If the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible, then who did?

[CopticChristian]

Tradition plays a big role. Not all Apostolic Churches share the same canon as the Latin Church. Several of these Churches include additional books or chapters not considered canonical by the Latin Church. It has less to do with any intended deviation from Roman practice than a traditional adherence to what texts and translations have been used and passed down in the particular Church. The Greek Septuagint in early Christianity was widely held, East and West, as divinely inspired, and was the official version of the OT for the Churches, but other translations made in certain regions and in certain times played important roles as well (e.g. the Peshitta, the Vulgate).

Protestants are an interesting case in that they rejected the text as passed down in the Latin Church and sought to recover the “pure” Scripture by going back to the sources (ad fontes). They more or less rejected the Vulgate and the Septuagint and latched onto the Masoretic Text version of the OT, which has its origins in translations made by Jews after the Church was founded. The Masoretic Text does not include the deuterocanonical works found in the Latin Catholic canons, nor any other works included by the other Apostolic Churches.

**I would have to look into the issue more, but my understanding is that early Protestants saw the Masoretic Text as a more ancient and original version than the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and so adopted this as the standard for their own canon and translations of the Old Testament. **If you notice, Protestant apologists will disclude certain deuterocanonical books because there is no known Hebrew original, but only a Greek version known. Many modern scholars, however, now regard parts of the Greek Septuagint, which often includes these deuterocanonical books, as of more antiquity than the Masoretic Text, and will prefer the LXX reading over the MT. The Protestants, in my opinion, owe the OT version of their Bible to the Jewish editors of the 1st millenium AD. As to the NT, they received the text from both Western and Eastern Christian monastic and scholastic communities that had passed down the text in the original koine Greek language.

If as Paul says…did God abandon His people, by no means, for to them was given the utterance of Scripture. The Jews prior to the coming of Christ…were directed to translate the OT into Greek. They chose to translate what we know as the Septuagint. If God is Lord and Lord of His word…why did God fail His people and not provide the Masoretic text for translation?

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m totally new to being Anglican. My theology has become more mainline over the years, and not very conservative evangelical at all, which leaves my present Assemblies of God church no longer a good doctrinal fit. I’ve been sort of an honorary Anglican for years, because of C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, my two favorite Christian writers, and now it’s time to make it official.

I have no familiarity at all with the Lambeth Conference. I’ll have to research that and get back to you. But I will say,** I never thought there was any sound scriptural reason to prohibit birth control**.

I ask you to read “The Bible and Birth Contro” by Provan and then reassess your position on Scripture and Birth Control…

 

[CopticChristian]

because all the Protestants i know tend to ignore church history altogether

I agree with you and understand your reasoning. My experience is that these people are taught to keep there nose in the Bible, out of the world, and distrust anything that takes them away from reading “the word”…it is part of the Protestant paradigm…

1. Get them saved
2. Get them in a “bible believing” Protestant church
3. Involve them in a Bible Study where they learn Protestant theology
4. Separate them from the world

It takes about 5 years for most of this inculcation to take place and then the questioning begins…

 

[CopticChristian]

The early church had several councils, but none of them were directed by a global catholic church as we know today. To say pope so and so was acting as a global lead for the entire church is a lie. The title pope was not used at this time to refer to the bishop of rome.

Sometime around 170-175 Tatian, possibly a disciple of Justin, created a harmony of the four orthodox gospels known as the Diatessaron. This text was accepted in some circles, even being used to replace the four gospels, but this success was short lived. What this harmony reveals, however, is that the church recognized four gospels.

The four gospels are confirmed by Irenaeus of Lyons in Against the Heresies (cir. 175),
From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. A.H. III,11.8

Irenaeus also quotes from, or alludes to, almost all the documents that become the orthodox NT. These citations are mostly from Pauline works (25+ occurrences from each of these: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians). His Pauline citations/allusions include all three “Pastoral” epistles. The other general NT letters get scant recognition and a few are totally absent (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude).

The Muratorian canon is a manuscript fragment that represents the oldest known list (or canon) of the New Testament. The beginning and ending of the MS is missing. The document is dated by most scholars about 170 AD. It was discovered in a library in Italy by Ludovico Antonio Muratori, a famous historian of the time. This list consists of the following:

• (Matthew and Mark were apparently named in the beginning of the fragment which is missing)
• Luke and John
• Acts
• all 13 of Paul’s letters
• 1 and 2 John is assumed since the writer only names two letters of John
• Jude
• the Revelation of John

This listing omits Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. It also names a few documents that do NOT appear in the orthodox NT.

So by the middle of the second century most of the 27 documents in the orthodox NT canon had already gained widespread acceptance, especially the four gospels. It is critical to understand the importance of why only four gospels were accepted. These early fathers were very familiar with the other gospels that were floating around – Marcion’s gospel of Luke, the various gnostic gospels, and other “proto-orthodox” gospels that simply were not well accepted.

So by the second century, we have a clear picture developing. these councils in the 3rd / 4th century may have formalized things. ** But again, this is not the same catholic church of today, headed in ROme and such**.

Tell me the distinct differences of the Church of today and the Church of the Councils.

 

[CopticChristian]

1st samuel 3:21 GOD will always manifest himself in his word no one gave us the bible we are all instruments of god for his GLORY.So GOD is the one who gave us the bible.

Bless you for this revelation. God gave us the Bible. Amen and Amen.

God gave the Bible to people. You and I are people and read it. So he gave it to people. Who were the first people that He gave it to?

Who are the people that put the thing together and verified the contents?
Who are the people that put chapter and verse and table of contents?
Who are the people that transcribed it?
Who declared this book to be the Bible?

Who are these intruments, year, place, etc?

Thank you.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Not all Protestants thinkLuther was a hero. Some think he was way too Catholic.

True, some don’t think he went far enough away from Catholicism, but he gets points as the founder of Protestantism.

So, what was Jerome’s “excuse” for not considering them canon? what was Cajetan’s?

St. Augustine – Bishop of Hippo – considered them canon. He presided over the Councils of Hippo and Carthage which discerned the same canon the Catholic Church has held to be Sacred Scripture – unchanged to this day.

Prior to finalization of the canon, everyone was free to express his own opinion about which writings were Scripture. Example: Codex Sinaiticus, which includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, is from the mid fourth century. I mentioned 1 Clement earlier. There were other books considered “scripture” by some local Churches as well, such as the Didache. St. Jerome was a loyal son of the Church. He voiced his objections BEFORE the canon was discerned. His opus magnum, the Vulgate, contains the canon of the Council of Rome, including the “deuterocanon” (a 16th century term).

Instead of using a polemic such as “excuse”, why not say “Luther gave as his reason…”, even though you don’t agree with him? Heck, I’m not completely sure*** I*** agree with him (and sinse the Lutherans confessions don’t set a canon, I’m allowed to do so, just as Luther and others were allowed to do so before Trent).

I sincerely apologize.

I’d really like to know who gave permission to ‘Luther and others to publicly dispute the Catholic Church’s canon of Scriptures before Trent.’ Could you please share your source(s)? The Guttenberg Bible is the Vulgate, a century before Trent. The Church’s canon, once discerned, has never changed.

And it is a fact that Lutherans have historically used the D-C’s liturgically.

Then could you explain why they are separated from the Scriptures and referred to as “Apocrypha” or “Anaginoskomena.” (I think that may mean ‘good to read’???)

Again, a polemic. Think of what reasons Jerome gave for questioning the D-C’s, and Cajetan references Jerome.

St. Jerome’s reasons are of historical interest, but have no other significance. St. Augustine’s views (and the views of other Catholic bishops) prevailed. Or, I should say, the guidance of the Holy Spirit prevailed regarding the books to be canonized.

Again, Luther ddn’t reject them. He, like others before him, recognized the disputed nature of them.

Sorry, but I can’t see how you come to this conclusion, considering Luther’s own words and actions.

1, In his German translation of the Bible (1534), Luther removed the “deuterocanon” from the position the writings had occupied in the Bible since the canon was discerned by the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Spirit, at the end of the fourth century.

1. He placed them in an appendix between the OT and the NT, and left the pages unnumbered to emphasize that he did not consider them Scripture.

3, He wrote an introduction: “Apocrypha – that is books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” He also wrote prefaces explaining why he did not consider them Scripture. (underscore mine)

Since the books are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and they’re not included among the Holy Scriptures, then they’re obviously not scripture (according to Luther). Where is my logic wrong?

And Lutherans have always viewed them as canon.

Uh, ummmm, they’re not part of the Lutheran Study Bible, not even as an appendix.

fine, I just ask that we be critical without polemics.

Jon, my greatly admired friend, I never want to offend you. I looked up “polemics.” It’s “the art or practice of disputation or controversy.” It’s hard to avoid in a discussion like this, I should think. But I’ll do my best to watch my choice of words.

God be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Bless you for this revelation. God gave us the Bible. Amen and Amen.

God gave the Bible to people. You and I are people and read it. So he gave it to people. Who were the first people that He gave it to?

Who are the people that put the thing together and verified the contents?
Who are the people that put chapter and verse and table of contents?
Who are the people that transcribed it?
Who declared this book to be the Bible?

Who are these intruments, year, place, etc?

Thank you.

The leaders of the Catholic Church wrote what became the New Testament during the first Christian century, Then, when the Church was nearly 400 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the very same time, she canonized the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of Sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia – the ‘Books’ – the Bible.

Chapters were added in the year 1227 by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, when England was still Catholic. Verses were added by Robert Estienne, a French printer, in 1551.

What we call the Old Testament took 1,000 years to write. It was given first to the People of God called Israel, under the Old Covenant, and then to the People of God known as the Catholic Church, under the New Covenent. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem for the salvation of the world. The Church then wrote the New Testament and, at the end of the fourth century, compiled the Bible.

Have I answered all your questions?

Peace,

Jim Dandy

Edit: To Coptic Christian: I glanced at your post and mistakenly thought it was from the poster you were writing to! My bad. So sorry.

 

[graceandglory]

I know that it is a popular belief in revisionist history that the Catholic Church did not compile the Holy Bible. Well, if that’s the case, then who did?

Gutenberg first, then Luther.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

1st samuel 3:21 GOD will always manifest himself in his word no one gave us the bible we are all instruments of god for his GLORY.So GOD is the one who gave us the bible.

Where is the God-given list of books that belong in the Bible?

 

[CopticChristian]

The leaders of the Catholic Church wrote what became the New Testament during the first Christian century, Then, when the Church was nearly 400 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the very same time, she canonized the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of Sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia – the ‘Books’ – the Bible.

Chapters were added in the year 1227 by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, when England was still Catholic. Verses were added by Robert Estienne, a French printer, in 1551.

What we call the Old Testament took 1,000 years to write. It was given first to the People of God called Israel, under the Old Covenant, and then to the People of God known as the Catholic Church, under the New Covenent. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem for the salvation of the world. The Church then wrote the New Testament and, at the end of the fourth century, compiled the Bible.

Have I answered all your questions?

Peace,

Jim Dandy

Edit: To Coptic Christian: I glanced at your post and mistakenly thought it was from the poster you were writing to! My bad. So sorry.

Do you think that Juan e Flores is going to buy in to your answer?

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;8795733]True, some don’t think he went far enough away from Catholicism, but he gets points as the founder of Protestantism.

Then he gets promptly bashed for believing in sacraments, etc. Go figure.

St. Augustine – Bishop of Hippo – considered them canon. He presided over the Councils of Hippo and Carthage which discerned the same canon the Catholic Church has held to be Sacred Scripture – unchanged to this day.

True. And I think Lutherans (and Luther) take this into consideration, as we well should. These books were disputed, not rejected.

Prior to finalization of the canon, everyone was free to express his own opinion about which writings were Scripture. Example: Codex Sinaiticus, which includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, is from the mid fourth century. I mentioned 1 Clement earlier. There were other books considered “scripture” by some local Churches as well, such as the Didache. St. Jerome was a loyal son of the Church. He voiced his objections BEFORE the canon was discerned. His opus magnum, the Vulgate, contains the canon of the Council of Rome, including the “deuterocanon” (a 16th century term).

This certainly witnesses to the fact that there has been dispute about the D-C’s throughout Church history. Let’s also remember that Luther’s translation, too, contained 74 books. His listing of the D-C’s reflects his view that they were disputed, and he had questions about them.

I sincerely apologize.

No need, Jim. We all come from different perspectives.

I’d really like to know who gave permission to ‘Luther and others to publicly dispute the Catholic Church’s canon of Scriptures before Trent.’

I would say the Church did. In the same way Cardinal Cajetan had permission to do so.

Could you please share your source(s)? The Guttenberg Bible is the Vulgate, a century before Trent. The Church’s canon, once discerned, has never changed.

The issue always comes back to the variety of canons of scripture, between Hippo and Carthage, and the Schism. I believe it is safe to say that those local councils may have set the canon of the West, but certainly not for the whole pre-schism Church.

Then could you explain why they are separated from the Scriptures and referred to as “Apocrypha” or “Anaginoskomena.” (I think that may mean ‘good to read’???)

Yes. it reflects the disputed nature, historically, of the books. I’ve read somewhere that some early scriptures did this too.

St. Jerome’s reasons are of historical interest, but have no other significance. St. Augustine’s views (and the views of other Catholic bishops) prevailed. Or, I should say, the guidance of the Holy Spirit prevailed regarding the books to be canonized.

Oh, I think it is ore than just of historical interest.

Sorry, but I can’t see how you come to this conclusion, considering Luther’s own words and actions.

Ok. Just let me briefly go through them.

1, In his German translation of the Bible (1534), Luther removed the “deuterocanon” from the position the writings had occupied in the Bible since the canon was discerned by the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Spirit, at the end of the fourth century.

I think I’ve answered this above.

1. He placed them in an appendix between the OT and the NT, and left the pages unnumbered to emphasize that he did not consider them Scripture.

Yes. Again, see above.

3, He wrote an introduction: “Apocrypha – that is books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” He also wrote prefaces explaining why he did not consider them Scripture. (underscore mine)

Cajetan said the same, and he was a loyal Catholic. I, honestly, waver as whether or not he was right.

Since the books are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and they’re not included among the Holy Scriptures, then they’re obviously not scripture (according to Luther). Where is my logic wrong?

They are disputed. There is a difference between disputing them and rejecting them.

Uh, ummmm, they’re not part of the Lutheran Study Bible, not even as an appendix.

We’re getting there, Jim,

Jon, my greatly admired friend, I never want to offend you. I looked up “polemics.” It’s “the art or practice of disputation or controversy.” It’s hard to avoid in a discussion like this, I should think. But I’ll do my best to watch my choice of words.

Oh, I know you well enough to know you would never intentionally offend. I do indeed enjoy our conversations.
My understanding of polemics is, as you say, but implying a negative tone. That said, I wasn’t implying an intent on your part. I look forward to our spirited and chariable discussions.

God be with you, Jim Dandy

And His blessing also with you,
Jon

 

[David]

The Catholic Church didn’t give me my Bible. I had to drive over to the Catholic store and get it myself

sorry, couldn’t help it

Peace
David

 

[lucky4075]

I’m just going to go ahead and restate what I did earlier in the thread- the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. The same Church that was around for hundreds of years before the first bible was written. If the Bible is the ‘end all be all/ultimate authority’ I guess the early Christians and Church leaders had it all wrong seeing as how they didn’t have a Bible.

Its kind of ironic from a Catholic perspective- Protestants claim that the Bible( a collection of writings assembled by the Church to be used as a complement to Catholic Tradition and belief) can be read by anyone and understood without error as the sole authority of morals and faith (depending on how you interpret it of course). So apparently there are some 30,000 different versions of the ‘truth’ out there, that miraculously realized that the Church was wrong one day.:ehh:

Just typing my thoughts here…

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m just going to go ahead and restate what I did earlier in the thread- the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. The same Church that was around for hundreds of years before the first bible was written. If the Bible is the ‘end all be all/ultimate authority’ I guess the early Christians and Church leaders had it all wrong seeing as how they didn’t have a Bible.

Its kind of ironic from a Catholic perspective- Protestants claim that the Bible( a collection of writings assembled by the Church to be used as a complement to Catholic Tradition and belief) can be read by anyone and understood without error as the sole authority of morals and faith (depending on how you interpret it of course). So apparently there are some 30,000 different versions of the ‘truth’ out there, that miraculously realized that the Church was wrong one day.:ehh:

Just typing my thoughts here…

Lucky,

I am asking you to repent for if you do not repent then you will have to type more thoughts…for clarity…there are 5 streams of Protestant thought…

Anglican
Reformed/Presbyterian
Lutheran
Baptist
AnaBaptist

You can trace all Protestant thought back to these sources. This repentance will allow you to speak to the Protestant and avoid the dialogue as to the issue of denominations, there are none, in Catholcism, the objection that is often raised, and you will see it…so repent…

Concerning AnaBaptist all you get is Menonite and Amish…the Menonites as you know were started by a Catholic Priest…Menno Simmons…

Reformed owe their origin to Calvin
Lutherans owe their origin to Luther and I just discovered the Evangelical Free Church is an offspring of Lutheran thought
Baptists owe their origin to John Smyth
Anglicans begat the Methodist that begat the Holiness movement that begat AOG, Pentacostal and many others

You may want to look up the family tree as they split
Reformed/Presbyterian…Scott Hahn calles them the split “P’s”
Lutherans are split in many ways…synods, etc
Baptists are split and there is one group that claims to be Apostolic…

All of these trace their history back to the OHCAC…Luther…Lutherans…Reformed/Presbyterian…Knox, Zwingli,Calvin…Anglican…Henry VIII…Baptist…via the Anglican…via Henry VIII…Anabaptist…Menonnites…Menno Simmons…

No Catholic Church…No Protestant thought…No Protestant thought…the OHCAC continues…

Repent means to change your mind…so I ask you to change your mind for clarity…

 

[lucky4075]

I’m not really sure what your whole post means but your right- when I say the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, your right- its more accurate to say the OHCAC.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not really sure what your whole post means but your right- when I say the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, your right- its more accurate to say the OHCAC.

You can learn from experience…Repent or continue to write that there are 30,000 different truths implying 30,000 different denominations and when you get a post in response to this that points out that this is not correct recall my posting…and clarify your point of view:thumbsup:

So apparently there are some** 30,000 different versions of the ‘truth’** out there,

 

[lucky4075]

Ohhh, I think I see what your saying. You are absolutely right- there is one version of the Truth. I said there were thousands of denominations CLAIMING to have the ‘truth.’ There is only one Truth taught by Christ’s Church. I’m still kind of confused, repent what? Is ‘denomination’ implying something that I am not aware of?

 

[David]

Ohhh, I think I see what your saying. You are absolutely right- there is one version of the Truth. I said there were thousands of denominations CLAIMING to have the ‘truth.’ There is only one Truth taught by Christ’s Church. I’m still kind of confused, repent what? Is ‘denomination’ implying something that I am not aware of?

I am kind of confused as well, I understand Lucky. Hard to follow Coptic.

Peace to all
David

 

[CopticChristian]

I am kind of confused as well, I understand Lucky. Hard to follow Coptic.

Peace to all
David

Ok, here it is…continue to use this notion of the error of 30,000 truths with 30,000 denominations and when you get a posting about how many denominations there are in the OHCAC and that this number is an error and widely spread erroneously…think of me…fondly…

youtube.com/watch?v=XjM1Lrsb7I8

 

[lucky4075]

Ok, here it is…continue to use this notion of the error of 30,000 truths with 30,000 denominations and when you get a posting about how many denominations there are in the OHCAC and that this number is an error and widely spread erroneously…think of me…fondly…

youtube.com/watch?v=XjM1Lrsb7I8

Coptic, ummmm I really confused now. What exactly are you trying to say? theres no denominations within the OHCAC, there are rites- the core teachings, beliefs, and morals are the same.