bible come from?”

This may sound too simple at first, but it is a very loaded question.

First, all of the books of the bible were not written at the same time, so until the Catholic Church “ruled” on the canon, people had no “bible” per se. They had, at most, a collection of manuscripts that no one could identify as authentic.

Second, as the bible did not come with a table of contents, who decided and when was it decided, which books SHOULD be considered part of the bible? Again, the bible was not like the 10 Commandments given to Moses. The bible was compiled over several thousands of years.

Third, how does HE/SHE know that the bible in his or her hand is “authentic”? Surely, they must rely on something that supports their position that “their” bible is the correct one vs. the Catholic bible that has the deuteros.

Fourth, even if they are able to trace their bible back to King James, ask who gave KJ the authority to commission a new translation of the bible.

The “key” for me is that eliminating the Catholic Church from the “mix” totally negates the possibility of Christ’s followers having a book they could rely upon for over 1000 years. Do they REALLY believe that God would permit his Word to become words on paper, and then do nothing to ensure that the proclaimed Word of God was accurate? To suggest this would be to say that Christ’s followers, for centuries, had no sure way of knowing what they were reading/hearing was, in fact, God’s word?
 
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D.:

"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus(Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books. **
**
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament."

Again, you will notice that there is no substantial difference between what’s in this decree and what’s in the present Canon, except for the absence of Baruch, which in many ancient editions of the Scriptures was included into Jeremiah, much as the “added” chapters are in Daniel and Esther.
The regional councils of Hippo in 393 AD, 3rd Carthage in 397 AD, and 4th Carthage in 418 AD, as well as the ecumenical councils of Florence and Trent, simply re-affirmed Damasus’ orginal listing

Now these lists are the source for the Protestants’ New Testament - earlier lists did not include Revelation and some of the letters for example. So why do Protestants deny this list for the Old Testament?
 
rben20;:
I tell them that logically the very Bible they say has all authority should mean the Church who decided which books were were inspired should have all authority as well.
Click to expand...
The Protestant Canon contains sixty six books. The Catholic Canon contains 73 Books. I’ll skip the Anglican Canon on the grounds that Anglicans no longer pay attention to it. I’ll skip the Orthodox Canon, on the grounds that Catholics, Protestants and Anglicans don’t accept it.

From the Protestant perspective, Orthodox Christianity and Catholic Christianity preserved the words, but not the teachings or practices that Jesus taught. It does not logically follow that those who preserved the words are also those who should have the authority.

The Catholic Canon is not the Protestant Canon, and trying to claim that it is will not help your cause.

In your coverage of the canonisation of the Bible, also address the Council of Jaminia (circa 90 AD), the Council of Rome (circa 140 AD), and the other councils that were similar to those, but were/are rejected by both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity.
*

It probably would be more prudent to go into each of the books of the Orthodox Canon, the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon), The medieval Armenian Orthodox Canon, Didache, and the books that the laity considered to be canonical during the medieval and renaissance period. Ideally, you’ll be able to explain why each book was considered to be canonical, and why the Catholic position is that it is/is not canonical.
For books that Catholic Christianity considers to be canonical, cover where, and how they support Catholic theology. For books that Catholic Christianity considers to be non-canonical, cover where and why those books oppose Catholic theology. If you have time, and desire, you could have them cover where and why those books support/oppose protestant theology. (If you want to know how well they understand what you say, throw Acts 29 into the list, and ask them if they could provide a Catholic rational for rejecting that text. Alternatively, throw in Secret Mark . Only after they have provided an explanation, do you tell them that they are modern forgeries.)

You don’t say if their theology is derived from Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or a mishmash of them. Or if it is Baptist or Restoration Movement in outlook. Or if they are pop-megachurch Christians. These groups have very different approaches to what authority consists of, and who/what should be given authority, and under what circumstances that authority is to be granted.

Arguments of precedence, or authority won’t convince them of anything.

jonathon*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top