SHORTENED: The Catholic Church compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century.

[joe370]

Why don’t some non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church, (via the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century? As a former non-Catholic myself, this notion became fact after much research.

 

[JHow]

Because they haven’t yet googled the Original Catholic Encyclopedia?

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Canon_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

As a former protestant, I think one big reason is that we didn’t seem to attach the label “catholic” to guys like Poycarp or Origen, hence there is a tendency to not give credit to “Catholicism” for early christian thought. Also, as history shows, protestant thinkers had their own ideas later on about the contents of the scriptural canon. And, also, to be fair, credit for the OT rightly goes to Jewish tradition.

 

[joe370]

Hey JHow…

Because they haven’t yet googled the Original Catholic Encyclopedia?

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Canon_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

As a former protestant, I think one big reason is that we didn’t seem to attach the label “catholic” to guys like Poycarp or Origen, hence there is a tendency to not give credit to “Catholicism” for early christian thought. Also, as history shows, protestant thinkers had their own ideas later on about the contents of the scriptural canon. And, also, to be fair, credit for the OT rightly goes to Jewish tradition.

I agree on all counts. I myself as a former non-Catholic, use to suggest that men like Polycarp Tertullian, Origen Ignatius etc etc - were not Christians belonging to the CC, but after just a cursory look into the matter that notion was quickly derailed.

 

[Patrick_Joshua]

Why don’t some non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church, (via the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century? As a former non-Catholic myself, this notion became fact after much research.

To admit that Holy Scripture was compiled in the Catholic Church, would give claim that the Catholic Church is actually THE church of Christ, also what she teaches is right since she compiled the Bible

Arrogance of the truth really, but when historical facts hit them in the face they will still deny it. I’ve seen it many times.

 

[joe370]

To admit that Holy Scripture was compiled in the Catholic Church, would give claim that the Catholic Church is actually THE church of Christ, also what she teaches is right since she compiled the Bible

Arrogance of the truth really, but when historical facts hit them in the face they will still deny it. I’ve seen it many times.

Yup…That is why I am a catholic today. I thought, long ago: find the historical church established by Jesus, forever guided by the HS into all truth as opposed to partial truth, and Iwill have certainty, regarding truth, which is why Paul called Jesus’ church, the pillar and foundation of truth. One thing I never understood as a former non-Catholic was all of the combined animosity from the protestant churches for the CC. Not everyone of course, but quite a few.

 

[Todd520]

Your presumption is wrong, and prideful

Catholic priests did copy the scriptures with minimal error the first 400 years, then they compiled the bible, like a printer assembles chapters from a writer.
Yes, the Holy Spirit did guide them in their copy and assembly work

However, it’s **Prideful **to consider this copy and assembly work surpasses or even compares with the actual original teachings by Christ and the Apostles.

Why don’t some non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church, (via the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century? As a former non-Catholic myself, this notion became fact after much research.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mass production of the Bible came much latter. The Scritures themself are insprired by the Holy Spirirt.

As we see Genesis and Exodus continually dated through archaeology and geology its apparent the writters were spot-on with clues with facts.

With Ezekiel, Daniel, John. You have visions from God inspiring their writing. Look at Revelations alone

How would Daniel walk up to Nebuchadnezzer and not only know the outcome and resolution of his dream. But he knew the deam itself in detail?

Holy Spirit my friend, direct intervention from, GOD.

 

[joe370]

Hello Todd…

Your presumption is wrong, and prideful

Catholic priests did copy the scriptures with minimal error the first 400 years, then they compiled the bible, like a printer assembles chapters from a writer.
Yes, the Holy Spirit did guide them in their copy and assembly work

However, it’s **Prideful **

to consider this copy and assembly work surpasses or even compares with the actual original teachings by Christ and the Apostles.

When did I say that the CC’s role as copier and assembler/compiler surpassed or even compares with the actual original teachings by Christ and the Apostles? Wat are you talking about dude? Who gave the CC the authority to codify the bible, at a time when the authenticity of such books as Jude, Revelation, James, a couple of John’s books, were doubted, as per all scholars, protestant or otherwise?

Also, who entrusted you with the authority to tell me that I am wrong? How can I know that your declaration about me is true? My question is prideful??? Wow…

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Why don’t some non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church, (via the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century? As a former non-Catholic myself, this notion became fact after much research.

What do you mean by “compiled the Bible in the fourth century”? Do you mean that the writings that are in the bible were not known to be legitimate apostolic works until the fourth century?

Please explain what you think happened regarding the formation of the Bible and why you are seemingly prideful over it. I don’t get what you are getting at here.

 

[Louie1983]

What do you mean by “compiled the Bible in the fourth century”? Do you mean that the writings that are in the bible were not known to be legitimate apostolic works until the fourth century?

Please explain what you think happened regarding the formation of the Bible and why you are seemingly prideful over it. I don’t get what you are getting at here.

Basically the catholic church is who determined canon of the bible (determined what books were correct and were not). At this time there were many forgeries and heretical teachinmgs/books and the church confirmed in the council which were the correct books and formed the holy bible.

No-one is being pridefull over it, just stating the facts!

 

[joe370]

What do you mean by “compiled the Bible in the fourth century”? Do you mean that the writings that are in the bible were not known to be legitimate apostolic works until the fourth century?

Please explain what you think happened regarding the formation of the Bible and why you are seemingly prideful over it. I don’t get what you are getting at here.

I don’t know what you mean when you tell me that I am prideful over it??? As a former protestant, I am merely attempting to be historically honest. NT books which are now accepted by all Christians, but were, for a time, rejected by Christians in certain parts of the Roman Empire until the 4th century, at which point the CC settled the matter once and for all: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Books now excluded from sacred scripture, which were found in some of the oldest manuscripts of the NT: Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

What we know today, to be the canonized bible was not compiled as it is today, in it’s present form until the 4th century, by a council of catholic bishops. They chose which books would be included in the bible, in other words, which books were inspired by God. As a former non-Catholic I began to realize how silly it was to accept the infallible decisions made by the CC leaders regarding the codification of the bible, all the while claiming that the CC made fallible decisions regarding other things.

That is not being prideful - is it???

 

[Brian_Culliton]

I don’t know what you mean when you tell me that I am prideful over it??? As a former protestant, I am merely attempting to be historically honest. NT books which are now accepted by all Christians, but were, for a time, rejected by Christians in certain parts of the Roman Empire until the 4th century, at which point the CC settled the matter once and for all: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Books now excluded from sacred scripture, which were found in some of the oldest manuscripts of the NT: Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

What we know today, to be the canonized bible was not compiled as it is today, in it’s present form until the 4th century, by a council of catholic bishops. They chose which books would be included in the bible, in other words, which books were inspired by God. As a former non-Catholic I began to realize how silly it was to accept the infallible decisions made by the CC leaders regarding the codification of the bible, all the while claiming that the CC made fallible decisions regarding other things.

That is not being prideful - is it???

It is your distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic that makes it prideful. The church was the church; it was catholic, that is, universal as opposed to heretical movements that sprung up around her. What I see you attempting to do is identify your hierarchy as some sort of infallible entity that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit formed an infallible canon of Scripture.

You said in post #5 that you became Catholic because you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in all truth as opposed to partial truth. So why then did the church not seem to have all the truth regarding Scripture until the fourth century? Was the church in Rome guided by the Holy Spirit when it refused to accept Hebrews as Scripture? Was Origen guided by the Holy Spirit when he said 2 Peter was doubtful?

The canon that we have today was formed long before those councils were called. The books that had been disputed were vetted thoroughly in Eusebius’ time and that was accomplished through a vetting process. The only thing the fourth century councils did was close the canon, nothing else.

We cannot trace certain books back to the apostles, but most we can. And if I place my faith in the writings that are indisputable, which includes all but what you listed above, then I have more than enough to guide me in my faith. On the contrary, you cannot reasonably demonstrate that the disputed books are apostolic, with the possible exception of Hebrews and Revelation. Therefore, you must blindly place your faith in those who tell you these books are apostolic in order for you to proclaim it.

The bottom line is your church, the Roman Catholic Church, did not give us the Bible. And if you are interested in truth, as you say you are, you might want to stop promoting that notion.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It is your distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic that makes it prideful. The church was the church; it was catholic, that is, universal as opposed to heretical movements that sprung up around her. What I see you attempting to do is identify your hierarchy as some sort of infallible entity that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit formed an infallible canon of Scripture.

You said in post #5 that you became Catholic because you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in all truth as opposed to partial truth. So why then did the church not seem to have all the truth regarding Scripture until the fourth century? Was the church in Rome guided by the Holy Spirit when it refused to accept Hebrews as Scripture? Was Origen guided by the Holy Spirit when he said 2 Peter was doubtful?

The canon that we have today was formed long before those councils were called. The books that had been disputed were vetted thoroughly in Eusebius’ time and that was accomplished through a vetting process. The only thing the fourth century councils did was close the canon, nothing else.

We cannot trace certain books back to the apostles, but most we can. And if I place my faith in the writings that are indisputable, which includes all but what you listed above, then I have more than enough to guide me in my faith. On the contrary, you cannot reasonably demonstrate that the disputed books are apostolic, with the possible exception of Hebrews and Revelation. Therefore, you must blindly place your faith in those who tell you these books are apostolic in order for you to proclaim it.

The bottom line is your church, the Roman Catholic Church, did not give us the Bible. And if you are interested in truth, as you say you are, you might want to stop promoting that notion.

Are you in the Church that compiled the Bible? why not?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Let’s observe charity in our discussion.
Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

Why don’t some non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church, (via the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century? As a former non-Catholic myself, this notion became fact after much research.

Hi Joe,
I think it is safe to say that the Church Catholic, united in the 4th century, did compile (organize) Holy Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There, of course, remains today those disputes, dating from that time, about which parts of that compilation rise to the level.

Jon

 

[simspt]

It is your distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic that makes it prideful. The church was the church; it was catholic, that is, universal as opposed to heretical movements that sprung up around her. What I see you attempting to do is identify your hierarchy as some sort of infallible entity that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit formed an infallible canon of Scripture.

You said in post #5 that you became Catholic because you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in all truth as opposed to partial truth. So why then did the church not seem to have all the truth regarding Scripture until the fourth century? Was the church in Rome guided by the Holy Spirit when it refused to accept Hebrews as Scripture? Was Origen guided by the Holy Spirit when he said 2 Peter was doubtful?

**The canon that we have today was formed long before those councils were called. ** The books that had been disputed were vetted thoroughly in Eusebius’ time and that was accomplished through a vetting process. The only thing the fourth century councils did was close the canon, nothing else.

We cannot trace certain books back to the apostles, but most we can. And if I place my faith in the writings that are indisputable, which includes all but what you listed above, then I have more than enough to guide me in my faith. On the contrary, you cannot reasonably demonstrate that the disputed books are apostolic, with the possible exception of Hebrews and Revelation. **Therefore, you must blindly place your faith in those who tell you these books are apostolic in order for you to proclaim it. **The bottom line is your church, the Roman Catholic Church, did not give us the Bible. And if you are interested in truth, as you say you are, you might want to stop promoting that notion.

It is rather dishonest (maybe not prideful) to acknowledge the authority of those particular writings without also acknowledging the fact that the Church recognized those writings and that recognition has been authoritatively accepted ever since. Writings that are authoritative are not the same as an authoritative list of writings. Scripture does not equate to canon. Many writings were viewed as authoritative and inspired that were not later canonized. This shows IMO how important of a role the Church played in giving us the Bible. The canon is the one thing almost all Christians agree upon today among a very divided Christianity. It is only the most liberal scholars that tend to do away with the importance of the canon. You yourself base your faith on the traditions oral and written of the Catholic Church and trust the Church’s authoritative recognition of these writings by that Church.

 

[Todd520]

I’m sorry if I touched a nerve. I have seen many Catholics act pridefully about what all our ancestors did. Even subsequent posters in this thread were using the bible as justification for the CC. I wanted to keep things in perspective.

I’ve never seen Protestants who do not believe the Holy Spirit played a role in compiling the bible, and the work was done by Catholics. ** Since this was your premise, can you prove examples of this belief?**

Hello Todd…
When did I say that the CC’s role as copier and assembler/compiler surpassed or even compares with the actual original teachings by Christ and the Apostles? Wat are you talking about dude? Who gave the CC the authority to codify the bible, at a time when the authenticity of such books as Jude, Revelation, James, a couple of John’s books, were doubted, as per all scholars, protestant or otherwise?

Also, who entrusted you with the authority to tell me that I am wrong? How can I know that your declaration about me is true? My question is prideful??? Wow…

 

[Patrick_Joshua]

It was Catholics who wrote the bible with guidance from the Holy Spirit, it was the Catholic Church who canonized which scripture is God inspired by the same Spirit.

The canon that we have today was formed long before those councils were called. The books that had been disputed were vetted thoroughly in Eusebius’ time and that was accomplished through a vetting process. The only thing the fourth century councils did was close the canon, nothing else.

100’s of Christian writings were used before the bible was canonized. The Church compiled the right writings for the bible. This became the NT.

 

[Todd520]

Not quite right, Patrick

• It was the Apostles who preached the Gospel (with guidance from the Holy Spirit)
• It was members of the Jewish Sect that followed Christ who recorded the Gospel (with guidance from the Holy Spirit)
• Subsequently, the Jewish sect evolved and became known as the Catholic Church
• It was members of the Catholic Church who later voted and canonized scripture (with guidance from the Holy Spirit)

It was Catholics who wrote the bible with guidance from the Holy Spirit, it was the Catholic Church who canonized which scripture is God inspired by the same Spirit.

100’s of Christian writings were used before the bible was canonized. The Church compiled the right writings for the bible. This became the NT.

 

[joe370]

It is your distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic that makes it prideful. The church was the church; it was catholic, that is, universal as opposed to heretical movements that sprung up around her. What I see you attempting to do is identify your hierarchy as some sort of infallible entity that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit formed an infallible canon of Scripture.

You see right, with the exception of your hierarchy comment …That does not mean I am right; it’s just what I believe.

You said in post #5 that you became Catholic because you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in all truth as opposed to partial truth. So why then did the church not seem to have all the truth regarding Scripture until the fourth century?