history of the bible

[jrtrent]

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.

That’s an interesting analogy. The government of the United States as it now exists is certainly a corruption of what the founding fathers envisioned. Borrowing from John Kincaid’s critique, I recommend Felix Morley’s book Freedom and Federalism for a popular treatment on how our constitutionally non-centralized federal republic has been marching toward centralization, producing a socially interventionist national government that corrputs society, diminishes freedom, and undermines individual liberty.

Where the analogy breaks down a bit is that in Christianity, in contrast to the running of the United States, there is not just one government claiming to run the country, rather, there are at least three denominations (well, I suppose they’re actually pre-denominational, but I can’t think of a better word) that claim to trace their origins to the very beginning, all purporting to be the original church which others have broken away from, as well as a few “restorationist” bodies claiming to be God’s one true church. And anyone can read the Bible, decide for themselves what a New Testament, Apostolic Church should look like, and start another denomination. Unlike citizens of the USA, within Christianity a person is free to pick his own “government” and live under its rules, and to switch allegiances should he decide that his chosen denomination has lost its way. President Reagan made a similar suggestion to Americans during his presidency, saying if you don’t like what your state is doing, vote with your feet and move to a state you like better. Morley might argue that with the increasing centralization of authority, moving to another state doesn’t gain you much.

Remember that the OP’s question was “How many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant [emphasis added] ministers or church members tell people in their own denomination that the Bible is a Catholic book and explain the history of the bible?” Well, the prevailing protestant viewpoint, as I’ve mentioned previously, is that the Roman Catholic Church, as such, did not exist during New Testament times. The following is from a Churches of Christ pastor, who is restorationist rather than protestant, but the sentiments are about the same as I’ve heard in Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches:

In the beginning there was the church of Christ (Romans 16:16), which He had established. It was some time before a congregation was established in Rome. There was no Roman Catholic church that can legitimately be linked with the modern church of that name until well into the 6th century. True there was a congregation in Rome as well as in many of the larger cities throughout the Roman empire, but it bore no resemblance to what is now the Roman Catholic Church. It finally emerged after some 500 years of apostasy and was not the church that Jesus built. firstcenturychristian.com/answers/answers_066.htm

So the answer to the OP’s question is that there are probebly very few Protestant ministers and church members who would say that the Bible is a Catholic book, and their teachings on the history of how we came to have the Bible that we do and the foundations for our confidence in it is likely to be quite different from that of a Catholic apologist.

However, like most non-Catholics I’ve seen post in this forum, I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be a Christian church, and that it’s likely that a great many of its adherents are saved, Christian people. I also believe, as the Smith Bible dictionary puts it, that a church embodying “the scriptural and apostolic ideal . . . existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work,” and that the church “is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments.” So all churches, the Catholic Church as well as my church, is an imperfect one, holding doctrines that are disputed by other Christian believers. But that doesn’t mean that people in those various churches are not Christians. As Loraine Boettner (a prominent Protestant, whatever one thinks about the quality of his scholarship) put it, “all who accept Christ as their personal Saviour, all who obey and worship Him as Lord and Master, will be saved, regardless of what church they belong to.”

 

[Porknpie]

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.

JR -

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

There is no certain tradition as to the year of Mary’s death. Baronius in his Annals relies on a passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius for his assumption that Mary died A.D. 48. It is now believed that the passage of the Chronicon is a later interpolation. [135] Nirschl relies on a tradition found in Clement of Alexandria [136] and Apollonius [137] which refers to a command of Our Lord that the Apostles were to preach twelve years in Jerusalem and Palestine before going among the nations of the world; hence he too arrives at the conclusion that Mary died A.D. 48.

Nothing certain other than you can not find her body nor does anyone, Catholic East, West, North or South claim to have it…

From the Encyclopedia again on the Assumption

The fact of the Assumption

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s an interesting analogy. The government of the United States as it now exists is certainly a corruption of what the founding fathers envisioned. Borrowing from John Kincaid’s critique, I recommend Felix Morley’s book Freedom and Federalism for a popular treatment on how our constitutionally non-centralized federal republic has been marching toward centralization, producing a socially interventionist national government that corrputs society, diminishes freedom, and undermines individual liberty.

Remember that the OP’s question was “How many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant [emphasis added] ministers or church members tell people in their own denomination that the Bible is a Catholic book and explain the history of the bible?” Well, the prevailing protestant viewpoint, as I’ve mentioned previously, is that the Roman Catholic Church, as such, did not exist during New Testament times. The following is from a Churches of Christ pastor, who is restorationist rather than protestant, but the sentiments are about the same as I’ve heard in Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches:

In the beginning there was the church of Christ (Romans 16:16), which He had established. It was some time before a congregation was established in Rome. There was no Roman Catholic church that can legitimately be linked with the modern church of that name until well into the 6th century. True there was a congregation in Rome as well as in many of the larger cities throughout the Roman empire, but it bore no resemblance to what is now the Roman Catholic Church. **It finally emerged after some 500 years of apostasy **and was not the church that Jesus built. firstcenturychristian.com/answers/answers_066.htm

So the answer to the OP’s question is that there are probebly very few Protestant ministers and church members who would say that the Bible is a Catholic book, and their teachings on the history of how we came to have the Bible that we do and the foundations for our confidence in it is likely to be quite different from that of a Catholic apologist.

However, like most non-Catholics I’ve seen post in this forum, I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be a Christian church, and that it’s likely that a great many of its adherents are saved, Christian people. I also believe, as the Smith Bible dictionary puts it, that a church embodying “the scriptural and apostolic ideal . . . existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work,” and that the church “is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments.” So all churches, the Catholic Church as well as my church, is an imperfect one, holding doctrines that are disputed by other Christian believers. But that doesn’t mean that people in those various churches are not Christians. As Loraine Boettner (a prominent Protestant, whatever one thinks about the quality of his scholarship) put it, “all who accept Christ as their personal Saviour, all who obey and worship Him as Lord and Master, will be saved, regardless of what church they belong to.”

Trent,

This apostasy notion sounds very Mormon. Look at your Protestant History over the last 500 years. Compare and Contrast that with 2000 years…

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic Latin/East

Agree on Apostolic Tradition and Scripture. The OO and EO have more but there is no argument or division over that.

All have 7 Sacraments and agree that the Eucharist is the central focus of Worship.

All have a valid episcopal leadership or hierarchy, they all have Bishops

All baptize babies as a means of entrance into the Church

All accept ecumenical councils, the OO the first three and the EO the first 7

All Accept Mary as the Theotokos or God Bearer

Disagreement is based on an understanding and words concerning Christology, disagreement is based on a few words in the Nicene/Constantinople Creed that all accept, there is a different understanding of Original Sin, Purgatory/death prayer for the dead, Marian dogma, all agree in infallibility of the Councils or groups of Bishops and disagree on the Latin Bishop infallibility. Disagreement is concerning what role the Latin Bishop/Pope status is all agree on first among equals.

So when you look at the 2000 years of disunity and what it is about, no one is taking the Bible and saying “based on the Bible”…so and so and such and such…this is not a part of how Christianity was ever propagated or understood or issues were decided. Scripture is part of Church Worship and in the Orthodox Churches Scripture is in various parts of the Church not necessarily as in your experience with Protestant Translations that cannot be proved are the Scripture, stolen from the Cathlolic/Latin Church.

Compare and contrast what you believe is division and dissent and what that dissent is concerning. Protestants can’t figure out whether you should be Presbyterian, Congregational or baptize babies or not or have Sacraments or Ordinances or who is charge of what where and how.

 

[jrtrent]

Trent,

This apostasy notion sounds very Mormon. Look at your Protestant History over the last 500 years. Compare and Contrast that with 2000 years…

I’m afraid the Mormons were rather late on the scene in pointing to a perceived apostasy of the church, and I’ve already stated that I don’t find any Protestant church to be without error, so what’s the argument? The OP asked if Protestants taught that the Bible is a Catholic book and explained the history of the Bible. I gave the best answer I could, sharing my experience and quoting other sources that seemed to bear on the matter. If you have some information about Protestants that do teach that the Bible is a Catholic book, or if you have additional insight as to why some do not, why don’t you share that?

 

[KathleenGee]

JRTrent…

There is no perfection on this earth.

The Latin meaning of ‘religio’ is to bind.

Through Peter, the Catholic faith is binding us to Christ in full communion. We are bound to Christ and His teachings, however difficult they look to the world. Our beliefs are do-able because our strength is not in the world but in the Lord Himself. He sustains us with His Word, He nourishes us with His Eucharist. This is how faith has always been.

The Church is the response and witness to the Word of God…now, the Word Made Flesh.

But we must renounce our flesh and receive His flesh and blood.

You break from the apostolic succession, that includes Peter, the deposit of your faith is not binding, but based on your own willfullness, a cafeteria choice of what appeals to you. But what is the Lord calling you to become if you keep yourself in the driver seat? Without submitting ourselves to lawful and God given authority, our growth in the spiritual life, meaning increase in Christ, will always be held back by our own limitations.

God has given us our neighbor to show us our blind spots. He has given us His Church and its binding authority to guide us through His Holy Spirit.

The only time we as Church express perfect faith…as it is the grace of faith that saves us…is when we profess…not recite…but profess with faith…our Creed.

The Nicene Creed is the last revelation of Christ…coming from the Church itself, 300 years later, that clarifies Christ as truly God and Truly Man. The Apostles Creed has been recited in formation since earliest times to its present form in 100 AD.

The Catholic Church provides us the full deposit of Christ: His Word, His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist, the Church Herself as Christ’s chosen Interpreter of His Word, Logos. The Bible in essence is the Living Word of Jesus Christ. It is not so much viewed as a series of books, but of the Living Word.

The schism you are witnessing between East and West is actually a tempest in a teapot because of different geographical histories, perspectives, and jurisdictions. This schism goes back 1000 years.

So the first 1000 years of Christianity, there was only in essence the universal Christian Church, and the Church’s use of Greek simply defined universal as Catholic.

Martin Luther wanted essentially more participation by laity in the service, and the homilist’s sermon the main focus. That in itself is putting more emphasis on the minister and his style, than in the message. There have been some criticisms of the modern Mass, the jokes at Mass, the priest becoming more of a showman.

The spirit, tone and parts of the Mass are the same as in 100 AD, St. Justin the Martyr describing most clearly what the Mass was about and how it was said throughout the entire Christian world. It continues today.

The focus is not us, our way of looking at things, but renouncing ourselves, our very lives, and offering to God even our pride that blocks us from seeing the fullness of God and His life around us.

I am afraid you are still stuck with the basic Mormon construct of the great apostasy happening around some time they cannot yet find documentation but just allege.

Schism and heresy is action based on the individual, not on the Bride of Christ.

We all have our back siding moments. When we go to Mass, the focus is on Christ, His new life, in the posture of adoration.

Christ alone is the source of our perfection and we can only draw as much from Him with the grace He has given us. He has created every single one of us unique. We all have our place in the Church, some more prominent, most more hidden.

Drawing on the writings of our saints and their wisdom,pride wants to show itself. Christ speaks of the Pharisees who wanted to show off their ‘virtue’, and warned us to avoid the leaven of the pharisee.

The only godly thing we can do on this earth is to forgive our trespasser.

Humility wants to hide itself because it knows the only good it can do is being as an empty vessel and allowing the Lord Himself to work through her. Humility wants the glory to go to Christ Himself and not her. So many saints have embraced humility and hiddeness, combined wtih great suffering and rejection from men.

So what can man bring you but death, sin, misunderstanding, pride and domination…we must renounce ourselves everyday and pray only His will be done…

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m afraid the Mormons were rather late on the scene in pointing to a perceived apostasy of the church, and I’ve already stated that I don’t find any Protestant church to be without error, so what’s the argument? The OP asked if Protestants taught that the Bible is a Catholic book and explained the history of the Bible. I gave the best answer I could, sharing my experience and quoting other sources that seemed to bear on the matter. If you have some information about Protestants that do teach that the Bible is a Catholic book, or if you have additional insight as to why some do not, why don’t you share that?

Trent,

My expereince with Protestant Pastors, Protestants, Protestant churches, Protestant Bible studies is that there is a blindness to historical fact with information as you present that cause them to believe that the Bible fell out of the sky by denying that the Catholic Church existed, not realizing that without the Catholic Church…there would have been no

sin of disobedience and thievery by Tynsdale to take the Vulgate and translate it into English

sins of disobedience and defiance of authority with the Divorce of Henry VIII, adultery, and the subesequent King James Bible

Deny that there was a Catholic Church that gave you Scriptures that are declared to be Scripture by the Church and there is no Tynsdale, there is no King James…because without the Vulgate there would have been no ability to steal it, translate it without authority and then there would have been no Anglicans and no King James…

This is pure insanity on the part of Protestants.

 

[KathleenGee]

Only the Mormons, the other American restorationists of the 1800’s because of the Stone-Campbell movement, and some branches of Baptists believe in some kind of apostasy happening …either from the death of the last apostle to several hundred years later.

Hokus pokus.

 

[Augustine3]

We have a succession of apostolic bishops that pre-date the bible, so how could Protestants say the Catholic Church was not like it was during the apostolic time when our present bishops are direct successors to the apostles themselves?

 

[GKC]

Trent,

My expereince with Protestant Pastors, Protestants, Protestant churches, Protestant Bible studies is that there is a blindness to historical fact with information as you present that cause them to believe that the Bible fell out of the sky by denying that the Catholic Church existed, not realizing that without the Catholic Church…there would have been no

sin of disobedience and thievery by Tynsdale to take the Vulgate and translate it into English

sins of disobedience and defiance of authority with the Divorce of Henry VIII, adultery, and the subesequent King James Bible

Deny that there was a Catholic Church that gave you Scriptures that are declared to be Scripture by the Church and there is no Tynsdale, there is no King James…because without the Vulgate there would have been no ability to steal it, translate it without authority and then there would have been no Anglicans and no King James…

This is pure insanity on the part of Protestants.

Decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[steve_b]

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 had the right to translate the scriptures without supervision and approval of the Church, and we can see the result of what happened when people like Luther did their own thing. Imagine if that happened throughout the 1500 years before Luther?
J:

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.

For clarification,

The name of the Church is the Catholic Church. Period dot end of sentence. Approx 98% of the Catholic Church is Latin/Roman rite. The remaining approx 2% of the Catholic Church are Eastern rites. All are 100% Catholic. All have equal dignity. All are in union with the pope of Rome, successor to Peter. Historically “Roman” as a qualifier to Catholic, got it’s negative connotation from non Catholics and anti Catholics. For history Roman Catholic
J:

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.

technically,

" the Roman Synod of 382, under Pope Damasus, in its “List of Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the Holy and Catholic Church receives,” enumerated all and only those books later listed by Trent. At this synod were present not only SS. Jerome and Ambrose, but also quite a few Eastern bishops. The canon of Damasus was adopted by St. Augustine, the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 416), St. Innocent I (405), St. Gelasius (495), etc. We may say, then, that the question of the canon of the New Testament had been definitively settled, though not defined, in the West by the beginning of the fifth century." Monsignor G. Van Noort. S.T.D.

iow, the NT canon was the same in 382 as it was at Trent.

Any disagreement on the OT was ended at Trent.

 

[CopticChristian]

Decree of nullity.

GKC

GKC say whaaa???

 

[GKC]

GKC say whaaa???

Hank wasn’t looking for a divorce. Was no such thing, back in the day. He was searching for a decree of nullity, with respect to his marriage to Katherine. Very common, happened all the time.

Hank’s Great Matter is a long time hobby with me. When I see “divorce” in this context, I post “decree of nullity”. Terminological exactitude, is what.

A harmless quirk of mine.

GKC

 

[CopticChristian]

Hank wasn’t looking for a divorce. Was no such thing, back in the day. He was searching for a decree of nullity, with respect to his marriage to Katherine. Very common, happened all the time.

Hank’s Great Matter is a long time hobby with me. When I see “divorce” in this context, I post “decree of nullity”. Terminological exactitude, is what.

A harmless quirk of mine.

GKC

GKC,

You have lots of work to do…Senior Thesis…

medievalists.net/files/11010101.pdf

The Canon Law of the Henry VIII Divorce Case
by Phillip Campbell

A Senior Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Social Studies Department of Madonna University, Livonia, MI.

Presented June 14th, 2009

 

[andrewstx]

Trent,

This apostasy notion sounds very Mormon. Look at your Protestant History over the last 500 years. Compare and Contrast that with 2000 years…

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic Latin/East

Agree on Apostolic Tradition and Scripture. The OO and EO have more but there is no argument or division over that.

All have 7 Sacraments and agree that the Eucharist is the central focus of Worship.

All have a valid episcopal leadership or hierarchy, they all have Bishops

All baptize babies as a means of entrance into the Church

All accept ecumenical councils, the OO the first three and the EO the first 7

All Accept Mary as the Theotokos or God Bearer

Disagreement is based on an understanding and words concerning Christology, disagreement is based on a few words in the Nicene/Constantinople Creed that all accept, there is a different understanding of Original Sin, Purgatory/death prayer for the dead, Marian dogma, all agree in infallibility of the Councils or groups of Bishops and disagree on the Latin Bishop infallibility. Disagreement is concerning what role the Latin Bishop/Pope status is all agree on first among equals.

So when you look at the 2000 years of disunity and what it is about, no one is taking the Bible and saying “based on the Bible”…so and so and such and such…this is not a part of how Christianity was ever propagated or understood or issues were decided. Scripture is part of Church Worship and in the Orthodox Churches Scripture is in various parts of the Church not necessarily as in your experience with Protestant Translations that cannot be proved are the Scripture, stolen from the Cathlolic/Latin Church.

Compare and contrast what you believe is division and dissent and what that dissent is concerning. Protestants can’t figure out whether you should be Presbyterian, Congregational or baptize babies or not or have Sacraments or Ordinances or who is charge of what where and how.

There is an excellent reason for the simularity. One of the early Disciple’s of Christ preachers became a mormon and took the apostacy/restoration dichotomy into mormonism. Sidney Rigdon was the man’s name.

The “churches of Christ” went into schism the Disciples in roughly 1906.

Rigdon nearly became the mormon prophet in the aftermath of J Smith’s killing and he did go on to form an off brand version of mormonism.

 

[Jimmy_B]

We have a succession of apostolic bishops that pre-date the bible, so how could Protestants say the Catholic Church was not like it was during the apostolic time when our present bishops are direct successors to the apostles themselves?

Good point… First came the Church (Catholic) and then came the Bible… And then 1500+ years after Christ and the original apostles, came Protestants … who then based their beliefs on their interpretations of a Catholic book, that they then claimed was theirs… Am I wrong?

 

[CopticChristian]

Good point… First came the Church (Catholic) and then came the Bible… And then 1500+ years after Christ and the original apostles, came Protestants … who then based their beliefs on their interpretations of a Catholic book, that they then claimed was theirs… Am I wrong?

Jimmy,

almost, they disobediently stole the book and disobediently translated it with error and then if that was not enough, denied the original translation and insitituted their own translation without authority based on a Hebrew Old Testament and then without authority removed books and produced a book that represents only a translation and base their beliefs…on a…

semblance of a Catholic book, and claim that their book is the original…and they are wrong…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy,

almost, they disobediently stole the book and disobediently translated it with error and then if that was not enough, denied the original translation and insitituted their own translation without authority based on a Hebrew Old Testament and then without authority removed books and produced a book that represents only a translation and base their beliefs…on a…

semblance of a Catholic book, and claim that their book is the original…and they are wrong…