MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[PRmerger]

Thank you, for putting it in a way, that is easier to see where you guys come from. i appreciate that.

 

[pablope]

Thank you, for putting it in a way, that is easier to see where you guys come from. i appreciate that.

It is a question of authority…correct?

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/authority.pdf

 

[JustaServant]

Can you specify what you feels is speculation? that the apostles wrote the new testament? that they Holy Spirit was moved through them? Thank for the clarification. Im not that smart

You’re smart enough, don’t worry.
I meant the fact that the Holy Spirit moved some Apostles to write things down did not mean what they wrote was more important or should be given superior status to what was being orally transmitted. What was being written was not different than what they said.

 

[JustaServant]

I got in trouble so kind of hesitant to post anythign really

You’re cool, just keep in mind you’re on a Catholic forum and the beliefs of the Church need to be respected, not necessarily agreed with.
I think I remember seeing that post too.
This old thread from two years ago might help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=504638&highlight=Catholic+people+bible

Glad to see you back dude.

 

[Makko52]

You’re smart enough, don’t worry.
I meant the fact that the Holy Spirit moved some Apostles to write things down did not mean what they wrote was more important or should be given superior status to what was being orally transmitted. What was being written was not different than what they said.

Thanks, I agree that at that time what the apostles would have said orally was probably/not contradictory to written scripture. Now, my question is this. Please explain, how the Catholic Church knows that the oral teachings are the same they are now? I am not sure if i am explaining it right… if I address a whole room and give a speech, is everyone going to remember what i said? is everyone goign to hear it the same way?. know what i mean? Can somone give me some insight on the CC’s Teaching on this? Thanks!

 

[Makko52]

It is a question of authority…correct?

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/authority.pdf

Not entirely, more a question of preservation i guess.

 

[JustaServant]

Thanks, I agree that at that time what the apostles would have said orally was probably/not contradictory to written scripture. Now, my question is this. Please explain, how the Catholic Church knows that the oral teachings are the same they are now? I am not sure if i am explaining it right… if I address a whole room and give a speech, is everyone going to remember what i said? is everyone goign to hear it the same way?. know what i mean? Can somone give me some insight on the CC’s Teaching on this? Thanks!

VERY good question Makko, the kind of question I asked when I was a fundamental Baptist many years ago. This is exactly why I posted a post earlier that pointed you in the direction of answering your question.
One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology.
The Bible was not written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry. As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic.
By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all agreed on the essentials written in our New Testament. You have to remember people had great auditory skills back then that our modern society has lost. We know this because

1. The Catholic Church has preserved it and handed it down.
2. The Extra-Biblical Christian writings at that time are all in agreement.
   Try that without the moving of the Holy Spirit!!!
   More…

 

[snarflemike]

Thanks, I agree that at that time what the apostles would have said orally was probably/not contradictory to written scripture. Now, my question is this. Please explain, how the Catholic Church knows that the oral teachings are the same they are now? I am not sure if i am explaining it right… if I address a whole room and give a speech, is everyone going to remember what i said? is everyone goign to hear it the same way?. know what i mean? Can somone give me some insight on the CC’s Teaching on this? Thanks!

How do we know the bible is the same? We have none of the original copies of the New Testament. How do we know the copiers got it right?

The answer to both questions is God. Humans make mistakes, but God can prevent those mistakes.

A sub-answer is that when people have been taught A and suddenly the claim is that they have been taught B, they tend to raise a stink about it. Errors don’t suddenly pop up and everybody accepts them. People push back. This push-back would be evident in the historical record, but we don’t see it. We don’t see that the Church ever taught e.g. sola Scriptura or Faith Alone or symbolic Eucharist.

 

[JustaServant]

One of the reasons I put together a timeline and deliberately set it within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD) was to show this consistancy of doctrine and practice.
Say someone comes along and says “soldiers in World War 2 fought with laser guns and the Germans won the war”. How do we know this person is wrong? Because there are people still alive to remember the events and can say “no, here is how it happened…” That was only 70 years ago, we are talking 2000 years ago! So what do we do? Rely on someone 2000 years away and apart from the events?
Or do we take it from the horse’s mouth? Lets let those Christians who lived within that 100 years talk.
And I encourage you to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close. I’ve included the extant non-NT writings interspred within the century.

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians **
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon**, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - **1, 2, and 3 John **
95- ***The Epistle of Clement ***is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes **Revelation **
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

And this is just the first 100 years.
Read it for yourself.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

I’ve merged these two threads since they have both gone in the same direction.

 

[PRmerger]

Please explain, how the Catholic Church knows that the oral teachings are the same they are now?

I think if you can accept that the canon of Scripture (that is, the table of contents) has been preserved from error, you can apply this paradigm to your above question.

What I mean is, the canon of Scripture was discerned over a period of time, during multiple councils, and each time the same decision was confirmed. You have the assurance that different men (Catholic men) in different areas of the world, at different councils, during different eras all came to the same decision regarding the canonicity of the the 27 books of the NT.

How did they do this? Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit should be your answer, right?

So, just apply that to the oral teachings of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

hhmmm…
What book did he add??

Peace
James

Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think this is accurate, at least not with respect to the OT canon. Luther argued that the Septuagint scripture text should not be part of the Christian canon because under the Mosaic covenant the Word of God was intrusted to the Jews and therefore the Hebrew canon should be the received text and not the Septuagint. The problem with his argument is that the Hebrew canon was not defined until the Academy of Jamnia (a Jewish Council) in about 95AD. This was more than 60 years after Jesus took the Keys of the Kingdom away from Israel and gave it to the Church. The Word of God was no longer intrusted to Israel and the Holy Spirit now guided the Church unto all truth and no longer Israel. The Acadamy of Jamnia also considered the 4 gospels and the apostolic letters making up the 27 books of the NT and rejected them as inspired at the time they defined the Hebrew canon.

Moreover, Luther also rejected the book of James calling it “an epistle full of straws.” So I would like to have a reference to the additions Luther allegedly added.

Peace,

David

Hi David,
There’s lots of references on the web. That said, I have a copy of Luther’s Die Bibel, and it includes the dueterocanon and Prayer of Manasseh.

As for James, Luther’s phrase “book of straw” comes in a comparative sentence. He said, "In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.

Additionally, he said: “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;…

His complaint it two-fold, 1) authorship, and 2) it tends to be a book about law, not grace.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with reminding the regenerate that faith must be evidenced by good works, and that’s why he praises it.

Jon

 

[jlhargus]

Thanks, I agree that at that time what the apostles would have said orally was probably/not contradictory to written scripture. Now, my question is this. Please explain, how the Catholic Church knows that the oral teachings are the same they are now? I am not sure if i am explaining it right… if I address a whole room and give a speech, is everyone going to remember what i said? is everyone goign to hear it the same way?. know what i mean? Can somone give me some insight on the CC’s Teaching on this? Thanks!

JL: To simplify let’s say the audience was ten persons representing the Catholic Church around the world. To find out what you said, some years later, they would compare with each other what they remembered or put into practice. The things that all agreed on they could be sure was what you actually said. I hope this helps. No analogy is perfect.

Also keep in mind the Church is not just a human organization. She is guided by the Holy Spirit guaranteed by Christ’s promises. [Jn14:26 But the Comforter, which is **the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you.]

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

 

[jlhargus]

Thanks, I agree that at that time what the apostles would have said orally was probably/not contradictory to written scripture. Now, my question is this. Please explain, how the Catholic Church knows that the oral teachings are the same they are now? I am not sure if i am explaining it right… if I address a whole room and give a speech, is everyone going to remember what i said? is everyone goign to hear it the same way?. know what i mean? Can somone give me some insight on the CC’s Teaching on this? Thanks!

JL: To simplify let’s say the audience was ten persons representing the Catholic Church around the world. To find out what you said, some years later, they would compare with each other what they remembered or put into practice. The things that all agreed on they could be sure was what you actually said. I hope this helps. No analogy is perfect.

Also keep in mind the Church is not just a human organization. She is guided by the Holy Spirit guaranteed by Christ’s promises. [Jn14:26 But the Comforter, which is **the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you.]

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close. I’ve included the extant non-NT writings interspred within the century.

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians **
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon**, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - **1, 2, and 3 John **
95- ***The Epistle of Clement ***is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes **Revelation **
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

And this is just the first 100 years.
Read it for yourself.

Thanks for this list.

Makko,
I’d like to echo the non-canonical books readings, especially Justin Martyr’s 1st Apology. I don’t think I have ever read a more dynamic and amazing testimonial on the practices of the Church during the 2nd century. As a matter of fact, I can’t move into reading other ones because I keep going back to Justin’s!

You can find them here:
earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

In Him.

 

[JustaServant]

Thanks for this list.

Makko,
I’d like to echo the non-canonical books readings, especially Justin Martyr’s 1st Apology. I don’t think I have ever read a more dynamic and amazing testimonial on the practices of the Church during the 2nd century. As a matter of fact, I can’t move into reading other ones because I keep going back to Justin’s!

You can find them here:
earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

In Him.

Great resource Makko.
Happy reading!

 

[davidmlamb]

Hi David,
There’s lots of references on the web. That said, I have a copy of Luther’s Die Bibel, and it includes the dueterocanon and Prayer of Manasseh.

As for James, Luther’s phrase “book of straw” comes in a comparative sentence. He said, "In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.

Additionally, he said: “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;…

His complaint it two-fold, 1) authorship, and 2) it tends to be a book about law, not grace.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with reminding the regenerate that faith must be evidenced by good works, and that’s why he praises it.

Jon

Jon, whether or not it was written by an apostle does not negate its inspiration. The book of James blows Sola Fide out of the water. It confirms Matthew 25:14-46 as well as Revelation chapterts 1-3. The book of James echoes Jesus own words, “He who does not deny himself, takes up his cross and follows me is not worthy of me.” All these things tell us that faith apart from works is dead and cannot save us. This was Luther’s contention.

Luther was wrong on this issue and it is this issue which resulted in tens of thousands of factions. We are saved by grace through faith. Grace is the power and influence of God working in our soul to transform us. Grace enables us to do the good works that God has called us to do and unless we cooperate with grace we cannot be saved no matter how much faith we have. That is the difference between the sheep and the goats! That is the difference between the man who burried his talent and the one who used his talent.

Peace,

David

 

[PJM]

=Makko52;That being said one of the questions i asked him was about Transubstantiation. He gave me some very good information on it. I wanted some clarification on How the bread and wine are turned into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ: and how it MAY contradict with scripture.

The Eucharist is the REAL Christ NOW GLORIFIED and Risen; not His cardnal body.

It continues to be the EXACT same sacrifice [now in an unblody manner] of the Passion and Death of Christ.

It is FROM GOD the Father
OF God the SON
BY God the H S through His Catholic Priest by Devine choice; NOT necessity.

So the first thing i would like calification on is “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53-54 Now if one were to take just that one verse it would almost seem that is teaching cannabilsm

It is the REAl Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the RISEN and Now Glorified Body of Jesus. [READ Jn.20:19-22] and see that Christ can now pass through locked doors and walls.

I can exaplain it in detail BUT NOT in the space permitted. If you desire more info send me a PM…NOTE Jn.6:63-65 “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

The Brief translation is: 1. My cardianl body means nothing; it is ME Jeuus-God / “SPIRIT and TRUTH” [Jn.4:23-24] that HOLDS the Potentail for Eternal Life. 2. It is My soon to be Glorified Body NOT my cardinal body 3. Only God can grant True Faith and Understanding.

This teaching is also found in Mt. 26, Mk. 14, Lk. 22. Paul 1st. Cor. 11, and was practiced immediatey after the Resurrection “Breaking of the Bread” it was called.

COLOR=“blue”]“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

Genesis 9:4

Laater after Noah’s perfect sacrifice God changed his mind and gave permission to eat meat. here in Exo. God actually suppies it for the entire hebrew nation.
Exod.16: 12 “I [God] have heard the murmurings of the people of Israel; say to them, `At twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread; then you shall know that I am the LORD your God”.

“… No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.” Leviticus 17:12

Would God ever command His children to do something He had already forbidden?

Jn. 6: 53-55 "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. **He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. **

This STRONG language is meant to inform us that it REALLY IS JESUS CHRSIT IN PERSON THAT IS CONSUMED IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION. AMEN! but Now in His GLORIFED RISEN BODY.

One other thing. The priest told me about the verse in John 6. where it states that it is his body and blood. Are we to take it litterly?

YES!

What about when He said He was the door in John 10:7 “Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.”

This means Jesus is “The Way”; the passage; the method and WE all are “his sheep” and can gain salvation ONLY through Him. READ it in its total context

Again this is very PROFOUND topics. If you’d like more information contact me via the Private message system.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[JonNC]

=davidmlamb;9307734]Jon, whether or not it was written by an apostle does not negate its inspiration. The book of James blows Sola Fide out of the water. It confirms Matthew 25:14-46 as well as Revelation chapterts 1-3. The book of James echoes Jesus own words, “He who does not deny himself, takes up his cross and follows me is not worthy of me.” All these things tell us that faith apart from works is dead and cannot save us. This was Luther’s contention.

First, it was enough of a problem with Eusebius to dispute it. And that is the nature of Luther’s questions about it. Clearly, as luther said, it is part of the canon.
Luther’s contention was NOT that faith alone means faith can be without works. To the contrary, he on various occasions stresses that, while justification is operative apart from works, that doesn’t mean that faith can be without works. A true, saving faith is a faith that works through love.

Luther was wrong on this issue and it is this issue which resulted in tens of thousands of factions.t.

Name two communions that have direct roots in Lutheranism. Most of the so-called thousands of factions have their roots in Reformed, baptist and anabaptist traditions.

We are saved by grace through faith. Grace is the power and influence of God working in our soul to transform us. Grace enables us to do the good works that God has called us to do and unless we cooperate with grace we cannot be saved no matter how much faith we have. That is the difference between the sheep and the goats! That is the difference between the man who burried his talent and the one who used his talen

I would not dispute this, and Lutheranism does not. You, here, have things in the proper order. We are saved by faith through grace. One cannot claim a true saving faith without participating in the new obedience.
"There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow." - Luther

Peace,

And also with you.

Jon