history of the bible

[JonNC]

Jimmy, It is so good to have you active again.

Hi Jon,

Orthodox Catholics are Catholics and are part of the Catholic Church, we share sacraments. There is very little that separates us… Supremacy of the Pope, Infallibility, the Filioque and so on… Orthodox Catholics don’t believe in “Once Save Always Save” (OSAS), for instance, or Bible Alone and the countless other things that have come out of Protestantism and a doctrine, which allows for the personal interpretation of the bible…

Or, what some might call, baseless, anti-biblical, semantical, out of context, after the fact, made-up stuff… These are opinions that many non-Protestants have… I’ve have seen them posted here at CAF many times over the years, and there’s a reason for it.

No doubt there is a level of agreement between Orthodoxy and Rome. I’m not disputing that.
As you know, I reject OSAS, perseverance of saints, personal interpretation, Bible Alone the way some use it, etc. , as well. And the things you mention about Orthodoxy you mentioned I agree with, even the Filioque in terms of questioning Rome’s right to add it without benefit of a truly ecumenical council.

There is also a reason that there is so much division in Protestantism today and why there exists so many non-Catholic, Protestant denominations… They all disagree with one another, over one issue or another and this is problem, because they can’t all be right.

Agreed.

I would like to add that all properly baptized Christians are our brother and sisters in Christ and that those things, which make up most of what is Protestant… started out as a Catholic belief and those things that are true in Catholicism, are also true in Protestantism.

And you also know that I strdiently disagree with those protestants who say Catholics are not Christian.

Let’s not forget though, they did start as Catholic beliefs. For example, Protestants wouldn’t preach about the virgin birth had they not learned it from Catholics… Right… All those things that are accepted as truth by the Catholic Church and then later accepted by Protestants, which is the vast majority of Protestant beliefs, began as Catholic beliefs… And , so too is the case with the bible, a Catholic book, that proceed any Protestant denomination.

I don’t have a problem saying that the Bible is a “Catholic” book, with the understanding that we are talking about “Catholic” as being universal, and as being the whole Church.

This isn’t a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg, because we all know it started with the Catholic Church.

Again, I don’t disagree. But then, I believe that, as a Lutheran, I am part of and a continuation of the enitre Church Catholic, specifically the western part of the Church.

You don’t disagree with any of this buddy, do you?

Generally, no, with the caveats I’ve provided. With steveb, I was reacting to the claim that Luther lacked the “right” to translate it. As a catholic Christian, of course he had the right.

No one, who has learned about and knows the history and formation of the bible has an argument with the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. The bible was approved by Roman Catholic popes and by the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, Jimmy, you’ve changed it. Now you are speaking of the “Roman” Catholic Church.
I don’t believe that the “Roman” Catholic Church is exclusively the Catholic Church. But as a western Christian, I do give credit and thanks for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in bringing the scripture, the pulpit, the sacraments, to us as western Christians, regardless of communion or fellowship. To deny this would be historically silly.

Moreover, It was within the Catholic Church that the cannon was closed and no additional books were added to the bible. Now, Martin Luther removed books and verses from the bible but even Luther didn’t attempt to add books to the bible… Right?

Can’t agree. For Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the canon was closed at Trent, which happened after Luther’s death. Before that, Catholics had the privilege to dispute the canon, which some notable Catholics of the west did from St. Jerome all the way up to Trent.
Luther removed no books. His translation included all 73 books, plus the Prayer of Mannasseh. One can’t deny to Luther this privilege while leaving it in place for Cardinal Cajetan, for exampe, a Luther contemporary.

Do you disagree with any of this Jon? If so please explain friend. I always enjoy our discussions here. And yes, you are my brother in Christ.

Hope I’ve presented my thoughts clearly. And you are, indeed, my brother in Christ, and I pray for the day of unity.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Jimmy, It is so good to have you active again.

Can’t agree. For Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the canon was closed at Trent, which happened after Luther’s death. Before that, Catholics had the privilege to dispute the canon, which some notable Catholics of the west did from St. Jerome all the way up to Trent.
Luther removed no books. His translation included all 73 books, plus the Prayer of Mannasseh. One can’t deny to Luther this privilege while leaving it in place for Cardinal Cajetan, for exampe, a Luther contemporary.

Jon

Please allow me to add one caveat…True…but Jerome also said…"What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? "

He did not foister his own opinions on the whole Church…submitted to his pope and bishop.

And did not rearrange or relegate some books in another part that I know of, and treated them the same.

 

[JonNC]

Please allow me to add one caveat…True…but Jerome also said…"What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? "

He did not foister his own opinions on the whole Church…submitted to his pope and bishop.

And did not rearrange or relegate some books in another part that I know of, and treated them the same.

Good points both, however;

since Luther was already excommunicated, it is interesting that he still included them. And​

I don’t believe there to be a doctrine regarding the order of the books, either OT or NT. Catholics often remind us that there was no “table of contents”. Further, there was an appropriateness to his order, given the difference between universally attested books and historically (pre-Luther) disputed books.​

I must add my usual caveat, as well, that being I am not convinced that Luther was right in the level of his dispute of books, and probably should have been even more accomodating to things such as historical order and acceptance of the deuterocanon, much like Jerome did, a benefit of the doubt to the early Church.

My main purpose for involving myself in threads such as this has to do with bringing forward the facts that Luther was not involved in a practice prohibited by the Church (the privilege of disputing canonicity of certain books), Luther cannot be held to the Council of Trent, and finally that the canon of scripture does in fact vary even amongst the pre-Reformation sees of the Church.

Jon

 

[jrtrent]

JR, I just read Michael Barber’s book on Revelation. Wonderful book and I have been encouraging people to read it. He clearly looks at Revelation as written after the Fall of Jerusalem. . .

A friend of mine borrowed my Kindle cable a couple week ago, so I haven’t had a chance to download Barber’s book, yet (I don’t have the fancy Kindle that can do that wirelessly). In the preview available at Amazon, Barber seems to say in the first chapter that Nero was reigning at the time Revelation was written (see the section just preceding and following the sub-heading “Beast of Burden”), but the preview cuts off mid-paragraph, so I could be misreading that.

JR, I love it that you are here. I continue to learn…and there is only so much time to read a day. There are many Catholics and catholics here that I absolutely love…nearly all of whom, directly or indirectly, through their questions and answers, have brought me closer to my faith and closer to God.

I appreciate that. Sometimes the threads can start to feel a bit contentious (perhaps inevitable given the subject matter and the different personalities any forum brings together), but it’s nice to have exposure to and learn from so many viewpoints that I, at least, would otherwise be ignorant of.

 

[Porknpie]

A friend of mine borrowed my Kindle cable a couple week ago, so I haven’t had a chance to download Barber’s book, yet (I don’t have the fancy Kindle that can do that wirelessly). In the preview available at Amazon, Barber seems to say in the first chapter that Nero was reigning at the time Revelation was written (see the section just preceding and following the sub-heading “Beast of Burden”), but the preview cuts off mid-paragraph, so I could be misreading that.

May want to read the OT first…or at least have it at the ready… :yup:

 

[Jimmy_B]

Can’t agree. For Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the canon was closed at Trent, which happened after Luther’s death. Before that, Catholics had the privilege to dispute the canon, which some notable Catholics of the west did from St. Jerome all the way up to Trent.
Jon

“… which happened after Luther’s death”

What are you implying here?
"…A.D. 367 the respected church leader Athanasius published a universal list of
twenty-seven accepted New Testament books, the same books in our Bibles today."
"In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon, and he used the phrase “being canonized” (kanonizomena) in regard to them…"
"With its decision, the Council of Trent confirmed the identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence…"
"Martin Luther born 10 November, 1483; died 18 February, 1546."

---

“…Catholics had the privilege to dispute the canon”

Which Catholics are you talking about here? For example, I’ve never been asked to provide my opinion at a Roman Catholic ecumenical council…

I don’t think you are intentionally trying to be misleading but I do think that if a person came along and was lacking religious instruction, he might be misled, or confused by some of the comments here… Am I wrong? This seems to me to happen a lot in Protestant circles… misleading others about Catholicism and I have seen many cases where it was done intentionally.

Also, thanks for recognizing the fact that Catholics are Christians. I haven’t heard a Protestant say that Catholics weren’t Christian since I was a young man… Then again, kids can be cruel and rude and many adults keep their opinions to themselves.
Protestants had nothing to do with the formation of the bible. The bible is a Catholic book.
Thank you for your post

 

[JonNC]

=Jimmy B;10286941]
“… which happened after Luther’s death”

What are you implying here?

Not really implying anything. Trent affirmed the Catholic canon of Scripture, after Luther’s death.

Quote:
“…A.D. 367 the respected church leader Athanasius published a universal list of
twenty-seven accepted New Testament books, the same books in our Bibles today.”

“In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon, and he used the phrase “being canonized” (kanonizomena) in regard to them…”

“With its decision, the Council of Trent confirmed the identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence…”

“Martin Luther born 10 November, 1483; died 18 February, 1546.”

There’s no controversy regarding the NT, though it is a matter of historical fact that antilegomena was, by definition, disputed.

“…Catholics had the privilege to dispute the canon”

Which Catholics are you talking about here? For example, I’ve never been asked to provide my opinion at a Roman Catholic ecumenical council…

I don’t think you are intentionally trying to be misleading but I do think that if a person came along and was lacking religious instruction, he might be misled, or confused by some of the comments here… Am I wrong? This seems to me to happen a lot in Protestant circles… misleading others about Catholicism and I have seen many cases where it was done intentionally.

No, I’m talking about the likes of Luther contemporary, Cardinal Cajetan:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Also, thanks for recognizing the fact that Catholics are Christians. I haven’t heard a Protestant say that Catholics weren’t Christian since I was a young man… Then again, kids can be cruel and rude and many adults keep their opinions to themselves.
Protestants had nothing to do with the formation of the bible. The bible is a Catholic book

Don’t thank me, its an obvious fact. How could anyone question, with integrity, the Christianity of Pope John Paul II, or yourself, or a local Catholic priest of my acquaintance.
Its ridiculous, but its out there.
To the exten that I, as a Lutheran, have my roots in the Catholic Church, its my book, too.

Jon

 

[Hasire]

**For one to be Catholic they must be united to the successor to Peter…the Pope of Rome, the see of Peter. **In my previous post I showed you the Church is the Catholic Church from the beginning. That means the writers of scripture were all Catholic. And since Peter is the leader of the apostles & the Church, and his see is Rome, then whoever gave you the talking point that the Catholic Church in Rome is a modern sense, maybe hasn’t connected the dots that the book of Romans was written to the Church of Rome.

Rice’s opinion as a Protestant is duely noted. I gave you links to ECF’s covering the 1st 200 years of history. Now lets look at Acts.
·Acts 9:31 the church throughout all κατά kata ὅλος holos]

iow Kataholos Church = Catholic Church
%between%

Excuse me?

 

[Jimmy_B]

…Don’t thank me, its an obvious fact. How could anyone question, with integrity, the Christianity of Pope John Paul II, or yourself, or a local Catholic priest of my acquaintance.
Its ridiculous, but its out there.
To the exten that I, as a Lutheran, have my roots in the Catholic Church, its my book, too.

Jon

It’s because of posts like this, you’ll always be my friend here at CAF. You always post like a gentleman… at times, a much better example than myself.
Thank you Jon.

 

[steve_b]

That’s not what the OCA answer said; it was referring to the term “Orthodox Christian” being used to distinguish right-thinking Christians from heretics. It clearly said “we trace our history back to Christ and the apostles, and that the Church was “formally” established on the day of Pentecost.”

So do the Melkites. And as Bp John says “being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.”

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
jr:

I think my reply to Porknpie addresses that point.

I don’t think it answered it
jr:

I’d like to see that, too.

I’ve asked it alot. No answer so far.
jr:

Here are some excerpts from that same OCA site that addresses this concern:
The Orthodox Church as a whole is the unity of what are called local autocephalous or autonomous churches. These words mean simply that these churches govern themselves, electing their own bishops and organizing their own lives.

*Each of these churches has exactly the same doctrine, discipline and spiritual practices. *

maybe yes and maybe no. For example

The Russian Orthodox dwarfs in size all the other Orthodox churches put together. Yet the ROC teaches toll houses, and the others supposedly don’t. The 2nd issue is that question whether the ROC recognizes the Bp of Constantinople/ now Istanbul as 1st among equals. There’s that authority issue again. When the elephant in the room doesn’t recognize the one who is supposed to be 1st among equals as really being 1st among equals, then there’s an authority issue
jr:

They use the same Bible, follow the same canon laws, confess the authority of the same Church Councils and worship by what is essentially the same liturgy.

It is nothing other than this communion in faith and practice which unites all Orthodox Churches together into one world-wide body. . . oca.org/questions/teaching/how-is-the-orthodox-church-organized-and-held-together-as-one-worldwide-chu

according to Bp John, apostolic tradition is to be united to the successor to Peter. Which the Orthodox aren’t.

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites
jr:

Orthodox Christians understand the word “catholic” word to mean “whole, complete, lacking in nothing.” Hence, when we say “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” we mean that the one, holy, and apostolic Church is “whole, complete, and lacking in nothing.” The word “catholic” with a small “c” has nothing whatsoever to do with Roman “Catholic” with a capital “C”.oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/catholic-and-orthodox

As I’ve said to others in the past, go to any country in the world. Better yet, go to countries that claim to be “Orthodox”. For example, how about Istanbul once Constantinople. Look up Catholic Churches in the directory. Are Orthodox Churches named with them? No.

Re: upper case / lower case writing, in Greek lower case as I understand didn’t make it into history till the 7th or 8th century. That means prior to that date, all letters were Capitals. So Catholic Church would be written CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Therefore, writing in the time, prior to the 7th century, it would be written as follows

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GAVE US THE BIBLE. IT WAS WRITTEN IN, BY, FOR, AND CANONIZED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

[steve_b]

Excuse me?

"being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

 

[CopticChristian]

And this gets us back to the OP’s question, which in part is, “How many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant ministers or church members tell people in their own denomination that the Bible is a Catholic book?”

If “Catholic” means some association with today’s Roman Catholic Church, then the writers of scripture were not in that church, nor did they write to it or for it, because, at least from a Protestant perspective, the “Catholic Church” in the modern sense did not then exist. To give a Protestant perspective on the matter, below is a quote from John R. Rice’s book False Doctrines:

*Again, let me say that Jesus did not found the Catholic church. In New Testament times they never heard of a pope. They had no priests in the New Testament, no monks, no nuns. They had no confessional. They had no Mass. They never heard of the foolish, unscriptural doctrine of purgatory. They had no statues, they never prayed to the saints. They never prayed to Mary. They did not have any of the Catholic feast days and programs.

If you had asked Paul if he were a member of the Catholic church, he would have looked perplexed, since there was no Catholic church then and he would have answered that the local church at Antioch, after prayer and fasting, had sent him and Barnabas out on their missionary journeys, and that he counted that as his local home church (see Acts 13:1-4).

. . . every historian in the world knows that the Catholic church as such did not exist in New Testament times and that the men who wrote the New Testament were not members of the Catholic church.*

Trent,

How absolutely correct. Why would anyone pray to Mary when she was alive. They might have asked her to pray for them however who would have prayed to her…? go figure.

Now concerning everyone and every historian…does this include Eusebius and the Early Church Fathers?

 

[CopticChristian]

I think Mr. Rice was referring to the times when the events written about were taking place. Like Michael Barber, Jay Adams, and others, I consider the New Testament writings to have been completed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and mark that event as the close of New Testament times.

However, whether the church called itself the Catholic Church at that point is really beside the point. As you quoted, Mr. Rice said, “the Catholic church as such did not exist in New Testament times.” The words “as such” have meaning in that he is saying that the Catholic Church as it now exists (with its unique teachings and practices not found in any other Christian church) was not the Church, whatever name it went by, that existed in New Testament times.

That’s a very interesting quote. It reminded of a passage in Father Andrew Damick’s book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, in which he said, writing on the issue of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction:

“Another practical problem from this structure which has theological implications is that Catholicity is defined purely by one’s submission to Rome, whose universality is the definition for true ecclesiology. But katholikos (the Greek word from which catholic comes) does not properly mean “universal” but rather, literally, “according to the whole.” For Orthodoxy, this wholeness resides in every diocese with its bishop as the president at the Eucharist, surrounded by his clergy and faithful. Orthodox parishes and dioceses are not merely part of the Catholic Church, but rather manifest catholicity within themselves fully and locally.”

I haven’t read Ignatius’s letter to the Smyrneans, but I wonder if that quote you gave, especially “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church,” might not support the Orthodox idea that each bishop and those he has jurisdiction over, forms, by itself, a complete or “catholic” church. Of course, that’s sidestepping the point you are making; I had written a response, but think I need to actually read the document you referenced and give more thought and study to the concept of Bishops as priests, the real presence, and exactly what takes place during the Lord’s Supper. Your posts, and this forum in general, often get me to want to delve deeper into, and question the validity of, beliefs I’ve accepted, but perhaps without sufficient foundation or the ability to communicate those beliefs to others (especially when, as in the case of communion, I’ve absorbed many different ideas from various Protestant churches).

Trent,

Amen my brother…and neither was there…

Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of Christ, Baptist, Menonite, Amish, Jehovah Witness, 7th day Adventist, Oneness Pentacostal, Saddleback community, the Crystal Cathedral, Joel Osteen and the Church of What’s happening now…

now you are on to something…amen my brother…

 

[jrtrent]

How absolutely correct. Why would anyone pray to Mary when she was alive.

I was wondering that, too, but maybe Mary died early enough that such a practice was still possible during “New Testament” times. I’ve only seen a couple of guesstimates regarding the year of her death; one put it at AD 41 and the other at AD 48. In any event, I couldn’t very well edit Mr. Rice’s words just so they’d make more sense to me.

 

[pablope]

And this gets us back to the OP’s question, which in part is, “How many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant ministers or church members tell people in their own denomination that the Bible is a Catholic book?”

To give a Protestant perspective on the matter, below is a quote from John R. Rice’s book False Doctrines

 

[CopticChristian]

I was wondering that, too, but maybe Mary died early enough that such a practice was still possible during “New Testament” times. I’ve only seen a couple of guesstimates regarding the year of her death; one put it at AD 41 and the other at AD 48. In any event, I couldn’t very well edit Mr. Rice’s words just so they’d make more sense to me.

Trent,

Maybe baby, I’ll have you…

Maybe baby, you’ll be true

Maybe baby, you’ll be true for me…

Sure miss Buddy Holly

 

[Regina_Love]

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)

The Catholic Church lived the New Testament (Sacred Tradition) taught it, wrote it down, protected it, compliled it into the Bible, and gave it to the world, as Jesus intended. The Bible is the fruit of the Catholic Church. So when you hold the Bible in your hands, you are holding, and reading Catholic teaching, as handed down by Jesus Christ, and inspired by the Holy Spirit! Who better to teach you what the Sacred texts mean, than the Church to which Jesus Christ entrusted them!

This Catholic Church which Saint Paul declared, “the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” Timothy 3:15

 

[vsedriver]

However, whether the church called itself the Catholic Church at that point is really beside the point. As you quoted, Mr. Rice said, “the Catholic church as such did not exist in New Testament times.” The words “as such” have meaning in that he is saying that the Catholic Church as it now exists (with its unique teachings and practices not found in any other Christian church) was not the Church, whatever name it went by, that existed in New Testament times.

that’s like saying the Government of the United States as it now exists (with its unique laws and practices not found in any other government) was not the Government of the United States, whatever name it went by, that existed in the early 1800s.

 

[pablope]

Good points both, however;

since Luther was already excommunicated, it is interesting that he still​

 

[CopticChristian]

that’s like saying the Government of the United States as it now exists (with its unique laws and practices not found in any other government) was not the Government of the United States, whatever name it went by, that existed in the early 1800s.

vsedriver,

Now you know that the right to privacy and the right for women to vote, Social Security, Income tax and Medicare was not part of the founding of the USA so it has to be a different government.