MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[Makko52]

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

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

in the scripture.

 

[JustaServant]

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

in the scripture.

WRITTEN Scripture???

 

[Makko52]

BTW Makko, would you please answer this question?

sorry i cannot keep up with all the questions, to fast for me award me some patience please

 

[Makko52]

WRITTEN Scripture???

lol Scripture is written no?

 

[JustaServant]

lol Scripture is written no?

I’ll repost what I wrote on your other thread:

The first thing you need to understand is the world the people who wrote various books collected into what we call ‘the Bible’. You are looking at the Bible with 21st century, post Enlightenment, post printing press eyes.
In order to understand the ancient world, we have to step out of our comfort zones and walk in their shoes.
Many times that means accepting things our age rejects. Other times we can see how fragile our ‘modern’ society is. Without our gagets and toys, we are no different than they were.
Even in parts of the world today family structure is the bedrock of the culture. Things like covenants still exist in what we so arrogantly call the ‘third world’. African and native American tribes had no written language, yet they were steeped in the history of thier culture far more than our so-called ‘enlightened’ society.
I say all this because I suspect you are looking at these ancient people, as I used to, through 21st century western eyes. That is a grave error. Because we are far from being superior.
Not everything was ‘on paper’. It was timely and sometimes expensive to do that. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days.
Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown.
Repitition helped people remember. Look up some time the story of how Isaac got his wife in Genesis. The story is repeated three times.
Many Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our anscestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought.
Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many ancient civilizations have no written history, all they have is oral.
So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and*** in due time***, the Apostles wrote it down.

 

[JonNC]

Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown.
Repitition helped people remember. Look up some time the story of how Isaac got his wife in Genesis. The story is repeated three times.

So did pictures and statues, which is why iconoclasm is so misplaced.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

in the scripture.

Yep! And before it was penned on parchment it was taught orally!

 

[JRKH]

Iggy,
Thank you for the clarification. Very enlightening however - not quite accurate.

The primary inaccuracy here is that you are making a presupposition here that is not in evidence. True I am a Catholic in communion with Rome but it does not mean that I am unable to divorce myself from that and discuss Scripture on it’s own merits (tied in also with early Church history).
In fact, it is Scripture that led me back to the Catholic Church rather than my return to the Church coloring how I read Scripture.

It is my firm belief that the use of Church (Ekklesia) refers to the community as a whole. After all, “Ekklesia” IS an assembly, called out for the purposes of (among other things) deliberating and taking counsel one with the other.
Perhaps we should take this as our jumping off point…

But you see - I have not asked you to disprove this I merely asked you to provide evidence - biblical evidence that says “The Church” (the bibles words) does NOT have authority to “bind and loose - whatever” (again - the bible’s words).

So - Setting aside the RC - look at Scripture and ask prayerfully ask yourself if what I posted is true or not.
Does The bible say that the Church has authority or not?
Does The bible say we are to “listen to the Church” or not?
Did the council of Jerusalem act with Authority over a distant community or not?

After this - after coming to recognize what Scripture actually says -
THEN we can begin to discuss the best way for a large, far-flung and diverse ekklesia to safeguard the Truths of the Gospel. Things like:
What role local communities play,
When things need to be handled at larger councils,
The advantages of having well trained representatives and leaders at such councils,
How to best codify, protect, defend and disseminate the decisions reached by the ekklesia so as to teach the Truth of the Gospel at all times and in all places.

But these things cannot be examined in their proper light until one recognizes that Holy Spirit inspired Scripture clearly states that Christ has given authority to His Church - Ekklesia…

So - I’ll make a deal with you.
If you will not assume that I am reading “Catholic” into the word “Church”, I will assume that you are not reading “anything but Catholic” into the word Church…Deal?

Peace
James

:coffeeread:

 

[davidmlamb]

if we were to follow that logic then, it would not matter whether or not Jesus was acutually born of a virgin. It would not matter wheter he really ressurected or not.

That is precisely why the bible rests on the pillars of the Church and not visa versa. You said you “know” the “bible” is inspired but by virtue of what logic? Because your pastor tells you so? How do you know the book of James for instance is inspired? Martin Luther did not think so and the entire reformation was based on his logic! How do you know the dueteroconancal books are not inspired? Since you subscribe to sola scriptura please give me a chapter and a verse that names the canon? We know the gospel is actual history because the Church tells us so. And it is the Church which correctly teaches us the scriptures because the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) which speaks the wisdom of God (Ephes 3:10). How do I know this? Because the bible tells me so!

Peace,
David.

 

[davidmlamb]

The Scripture has to be true becuase it come from God. to lie is to sin. God is light and in him is no darkness. God cannot sit. So the everything that is in the bible is a true account of what happend. EVERYTHING.

Can we get a chapter and a verse that say’s everything in the scriptures is a true historical account? Everything in scripture is God breathed but that does not mean everything in scripture is historically true. What is God breathed communicates a spiritual truth. For instance, the book of Jonah; what is this spiritual truth? It is; if God tells you to go to Ninava you better not go to Tarsus or you are going to find yourself in the belly of a whale! (metaphorical). That is absolutely true but the story itself is probably not true and it doesn’t have to be in order for it to be inspired.

Peace,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

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.

YEP! Makko is engaging in circular reasoning.

Pax Cristi,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

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.

And the Holy Spirit bears witness to us that the books of Tobit, Barack, Sirach, Wisdom, Judith,1 &2 Maccabees are all inspired and God breathed by virtue of 1 Chronicals 2:14! So how is it that the Holy Spirit is telling you a different truth then he is telling us? Why are there 30,000 denominations in Protestantism if the Holy Spirit is leading them to the same truth? Why does the Holy Spirit tell the Southern Baptist that the bible teaches once saved always saved while at the same time the Holy Spirit is telling the Assemblies of God that salvation can be lost? Your logic is seriously flawed.

Peace,
David

 

[Redbaron998]

I just wanted to chime in here real quick.

@ Makko,

Please know that no one is attacking you and certainly that no one is attacking scripture. The question is not whether the scripture is true (Certainly it is!) but how do we know what is scripture? Not whether the Bible is scripute, we know this, but what particular books are included in the Bible.

You said you know its true because it says it is, but the problem is that (like someone else pointed out) The Qu’ran says its true, The Book of Mormon says its true, etc…) so that doesn’t work.

It cant even be a subjective feeling of truth. We have all read good books that contained some special quote or saying of truth that we know was true, but that doesn’t make them canon (The Bible).

Take for instance the Deuterocanonical books that the thread originally started with. When one reads the Book of Wisdom it is obviously true and obviously much of it is prophecy about Christ. Would most Protestants agree its true? Most Likely. But here is the kicker, is it canon or is it not. It has to be one or the other.

Basically what we are saying is that there has to be something that set forth the list of the books of the bible. We can read the bible and see that there is no list of what books are in or out of the bible. Now the Church has given since the same list throughout its history in a variety of councils. Then the Protestant Revolt came and they threw some out for a variety or reasons. Who is right about the Deuterocanonical books? It is not a matter of scripture since scripture does not list out the books of scripture. Instead it must be a matter of history. What books did the Church, (Which scripture calls the Pillar and Foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) say were scripture? The fact is NOONE put forth the current protestant canon until the 16th Century.

I think the impass comes to this, would God allow the pillar and foundation of truth (the Church) to be so completely and uniamously wrong about something, espically something so completely vital as “what is the scriptures” for over 1500 years? Protestants say yes, Catholics say no.

 

[Pdaniels2]

Martin Luther removed the extra books. They were kept in the back of protestant bibles until they because so unpopular among them, that they removed them.
Tobit is my favorite! Maccabees is also beautiful as well!

 

[JRKH]

Martin Luther removed the extra books. They were kept in the back of protestant bibles until they because so unpopular among them, that they removed them.
Tobit is my favorite! Maccabees is also beautiful as well!

Not to be picky but I would not say that Luther removed the “extra” books…There were no "extra’ books to remove…
Luther removed books from the canon of Scripture.

Peace
James

 

[Makko52]

sacred tradition never contradicts scripture. Simple and short, never.
Ubenedictus

Thank you. Can you define sacred tradition for me please?

 

[andrewstx]

If I may chime in a bit, I think there is a difference between truth and fact. Just becuase a a statement from the bible is not literally fact does not make it untrue.

I go back to the first 2 chapters of Genesis, which actually dissagree with with each other.

Those 2 chapters say “in the begining God created the heavens and the earth”. It does not say how God accomplished this, it only says that God created.

We have literalists who say that means God created everything in six 24 hour periods, and God created everything instantly in it’s present form, “zapping” it all into existence instantly and literally.

But the text in question says none of that at all.

 

[snarflemike]

Thank you. Can you define sacred tradition for me please?

All that was taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. A certain percentage of which was written down, with varying degrees of clarity, in what we call the bible.

 

[Makko52]

Thank you for your kind words. The Qu’ran and, The Book of Mormon do not have the accuracy and inerrency as the Holy Scriptures do.

I am not trying to offend but merely state facts.

By the way, the Greek New Testament that we use is in Koine Greek. Koine
means “common.” It is like “vulgar” in Latin. The Latin Vulgate (390 – 404 A.D.), you
notice the dates of Jerome, he translated from Hebrew. Now it included the Apocryphal
books, but he questioned their canonicity, and rightly so. The Council of Trent, 1540 to
about 1547 A.D., did an update on the Vulgate, called The Sixtine Edition. Some of your
Catholic Bibles today will have that in it, The Sixtine Edition. It appeared in 1590 A.D.
and it was just revised by Clementine two years later. But that is what Catholics have had
for years. And the Latin Vulgate was from the fourth century all the way through, until
the Reformation at least, as a dominant Bible that people used.
What is the problem with a dominant Bible being Latin? Nobody understood it. Guess who controlled the continuation of Latin?

the Catholic Church, the hierarchy. They perpetuated Latin and in fact, kept the Bible
from the common people so they depended upon church leaders to tell them what the
Bible says. Is everybody following now? That’s why in history books—it’s amazing,
history’s being told differently today, it really is—but that is why we call the Middle
Ages the Dark Ages.

If somebody asks you, why were they dark? A guy told me, “Well,
they had the Bubonic plague.” Well, no, that did happened, but that is not why they were
the Dark Ages. “They were the Dark Ages because it was a feudal state.” No. The feudal
state was a result of the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages are keeping the Bible away from the
people in their own language. So they could be interpreted only by church leadership.
Well, you see what happened to the world because of it.

It was plunged into the most
awful, terrible, filthy—from the standpoint of hygiene—it was a filthiest period of time.
A thousand years of misery, dominated by wealthy churchmen whose only Bible—they
said the true Bible—was Latin. The common people did not know what in the world they
were talking about.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. Can you define sacred tradition for me please?

See snarflemike’s definition. :clapping:

And another way to look at it is this: Sacred Tradition is the lens through which we look and understand what is written.

Catholics proclaim that there is only ONE SOURCE of revelation, and that is Jesus Christ the Divine Word of God, with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as the two streams of Truth flowing from Him as the one source.