MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[Makko52]

Makko, you do realize that your trust in the bible is based on “what other people” have said, right?

That is, you would not know, of your own authority, that the Gospel of Mark is inspired. You take it as inspired because of “what other people” said–*Catholic *people. Catholic bishops, to be exact.

That is pretty strong statement to say to someone else. What i believe come from scripture i think i have supplied alot of scripture to point that out.

 

[JustaServant]

Interesting view, i wanted to point somethign out that i left out. The way the bible says somethign happends is the way it happend. Parables that our Lord Jesus used is exactly that a parable. but unless it is a parable we can have confidence that it happend that way because God said it did.

Wrong.
The is post-enlightenment thinking even many Protestants reject.
These stories were based on facts, but they (the stories themselves) are myth and they are used to explain something. This is the way the Israelites and other people of the time used literary epic.

The great Biblical Scholar, Dr. Gerhard Von Rad describes the way that some scholars only analyse the historical veracity of the Torah as “historical materialism” in his book Genesis (Von Rad, G. Genesis (SCM Press, Bloomsbury, London, 1961) p.31) Designating this kind of narrative as “saga”, Von Rad explains that the expectation that the saga should either contain historical fact, or else it can be described as merely a product of poetic fantasy is an extremely crass misunderstanding of its essence. It is true, however, that this scepticism has been the attitude prevalent since the 19th Century. The saga then offers a product born of a completely different kind of intellectual activity from that of history (historie), although history (Geschichte) is what it is concerned with.

What then are these narratives? How can they be concerned with fact and yet not be tied to fact by their contents? Von Rad answers by stating:

“Whatever saga we examine, we find with respect to its simplest and most original purpose that it narrates an actual event that once and for all occurred in the realm of history. It is therefore to be taken quite seriously – it is to be believed. In all that follows, therefore, let us hold fast to this: by no means is a saga merely the product of poetic fantasy; rather it comprises the sum total of the living historical recollection of peoples. In it is mirrored in fact and truth the history of a people. It is the form in which a people thinks of its own history.” (Ibid)

The Old Testament sagas then are concerned with Israel itself and the realities the people of Israel found in themselves. In this way they contain a much more real history, a history with much more truth in it than a purely factual historical writing would. They contain the “secret contemporary character of apparently past events”.(Ibid) This character is more than a list of the achievements, wars, political struggles, victories and defeats experienced by a people. It takes place on another level and speaks of inner guidance working and maturing in life’s mysteries.
It is a history with God.

 

[Makko52]

Wrong.
The is post-enlightenment thinking even many Protestants reject.
These stories were based on facts, but they (the stories themselves) are myth and they are used to explain something. This is the way the Israelites and other people of the time used literary epic.

The great Biblical Scholar, Dr. Gerhard Von Rad describes the way that some scholars only analyse the historical veracity of the Torah as “historical materialism” in his book Genesis (Von Rad, G. Genesis (SCM Press, Bloomsbury, London, 1961) p.31) Designating this kind of narrative as “saga”, Von Rad explains that the expectation that the saga should either contain historical fact, or else it can be described as merely a product of poetic fantasy is an extremely crass misunderstanding of its essence. It is true, however, that this scepticism has been the attitude prevalent since the 19th Century. The saga then offers a product born of a completely different kind of intellectual activity from that of history (historie), although history (Geschichte) is what it is concerned with.

What then are these narratives? How can they be concerned with fact and yet not be tied to fact by their contents? Von Rad answers by stating:

“Whatever saga we examine, we find with respect to its simplest and most original purpose that it narrates an actual event that once and for all occurred in the realm of history. It is therefore to be taken quite seriously – it is to be believed. In all that follows, therefore, let us hold fast to this: by no means is a saga merely the product of poetic fantasy; rather it comprises the sum total of the living historical recollection of peoples. In it is mirrored in fact and truth the history of a people. It is the form in which a people thinks of its own history.” (Ibid)

The Old Testament sagas then are concerned with Israel itself and the realities the people of Israel found in themselves. In this way they contain a much more real history, a history with much more truth in it than a purely factual historical writing would. They contain the “secret contemporary character of apparently past events”.(Ibid) This character is more than a list of the achievements, wars, political struggles, victories and defeats experienced by a people. It takes place on another level and speaks of inner guidance working and maturing in life’s mysteries.
It is a history with God.

eh, thats somones interesting point of view. I like to take God at his word. I believe everything he says.

 

[JustaServant]

That is pretty strong statement to say to someone else. What i believe come from scripture i think i have supplied alot of scripture to point that out.

What he is trying to get you to see is that you would not know the Gospels were inspired if it were not for the Catholic Church. You would not even have the Bible itself if it were not for the Catholic Church who put it together for you.

 

[JustaServant]

eh, thats somones interesting point of view. I like to take God at his word. I believe everything he says.

The quick response tells me you didn’t even read the post. And you are back to all or nothing thinking fueled by the pastors/teachers who formed YOUR opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

That is pretty strong statement to say to someone else. What i believe come from scripture i think i have supplied alot of scripture to point that out.

Oh, I have no doubt that when you quote from the Bible that you are actually quoting God’s Word, Makko.

But the ONLY way you know that the Gospel of Mark, for example, is God’s Word is because you are relying on what someone else has said: the Gospel of Mark is inspired, but the Gospel of Thomas is not.

And this “someone else” happens to be the Catholic Church.

Unless you are aware of another way that the Scriptures were discerned?

How is it that you believe the Bible came to be?

Was there a group of men who chose from about 400 Christian texts to tell you what was inspired and what wasn’t?

 

[Makko52]

What he is trying to get you to see is that you would not know the Gospels were inspired if it were not for the Catholic Church. You would not even have the Bible itself if it were not for the Catholic Church who put it together for you.

Thanks for clarifying that statement. THAT is a whole other conversation maybe another thred?

 

[JustaServant]

Thanks for clarifying that statement. THAT is a whole other conversation maybe another thred?

No its not.
How are you defining a “lie”?
Is a book of historical fiction. say “The Red badge of Courage” by Stephen Crane a “lie”?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for clarifying that statement. THAT is a whole other conversation maybe another thred?

I think it could be answered by you, Makko.

Makko says, “I believe that the Gospel of Mark is inspired because ______”

And “This is how the Bible came to be: ________”

If you could fill in the blanks it wouldn’t require another thread.

 

[JonNC]

What he is trying to get you to see is that you would not know the Gospels were inspired if it were not for the Catholic Church. You would not even have the Bible itself if it were not for the Catholic Church who put it together for you.

Even Luther said as much. But then, of course, you are speaking of the pre-schism Church and, on the topic, they have a different canon.

Jon

 

[Makko52]

Oh, I have no doubt that when you quote from the Bible that you are actually quoting God’s Word, Makko.

But the ONLY way you know that the Gospel of Mark, for example, is God’s Word is because you are relying on what someone else has said: the Gospel of Mark is inspired, but the Gospel of Thomas is not.

And this “someone else” happens to be the Catholic Church.

Unless you are aware of another way that the Scriptures were discerned?

How is it that you believe the Bible came to be?

Was there a group of men who chose from about 400 Christian texts to tell you what was inspired and what wasn’t?

How can i know the scripture were inspired by God? well before I was saved i did not understand but after

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Holy Spirit of God bears witness with my spirit that the scripture is true.

 

[JustaServant]

How can i know the scripture were inspired by God? well before I was saved i did not understand but after

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Holy Spirit of God bears witness with my spirit that the scripture is true.

If it was the Holy Spirit (without using human beings) who brings “understanding” of Sacred Scripture, why the thousands of Protestant denominations?
The Holy Spirit brings understanding to only ONE Church, not a dozen.
So answer the second question.

 

[PRmerger]

How can i know the scripture were inspired by God? well before I was saved i did not understand but after

No, that is not the question, Makko.

How do you know what is inspired and what is not?

That is, how do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired?

Who discerned for you that this book belongs in the Bible, but that the Epistle of Barnabas does not?

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Holy Spirit of God bears witness with my spirit that the scripture is true.

Amen! The Scripture ARE true. On that we are agreed!

However, you have to tell me how you know that the letter to the Hebrews is inspired.

Who told you that it was?

 

[Makko52]

No, that is not the question, Makko.

How do you know what is inspired and what is not?

That is, how do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired?

Who discerned for you that this book belongs in the Bible, but that the Epistle of Barnabas does not?

Amen! The Scripture ARE true. On that we are agreed!

However, you have to tell me how you know that the letter to the Hebrews is inspired.

Who told you that it was?

I thought i made that clear already I know the scripture is inspired becuase it tells me so that simple

 

[Makko52]

I think it could be answered by you, Makko.

Makko says, “I believe that the Gospel of Mark is inspired because ______”

And “This is how the Bible came to be: ________”

If you could fill in the blanks it wouldn’t require another thread.

The original list, the earliest list we have is from Athanasius of Alexandria,
which is in 367 A.D., and he lists twenty-seven books, the exact same books we have in
the Protestant Bible today. for the new testament. The jews already took care of the old.

 

[JustaServant]

How can i know the scripture were inspired by God? well before I was saved i did not understand but after

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Holy Spirit of God bears witness with my spirit that the scripture is true.

BTW, how do you know “the things of the Spirit of God” is talking about Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

I thought i made that clear already I know the scripture is inspired becuase it tells me so that simple

And yet the Koran says that it’s inspired.

And I am quite certain that you don’t believe it is just because it says so!

And, of course, “all Scripture is inspired by God!” but, the question remains, *what *is Scripture?

 

[JustaServant]

I thought i made that clear already I know the scripture is inspired becuase it tells me so that simple

And inspired means a blow by blow description? A CNN report? Cannot a story based on fact but given in a poetic way be inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

The original list, the earliest list we have is from Athanasius of Alexandria,
which is in 367 A.D., and he lists twenty-seven books, the exact same books we have in
the Protestant Bible today. for the new testament. The jews already took care of the old.

So then you are acknowledging that you are going by “what someone else” said to determine what’s Scripture and what’s not?

 

[JustaServant]

No its not.
How are you defining a “lie”?
Is a book of historical fiction. say “The Red badge of Courage” by Stephen Crane a “lie”?

BTW Makko, would you please answer this question?