I wonder if non-Catholics realize that without the Catholic Church there would not be a Bible (nm)

[Jon_Hus]

Guess not… explain it for my edification please. And you don’t have to be snotty about it. I was being charitable.

If you’re speaking of other canons, I know about them. But I’m Latin Rite and am not that familiar with the other canons. Why do they exist? Not sure yet. Still studying up on this aspect. But that is of no concern to me, without the Church there would be no canon of scripture and Protestants would really be lost then. Show up, for what? No offense but it is funny to think about. I find if humorous.

Ok eucharisteo,

First of all my first post on this topic (#22) was not directed to you rather asking everyone a general common sense question. You come back with the response first of all informing me that I’m misguided and then proceed to express various opinions that are totally immaterial to what I said. Interesting that you inform a poster named Mosacked with not understanding the english language.

I would assume that you know that the oldest NT manuscripts we have belonged to the Greek Church, not the Latin. You probably have a general knowledge of that but if you knew anything about those manuscripts, the hebrew OT manuscripts and the those greek manuscripts that are used to translate the Bible into modern languages then would would be forced to at lease consider the absuridity to the premise of the OP and begin discussing it in an intelligent manner instead of making a job out of getting insulted.

Basically my friend, you blasted me as not uninformed when it is clear that you didn’t understand my message. Personally I don’t care what you think or what you say about me although I would perfer to keep this civil. Really though, the Bible was given to us and perserved for us by God and we have Him and only Him to thank for it.

Take care, Jon

 

[Jon_Hus]

As far as I can tell, there are two (2) main reasons and probably a number of lesser reasons why the Apocrypha was included in the canon of RC Bible. Reason one is because it appears to give some cover for the doctrine of purgatory (II Maccabees) and second because the RCC used them in the liturgy for so long that when they were forced to define their canon at Trent, there was only one option and that was to include them. I know that this is going to offend some here but that is how I see it.

I have not once seen anyone of the RCC side of this debate even come close to articulating the reformers and present day protestant/evangelical reasons for not including the apocrypha. I also have not seen from the same group any critical analysis of the II Maccabees passage used to justify purgatory. And finally I haven’t seen from that distinguished group any truthful discussion on the reformers attitudes on both the apocrypha or the NT books of James or Revelation.

In my signature is a quote from Jesus in which he is covering all of the murdered prophets in Scripture, the A to Z of the murder of righteous as recorded in the Bible up to that time. Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead and creator of all things certainly knew about the book of second maccabees and certainly there were righteous men murdered and recorded in the apocryphia after the one Jesus refers to. However, if the II Macc.or any of the apocryphia were the word of God, then it seems logical that Jesus would have included them instead of stopping at the murder of Zechariah becuse as I’m sure you all know, the apocryphia covers the historical period from Malachi to the NT gospels-a 400 year span of time. This is not iron clad proof but it isn’t the only consideration either. But none of this ever gets mentioned, nor the fact that the new testament writers never quote from the apocryphia.

Much hay is made here about Luthers attitude on the book of James. Never mentioned is the fact that Luther translated and published the NT into German and it included the book of James.

The II Macc. passage has not been to my limited knowledge discussed here an any critical manner. It, the doctrine of purgatory has not been put to the test to see if the passage is in harmony with the entire Bible or Catholic doctrine. For example, I was under the impression that the RCC teaches that mortal sin could not be forgiven if a person dies without repenting of it and yet the Maccabees died because God judged their (mortal) sin of idolitry.

But hey, this isn’t my sandbox.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12
Thank you for that blessing Mosacked; I pray you be not sickened from Truth, but come to the understanding of God’s revealed Word through his Church the body of Christ on earth. I pray that your perception of how the bible came to be, did not fall from the sky?

Let us be clear, the Catholic Church did not invent the Word of God, as it appears to be your incorrect understanding from my commentary to historical facts.

God through men revealed this Word to the world. God through a woman revealed his Son Jesus Christ.

God through his Body the Church reveals his salvation message which is the “Pillar of Truth”
(1Timothy 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.)

Mosacked, if the apostolic written letters were not collected and authenticated by the Catholic Church as inspired of God. Would you care to enlighten all of us and reveal how God gave us the bible books as we have them today?

Instead of protesting this Catholic (universal) Truth that the Catholic Church canonized the books of the bible as being God breathed, can you teach us where you think the bible books came from and who determined which books are inspired of God and which books are not?

6551933
I regret to inform you that I am unable to make you see the folly of your statements above. You have only proven to me again that you are blind to the absurdity in the concept of being responsible for something that belongs to God in the first place.

Sorry…but Staying around to read your posts only makes my heart sick from disappointment.

 

[Nicea325]

I do believe you are very misguided. Whatever you read must not be correct because the Easter Orthodox were in fact one with the Latin Church. The best Greek scholars in the world are Orthodox. The Vulgate was blessed to be the “official” book for a particular reason, the liturgy mainly. It was the legal language of the time so it was translated by Jerome for the purpose of the Church. Jerome wanted to exclude the deuterocanon but he was the only one and was not a theologian. He was obedient and resigned his will to the universal church. I do believe there were in fact Greek speaking orthodox at the time. They too teach sacred tradition as well as magisterial. The differences are really minute, thought many on both sides love to split hairs while acting like their moving mountains.

I’d like to add that one of the initial strains between the east and the west church was the language barrier. I think this is an interesting thing to think about. The conflicts have their roots in political control of the regions involve. Even today you’ll find peoples all over the region to be possessed with a certain abundance of near arrogance if not just that. Many are consumed with their national religious pride. It will be a wonderful day when the 2 become one again. Once this happens I do believe the Protestant world will begin to fall apart again as the 2 lungs of the east and west will breath fully and the excitement will motivate people to study real history rather than anti-Catholic/Orthodox rhetoric. We only have 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Orthodox have 3 and 4 as well. Why? Not quite sure, but the protestant view of these texts is really bazaar to me considering that they removed 7 old testament books that really do not change the deposit of faith but rather tries to redefine it.

Nicely said!

 

[Nicea325]

Jon Hus:*Also missing from this discussion is the fact that none of the officials at the Council of Trent knew greek or hebrew and yet proclaimed a flawed Vulgate to be the true Bible. *

Wow! It is a historical fact and declaration that NONE of the officials at Trent knew Greek or Hebrew? Care to provide empirical evidence supporting such a charge?

So Jerome was the only Catholic ever to have known Greek and Hebrew?

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Oh please how many of the lost gnostic gospels were burned under the orders of your faith?

And books and letters in the Bible as we know it would have been translated alot earlier into common languages without your faith getting in the way of knowledge.

What we would have is simple many Bibles and many books ad letters individually to use as religious references and God would guide us to which ones He wanted us each to use.

 

[T_More]

Jon Hus, are you aware that in the NT, references are made to the Deuterocanonical books, such as Hebrews 11:35 to 2 Maccabees 7? Should this part of Hebrews be ignored?

 

[Loboto-Me]

Now THAT statement is funny!!

God would guide us as to which letters each of us would need to use just like He guides how each protestant is to interpret the Holy Book these days?

I think not, Jesus/God already set up a system on how to those letters were to be used and interpreted, some just didn’t choose to listen to Him.

Oops, I meant to quote Libertarian’s statement

 

[JackQ]

Oh please how many of the lost gnostic gospels were burned under the orders of your faith?

That’s a good question. Some obviously made it through this book burning, since we still have them today. So, anyway, enlighten us: how many lost Gnostic gospels were burned under orders of the Catholic Church? If you can, please explain where and when this happened, and who gave the orders.

And books and letters in the Bible as we know it would have been translated alot earlier into common languages without your faith getting in the way of knowledge.

The Vulgate was a translation into the vernacular. The only translations that were prohibited were those done by heretics.

What we would have is simple many Bibles and many books ad letters individually to use as religious references and God would guide us to which ones He wanted us each to use.

This process already took place. This was precisely what took place when the canon was being formed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

As far as I can tell, there are two (2) main reasons and probably a number of lesser reasons why the Apocrypha was included in the canon of RC Bible. Reason one is because it appears to give some cover for the doctrine of purgatory (II Maccabees) and second because the RCC used them in the liturgy for so long that when they were forced to define their canon at Trent, there was only one option and that was to include them. I know that this is going to offend some here but that is how I see it.

Purgatory was finally defined as an apostolic doctrine under Trent 1545-1563 a.d. 2 Maccabees a Deuterocanonical bible book inspired by God (never apocrypha as protestants falsely rename the Deuteron books) was canonized by the Catholic church long before the council of Trent. The New Testament was canonized as early as 367 a.d, and both the Old and New Testament books where canonized as we have them today including the Deuterocanonical books which the Protestants falsify as “apocrypha” in 387 a.d. This is long before Trent finally closed any more protests against these already canonized books from 387 a.d.

So you see, 2 Maccabees was already canonized by the Catholic Church from the fourth century. Trent just refused to agree with the protestants new theology to remove them.

Purgatory is a real bad excuse to blame the Deuteron book 2 Maccabees on. For the fact purgatory is also based mainly from the New Testament bible books which support the Apostolic doctrine of purgatory. Here are just a few for your undertaking that teach on purgatory;

Mt. 12:36tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter.

2 Cor. 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

1 Peter 1:15-1715 but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

1Cor 3:12: Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – 13: each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14**: If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15: If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer [zēmioō Greek, will be punished] loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. ** (This is the CCC teaching of purgatory. Do you want to remove this book also because it confirms the apostolic teaching of purgatory?)

Malachi 3:1: "Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. 2: But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? "For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap; 3: he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the LORD.

Remember Peter saying Jesus went to preach to the souls in prison immediately after His death? He preached to Those who had been disobedient since the time of Noah? Well, this wasn’t heaven because heaven isn’t prison, and it’s not hell, because the damned have no hope so there is no need to preach to them. They’ll be in hell for eternity. This is a 3rd place. A place they can get out of…eventually. But a prison just the same.

Mt. 5:22-26 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

Rev. 21:27nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life

They need a scrubbing first.

, The Protestant Reformers wanted to deny the importance of works in the cycle of redemption because of their SOLA FE THEOLOGY,
they have to get rid of whole books like Tobit, to deny Purgatory reject Maccabees, James, faith by works, revelation which reveals the mass as we know it today.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

I have not once seen anyone of the RCC side of this debate even come close to articulating the reformers and present day protestant/evangelical reasons for not including the apocrypha. I also have not seen from the same group any critical analysis of the II Maccabees passage used to justify purgatory. And finally I haven’t seen from that distinguished group any truthful discussion on the reformers attitudes on both the apocrypha or the NT books of James or Revelation.

The RCC never references the Deuteron books as “apocrypha”. The RCC has maintained the original canonized bible books unchanged since the fourth century. It is the protestants who have to justify why they removed 7 books from the bible, not the RCC who put them in the bible 1700 years before the protestant reformers were ever born. In fact these books predate the canon because they were already being used the first 400 years after the ascension of Christ in the Catholic Church Liturgies while underground and under persecution. The already unofficial canon becomes official when the persecution is lifted 400 years later.

The RCC does not have to justify the bible, it remains unchanged the council of Trent only confirmed the books with an excommunication attached to them once and for all, if any one ever protests them ever again excommunicates themselves. Protestants are the ones who are at the chopping block for removing 7 inspired books of God from his bible.

In my signature is a quote from Jesus in which he is covering all of the murdered prophets in Scripture, the A to Z of the murder of righteous as recorded in the Bible up to that time. Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead and creator of all things certainly knew about the book of second Maccabees and certainly there were righteous men murdered and recorded in the apocryphia after the one Jesus refers to. However, if the II Macc.or any of the apocryphia were the word of God, then it seems logical that Jesus would have included them instead of stopping at the murder of Zechariah becuse as I’m sure you all know, the apocryphia covers the historical period from Malachi to the NT gospels-a 400 year span of time. This is not iron clad proof but it isn’t the only consideration either. But none of this ever gets mentioned, nor the fact that the new testament writers never quote from the apocryphia.

Although your point makes good for argument, but in the end it falls short for denying the Deuterobooks. Jesus from Matthew 23:34 speaks of those after Zechariah, who will also suffer crucifixion, persecution, whom he will also send will be killed including himself by the hypocrites. Besides did not Jesus descend to the dead to release all those captives since the flood out of “purgatory” = “sheol” (hebrew) = “hades” (Greek) until his death. There are over 300 quotes in the New Testament that confirm the teachings from the Deuterobooks and Septuagint in the Gospels and New Testament Epistles.

Here is just one quote from the New Testament among the many referencing a Deutero book subject; for your information; Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42. If you would like more, just let me know?

Much hay is made here about Luthers attitude on the book of James. Never mentioned is the fact that Luther translated and published the NT into German and it included the book of James.

I think the hay is made about Luther adding his own word “Alone” to God’s revealed scriptures would be enough to disqualify him from removing the 7 books from the bible by making the false teaching that they are not inspired of God by falsely labeling them “apochrypha”. The Catholic monks before Luther had already translated the NT into German, Luther was a Johny come lately to gain popularity with his New invention of the New Testament by adding his human word “alone” to the scriptures.

The II Macc. passage has not been to my limited knowledge discussed here an any critical manner. It, the doctrine of purgatory has not been put to the test to see if the passage is in harmony with the entire Bible or Catholic doctrine. For example, I was under the impression that the RCC teaches that mortal sin could not be forgiven if a person dies without repenting of it and yet the Maccabees died because God judged their (mortal) sin of idolitry.

But hey, this isn’t my sandbox.

Before Christ God judged with same mercy and grace, he judges through his son Jesus Christ in the New Covenant. Both old and new are given warning from above before the sin, during the sin, and after the sin. In the New Covenant all mortal sin, orginal sin and actual sin is removed in the grace and mercy from the sacrament of baptism. Jesus meets every child of God in his confession in the apostolic ministry of reconcilation.

The Child of God is given grace and mercy to act upon his freewill to sin or not. God never changes, he is the same yesterday, today and forever more. Why do you paint God as God who changes?

 

[Zatzat]

Seriously.

You all believe in an all powerful and all knowing God.

If not for the Catholic Church, don’t you think that your all powerful and all knowing God would have found some other way to have had a Bible written?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Zatzat;6554350]Seriously.

You all believe in an all powerful and all knowing God.

If not for the Catholic Church, don’t you think that your all powerful and all knowing God would have found some other way to have had a Bible written?

Thus far there is only one complete Holy Bible from Apostolic times in the Catholic Church. All others are Versions of the original Holy bible or copies of the bible less 7 books.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Seriously.

You all believe in an all powerful and all knowing God.

If not for the Catholic Church, don’t you think that your all powerful and all knowing God would have found some other way to have had a Bible written?

In theory, yes He could have picked another bunch of people but that’s not happened. We can’t change history, God elected the Catholic Church to do the job.

 

[RedBert]

There was no official canonized New testament for the first four hundred years of Christianity, the Only thing Jesus Christ left us in existence since his ascension, is the Catholic Church which was under persecution, celebrating her Liturgy underground from Oral Apostolic Traditions and Written Letters copied and handed down to other Catholic communities.

 

[RedBert]

There was no official canonized New testament for the first four hundred years of Christianity

Consider Irenaeus

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic “Against the Heresies,”

Questions:
How did Irenaeus know those writings were Scripture?
What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 180AD?

 

[Zatzat]

In theory, yes He could have picked another bunch of people but that’s not happened. We can’t change history, God elected the Catholic Church to do the job.

Yet the title of this very thread is;

’ I wonder if non-Catholics realize that without the Catholic Church there would not be a Bible’

This very title asks us to disregard history and your Gods plan. The answer is very simple, your God would have simply thought of another way in which to record his Holy words.

The OP is basically saying that ’ without the Catholic Church, there wouldn’t be a Bible…yet I’m quite confident that an all powerful God could have thought of at least one other way in which to have ancient man record his words in a book.

 

[AmateurPianist]

A couple of points.

The statement “The Catholic church gave us the Bible” comes across very much like a United Methodist (the analogy works best if we imagine this were the 60s before the name change) claiming “The Methodist church gave us John Wesley”.

While this is true at face value, it is false if the intent of the statement is to exclude the Free Methodists, Wesleyans, and Nazarenes…all of which are descendents of the Methodist church at the time of John Wesley.

And an observation…if I am to credit an organization with the positive, I must be willing at the same time to acknowledge the negative. So if I want to claim Assemblies of God has given the world a first class missions organization, I also must acknowledge that Assemblies of God has given the world Swaggart and Bakker.

When I pointed this out in another thread a long time ago, I was told in Christian charity that I had demons and that my church was a brothel.

 

[T_More]

Consider Irenaeus

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic “Against the Heresies,”

Questions:
How did Irenaeus know those writings were Scripture?
What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 180AD?

RedBert, what Church was Irenaeus and Polycarp bishops of? There were other letters that the churches throughout the Roman empire considered Scripture, such as the letters of Clement. Of course they knew what was Scripture even then. The reason the bible was canonized was because different churches had different lists of what Scripture was and a uniform set needed to be determined. These Scriptures were for the Liturgy during the Mass from the very beginning.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How did Polycarp know those letters were Scripture?
What Catholic Church degree or council had decided that by 140AD?

Hello RedBert Let me know if the following does not answer your question?

1. Because the Church has writings dating around 100ad. Confirming these Gospels were already in use In the assembly of the Eucharist just as they’re read at Mass today.
2. Different books were read at the discretion of the local Bishop.
3. Until 140 ad a man by Marcion began teaching that the Apostles had misunderstood Christ completely and that Paul sometimes got it right and he Marcion always got it right.
4. To support his Heresy (doctrinal belief held in opposition to recognized standard).Marcion instructed his followers to use only ten of the epistles of Paul (letters of Paul) and to each epistle Marcion added his own (prologue) he considered ST. Lukes Gospel the only genuine one for some unknown reason.
5. St. Iraneus says Marcion mutilated the gospel of Luke, removing all that is written about the generation of the Lord. He removed much of the teaching of the Lord. He convinced his followers that he himself was more truthful than the apostles who have handed down the Gospel. He furnished them not with the Gospel but with a small part of the Gospel
6. St. Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John the beloved one of Jesus) of Smyrna who became a Bishop So far forgot himself as to call Marcion the first born of Satan to his face.

NEW TESTAMENT BEING PUT TOGETHER

1. Various Bishops developed lists of inspired books
2. Mileto Bishop of Sardis, C.175 ad
3. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185ad
4. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea 325 ad
5. As soon as the persecutions of Christians and destroying Christian books, in 303 ad, by the Roman Emperor Diocletian died down, the Church began to settle the Canon once and for all.
6. All the Churches great scholars concentrated on the question as never before.
7. by 367 ad. St. Athanasius of Alexandria published for the first time the definitive list including all 27 books that we know today.
8. St. Athanasius is quoted by saying “let no one add to them or take anything away from them”

9.St. Athanasius Canon was accepted widely almost immediately. (Although 3 Corinthians kept showing up for surprisingly a long time.

NEW AND OLD TESTAMENT CANONIZED

1.Pope St. Damasus I in 382 ad adopted the canon in the decretal of Gelasius

1. This act prompted by the Council of Rome to write a decree listing the present OT/NT canon of 73 books

3.The council of Hippo in North Africa in 393 ad confirmed the approved 73 book canon of inspired books.

4.The council of Carthage in 397 ad approved the same canon (VERY IMPORTANT DATE HERE, THIS IS THE COUNCIL THAT MANY BIBLICAL PROTESTANT SCHOLARS AND EVANGELICALS LOOK TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE NT CANON OF BOOKS.

1. Pope St. InnocentI (401-417) In 405ad approved the 73 books canon and closed the canon of the bible.