history of the bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
deep_creek said:
James, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation (books that did not go with his ‘faith alone’ doctrine) were included, but placed into an appendix without page numbers.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source that this was his reason? What in Hebrews or Jude or Revelation does not support sola fide (or James for that matter)?

The fact is this is not the reason, anymore than it was a reason for Eusebius.

Jon
 
SteveVH said:
What it means is that it is a Catholic book, written by Catholics for Catholics and canonized by Catholics as there was no other Christian Church at the time. It is simply a historical fact.
Click to expand...
👍

When one is deep into history one will be Catholic. 😉
 
SteveVH said:
Sorry, the Catholic Church was called the “Catholic Church” in the first century. It has never called itself the “Roman” Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
But the “Catholic Church” in the early centuries also included many apostolic sees that are not part of what you refer to as the Catholic Church today, so they are not the same thing. Not just Protestants, but also Orthodox Christians use the term Roman Catholic to refer to those Christians united with the Pope of Rome. Using the term Roman Catholic simply makes one’s meaning more clear.

“When used in a broader sense, the term Catholic is distinguished from “Roman Catholic” which has connotations of allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope. In this broader sense, “Catholic” also refers to many other Christians, especially Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans, but also to others, including Old Catholics and various independent Catholic Churches, who consider themselves to be living within the “catholic” tradition.[30] They describe themselves as “Catholic”, but not “Roman Catholic” and not under the authority of the Pope.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)#.22Roman_Catholic.22_and_.22Catholic.22
 
jrtrent said:
But the “Catholic Church” in the early centuries also included many apostolic sees that are not part of what you refer to as the Catholic Church today, so they are not the same thing. Not just Protestants, but also Orthodox Christians use the term Roman Catholic to refer to those Christians united with the Pope of Rome. Using the term Roman Catholic simply makes one’s meaning more clear.

“When used in a broader sense, the term Catholic is distinguished from “Roman Catholic” which has connotations of allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope. In this broader sense, “Catholic” also refers to many other Christians, especially Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans, but also to others, including Old Catholics and various independent Catholic Churches, who consider themselves to be living within the “catholic” tradition.[30] They describe themselves as “Catholic”, but not “Roman Catholic” and not under the authority of the Pope.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)#.22Roman_Catholic.22_and_.22Catholic.22
Click to expand...
Well, there are certain sects, for lack of a better word, who call themselves “Christian” yet no one would equate their beliefs with Christian beliefs. My point is that the same Catholic Church that was called the Catholic Church in the first century is alive and well today. The fact that other divisions wish to associate their community with the Catholic Church does not make them Catholic. And may I remind you that the eastern Church was not called the Orthodox Church until after the schism. It was Catholic.
 
JonNC said:
Do you have a source that this was his reason? What in Hebrews or Jude or Revelation does not support sola fide (or James for that matter)?

The fact is this is not the reason, anymore than it was a reason for Eusebius.

Jon
Click to expand...
Hello. Most of my stuff on this topic are on my other PC, but I did find a couple of quick things (there is a lot on this topic):

Explanation with some good footnotes here: bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Jimmy Akin mentions it here about half-way down: ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm

wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon

.
 
By Catholic what do you mean, specifically a product of the roman church? There are different bible canons and all the churches before the reformation in some way have helped preserve the scripture, in text or in canon. Though I will agree protestants owe their inheritance of the biblical manuscripts to the Roman catholic church. Thats simply undeniable.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
By Catholic what do you mean, specifically a product of the roman church? There are different bible canons and all the churches before the reformation in some way have helped preserve the scripture, in text or in canon. Though I will agree protestants owe their inheritance of the biblical manuscripts to the Roman catholic church. Thats simply undeniable.
Click to expand...
I am Roman Catholic, or Latin Rite… I know that the Orthodox Church is part of the Catholic Church. I’ve been to an Orthodox mass and I enjoyed it very much. I consider all the sacraments shared in both the Eastern and Western churches (both Catholic) to be valid, beautiful expressions of love and faith in God and His Son and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Protestants don’t know what their missing… However, obviously, as a Roman Catholic I do however confess the Nicene Creed, Filioque included. I believe in the Supremacy of the Pope and in the Infallibility of the Church and the Pope when it comes to the issues of faith and morals. I also believe that one day, probably during my lifetime… hopefully during my lifetime, there won’t be an Eastern or Western Church but One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church… Which, exists now but with no disagreements regarding the Pope, the Creed or the issue of infallibly and so on. … We are so close…
 
Jimmy_B said:
Saying the bible is not a Catholic book, would be like saying the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are not US documents. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
It’s not a Catholic book. It’s God’s book. It belongs to all believers not just the Roman Catholic Church. one of the best things that came from the Protestant movement, was that it took God’s Word out of the church, and into the hands of the believers (and non-believers who came to know Christ through it’s words)👍
 
batman1973 said:
It’s not a Catholic book. It’s God’s book. It belongs to all believers not just the Roman Catholic Church. one of the best things that came from the Protestant movement, was that it took God’s Word out of the church, and into the hands of the believers (and non-believers who came to know Christ through it’s words)👍
Click to expand...
That and the invention and wide-spread use of the printing press in the 16th century. 👍
Catechism of the Catholic Church
**105 **God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

**111 **But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

**134 **All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ”

**113 **2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

**81 **“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
Click to expand...
Let me start by saying that I believe that all properly baptized Christians are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope they all, Catholic and non-Catholic have and read their bibles. Having said that, the bible is a Catholic book.

I’m happy to hear that you have accepted this gift (the bible) from God and from His Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church collected, translated, accepted and excluded early Christian documents. put in to order, protected and the Catholic Church and Catholic popes approved and passed down the bible, a Catholic book, so that you would have it today.

Nowhere in this process, the formation of the bible, did any Protestant denomination, or any Protestant person have ANY involvement… And that’s a fact!

The cannon of the bible was closed 1200 years before any Protestant movement, period.

The Roman Catholic Church approved the books of the Bible, 1200 years before there was ever any Protestant to use it… to argue against the Catholic Church.

Bibles didn’t fall from the sky.

Why would the Roman Catholic Church approve a book, the bible if it contradicted the teachings of the Church?.. They wouldn’t!

And, to assume otherwise, in my humble opinion, is ridiculous.

Finally, as it is today, it was in the early Church and before Protestants and the printing press. That is, if a Catholic attends mass every Sunday for three years, nearly the entire bible is read to them. If a Catholic goes to mass every day, a daily communicant then this process takes one year.

Catholics don’t memorize a handful of verses, taken out of context. They experience the fullness of God’s word, and God’s love through Holy Scripture, the Holy Sacraments and through Holy tradition.

I hope this helps. Thank you for your post.

Your thoughts
 
The biblical scholar F.F. Bruce notes that Chrysostom appears to be the first writer (in his Homilies on Matthew, delivered between 386 and 388) to use the Greek phrase ta biblia (“the books”) to describe both the Old and New Testaments together
Click to expand...
St. John Chrysostom was a Catholic priest and bishop. Homilies are sermons.

More Here
 
batman1973 said:
one of the best things that came from the Protestant movement, was that it took God’s Word out of the church, and into the hands of the believers (and non-believers who came to know Christ through it’s words)👍
Click to expand...
Bat,

Can you explain more on what you mean above… I don’t want to assume :rolleyes:

:confused:
 
Originally Posted by batman1973
one of the best things that came from the Protestant movement, was that it took God’s Word out of the church, and into the hands of the believers (and non-believers who came to know Christ through it’s words)
Click to expand...
Porknpie said:
Bat,

Can you explain more on what you mean above… I don’t want to assume :rolleyes:

:confused:
Click to expand...
I have a sneeking suspicion that it is the old “the Catholic Church hid the Bible from the people, keeping it chained in the Churches” thing. Its hard to believe it’s still around.
 
deep_creek said:
James, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation (books that did not go with his ‘faith alone’ doctrine) were included, but placed into an appendix without page numbers.
Click to expand...
Luther didn’t include page numbers in his translation. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information.
 
Jimmy_B said:
I am Roman Catholic, or Latin Rite… I know that the Orthodox Church is part of the Catholic Church. I’ve been to an Orthodox mass and I enjoyed it very much. I consider all the sacraments shared in both the Eastern and Western churches (both Catholic) to be valid, beautiful expressions of love and faith in God and His Son and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Protestants don’t know what their missing… However, obviously, as a Roman Catholic I do however confess the Nicene Creed, Filioque included. I believe in the Supremacy of the Pope and in the Infallibility of the Church and the Pope when it comes to the issues of faith and morals. I also believe that one day, probably during my lifetime… hopefully during my lifetime, there won’t be an Eastern or Western Church but One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church… Which, exists now but with no disagreements regarding the Pope, the Creed or the issue of infallibly and so on. … We are so close…
Click to expand...
But apropos to the thread, the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church do not share the same biblical canon, nor do they claim the same canon among themselves. So who had the canon first? Why couldn’t, for example, the Churches of the East claim that the Bible is their book?
 
deep_creek said:
Hello. Most of my stuff on this topic are on my other PC, but I did find a couple of quick things (there is a lot on this topic):

Explanation with some good footnotes here: bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Jimmy Akin mentions it here about half-way down: ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm

wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon

.
Click to expand...
From the first link, which is, interestingly, at least somewhat even-handed…
Luther’s criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther’s German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon.
Click to expand...
IT goes on to say, rather truthfully,
Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable.
Click to expand...
From my reading of it, however, it seems to neglect the fact that some of his more strict criticisms are removed from later prefaces.
We give below Luther’s prefaces to James, Jude and the Revelation, from the first edition of his New Testament.
Click to expand...
While the article claims Luther’s view of the antilegomena had something to do with his theolog, it doesn’t seem to mention what that was. But in the final analysis, it is irrelevent, as Luther was welcome to his opinion, and it isn’t necessarily the view of the Lutheran Church.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top