C
CatholicZ09
Guest
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?
If the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible, then who did?
- Status
I
Izdaari
Guest
They did, and I have no problem admitting it. But that doesn’t mean they’re right about everything.
C
catholictiger
Guest
I’ve heard the holy spirit before
while that is partially true they fail to mention who the holy spirit worked through
L
Link0126
Guest
Martin Luther.
P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
Laughed at your great question; Love it! As so many confused people in DENIAL 
Izdaari: apparently you are Anglican. What happened at the Lambeth conference in the 1930’s that “allowed” birth control in the Christian ranks for the very first time? Do you believe that that outcome was from a correct rendering of scripture? If so, how?
Izdaari: apparently you are Anglican. What happened at the Lambeth conference in the 1930’s that “allowed” birth control in the Christian ranks for the very first time? Do you believe that that outcome was from a correct rendering of scripture? If so, how?
M
Madaglan
Guest
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.
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.
J
jerry_joseph
Guest
Before that , can I ask you one question. What is the literacy rate of the world before one century?. How many people can read and write?. How an illiterate layman read bible?.What is the use of him with a bible?.
After the coming of industrialization , education became a necessity to get a decent job. Then on wards only common people started going to schools for education. When people become literate , church started translation of bible into local languages and made available to public. Now also lot of catholic institutions distributes bible to public at very low cost or even free.
M
Mirza19
Guest
The unified Apostolic Church. The Proto-Catholic/Orthodox split church. Technically the “Catholic” Church gave it to us, in the sense that both the Orthodox communion and Catholic communion is “Catholic” in name; but in the conventional sense “Catholic” usually means the Latin West, and the Latin Church was only half of that which gave us the Bible.
Thus, I usually say the “Early Church” or “First Church” and not “Catholic Church.”
1
1voice
Guest
The fact that the Jews were given the honor of preserving/ handing down the greatest portion of Gods sacred text … as well as producing the Messiah (The Word, became flesh, of God) … is so often overlooked when this subject is repeated (ad infinitum …
) here at CAF.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I think @Madaglan gave a great answer. This is a good apologetic question. But in truth the Bible most Protestants use is not in fact the same Bible the Latin Church uses. They’ve got some missing books. I often wonder what the mass of KJV only crowd makes of the missing books in their modern version. They might not even know that it was in fact first published with the same set of books the modern Catholic Church uses. The authors of the 39 Articles were kind enough to list what Old Testament books constitute the Bible. Many Christian denominations and certainly it seems most independent churches do not. They might claim the Bible is the only source of authority in their church but then they fail to define what books are in that Bible. The use ‘the Bible’ as if there is no disagreement on what constitutes the cannon.
Luther knew from whence scripture came - The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in unity prior to the Schism.
Jon
C
cath4alltime
Guest
To many Protestants you would think it fell out the sky magically
F
fred_conty
Guest
When Luther wrote that, the schism has already happened, and the western church was known as Catholic.
Indeed. And certainly he knew that the books making up the scripture were written prior to it. Be that as it may, as a western Christian, he was very much giving credit to Rome, as well. And there’s nothing wrong in that.
Jon
M
Mirza19
Guest
Honestly? I was raised in an Evangelical household…and it’s kind of what I thought. Just as Jesus ascended, I sort of thought the Bible “descended.” A lot of my Evangelical friends and cohorts are aware that each Book has its own background, message, and themes, even though a few share authors, but they are completely unaware of the entire concept of an “ecumenical council,” let alone those that officially recognized a canon.
I still remember the days of High School FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes, a Protestant/Evangelical group) where I taught the group, and the staff member leading it, about the Council of Nicaea and canonization of the New Testament.
You also have to realize that for some of those belonging to non-Apostolic churches, Christian history stops around 70 AD and doesn’t really pick back up until Martin Luther, unless it’s necessary to call a group “Christian” to make Muslims and Jews look bad.
But I’m well aware that there are just as many informed Protestants and Evangelicals as there are those who don’t dare to look back at Christian history.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Here is a list of councils that took place well before the schism in 1054.
The last one listed is one that the eastern church accepted.
So why aren’t the Canons the same between east and west?
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
I see your point. Of course, American evangelicalism is relatively small compared to “mainline” protestantism. And perhaps I’m giving others too much credit.
Jon
C
cath4alltime
Guest
Many Fundamentalist Evangelicals are that way
I
Izdaari
Guest
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.
- Status