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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Todd520 said:
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?**
Click to expand...
Hey Todd, you didn’t touch a nerve…I just couldn’t understand your unwarranted accusation. No biggie… Well, as a former non-Catholic, for me, it was this simple: which church in the world today existed in the 4th century, when the canon was established and the answer is, the CC, and in no way am I impugning the wonderful works of any other church; I love all churches. 👍 The CC faithfully and infallibly preserved sacred scripture long before any protestant church came along. Why should I trust that notion, and embrace the notion that the CC did not faithfully preserve the truths regarding other teachings? That notion didn’t make any sense to me as a former protestant. If the CC started teaching erroneously about certain things eg purgatory, then how could I know, with certainty, that they didn’t tamper with sacred scripture. They had plenty of time and authority to add to or subtract from the bible, yet no one would ever claim that the CC got it wrong vis-a-vis the infallible bible, all the while claiming that they did get it wrong vis-a-vis other teachings, which begs the question: why trust the infallible decision of the CC regarding the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of books from the bible and yet reject the CC itself? :confused::confused::confused:

I simply chose to embrace the infallible word of God along with the church that infallibly preserved the word of God long before any non-Catholic church existed. If I am wrong about the infallible decision of the CC then the bible as the infallible word of God, becomes suspect.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Todd. I always enjoy seeing things from a different perspective. 👍
 
Hey Brian…
Brian Culliton;7168487]
Click to expand...
joe370 said:
If you want to tell me what I believe at least get it right. The infallible word of God is that which was handed down from the apostles whether by word or in writing. (And by infallible I mean the infallible authority that only the apostles possessed.)
Click to expand...
The apostles were not infallible. So, it’s your belief that the HS left the church after the last apostle died? That’s a question ergo the question mark. I am not attempting to tell you what you believe.
Nobody in the early church was able to connect certain books to the apostles,
Click to expand...
Agreed. The 4 gospels and hebrews were even anonymous.
but because of other criteria, they were accepted into the canon.
Click to expand...
What was this criteria? By whose authority were they accepted? We know it was not by the authority of any one PC.
Do those books carry the same authority as the ones known to be apostolic? I don’t know and you don’t know so why proclaim them as “infallible”?
Click to expand...
I never said that they were infallible. I said that they were accepted as inspired by many in the early years of Christianity, just as some NT books in our bible today, were not considered inspired in certain parts.
You are saying here that the book of Hebrews is traceable to the late first century
Click to expand...
Where did I say that? The book of Hebrews was considered questionable until the CC bishops decided otherwise. You accept it because the CC embraced it as inspired. If the CC, in the 4th century would have jettisoned the book of Hebrews, you would too, therefore you are deferring to the error free decision of the CC.
, yet the western church did not accept it until the fourth century, and that thanks to Athanasius. It took Athanasius to convince Julius and other church leaders in the west, that Hebrews was indeed authentic, as the churches in the east had always held. None of this sounds infallible to me.
Click to expand...
Yet you have no problem believing that the bible is infallible? :confused: What church did those guys belong to by the way???
Why do you keep calling the early church the CC?
Click to expand...
Well, the early church was not protestant that’s for sure. Ignatius, who was a disciple of John called the church catholic. I think we can trust him. There was no other church other than the CC when the CC codified your bible. If the CC was not the early church then the CC was a man-made church as opposed to the church founded by Jesus, which means they had no inspirational right to codify your bible. People have been telling me that the CC was founded by someone other than Jesus but these same people won’t back up their claim, by naming said founder. Name please???/

I can’t tell if you are being obstinate or just having difficulty with the subject.

You want me to entertain the notion that the CC did not determine the canon. You want me to believe that the early church was not the CC. Prove it then and I will be forced to leave the CC and join this supposed early church that was not the CC…
Click to expand...
 
Not quite right, Patrick
Click to expand...
  • 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)
Click to expand...
It was the Apostles who preached the Gospel (with guidance from the Holy Spirit)
Click to expand...
Yes the Apostles preached the Gospel, but the Apostles were also Catholics, obviously not in name(yet), but the Catholic Church is the same church the Apostles founded, therefore they are Catholics?
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
Click to expand...
The Jewish sect, were also Catholics.
The name Catholic was used to distinguish itself from heretics.

You can’t seperate the Jewish sect and the Catholics, the Jewish Sect were Catholics, just as Catholics can be classed as Religious Jews. The Jewish Sect was in the same church, we as Catholics are in today.

Although most of the Jewish sect were also Ethnic/Religious Jews.
Subsequently, the Jewish sect evolved and became known as the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, but that Jewish sect was also Catholics, even if the name Catholic was not yet used for the Church. They was still in the same church that we are in today. “The Catholic Church”
It was members of the Catholic Church who later voted and canonized scripture (with guidance from the Holy Spirit
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
Patrick,
Here is where I think you are dead wrong

The Apostles and their initial flock could not have been Catholic because they did not believe in the fulness of the Trinity as it came to be defined in Nicea, ergo, like LDS they could be Christian but CERTAINLY NOT Catholic
Patrick_Joshua said:
Yes the Apostles preached the Gospel, but the Apostles were also Catholics, obviously not in name(yet), but the Catholic Church is the same church the Apostles founded, therefore they are Catholics?
en.
Click to expand...
 
Todd520 said:
Patrick,
Here is where I think you are dead wrong

The Apostles and their initial flock could not have been Catholic because they did not believe in the fulness of the Trinity as it came to be defined in Nicea, ergo, like LDS they could be Christian but CERTAINLY NOT Catholic
Click to expand...
They definitely thought that the Holy Spirit was a Person.

[BIBLEDRB]Jn 14:26[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:29[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 13:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 8:27[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 2:11[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:11[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Eph 4:30[/BIBLEDRB]

And that this Person is God.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 28:19[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Heb. 9:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Ps. 138:6-8[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor. 6:19[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor. 6:16[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 5:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

And it goes without saying that they thought the same of Jesus Christ Himself.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:28[/BIBLEDRB]
 
joe370 said:
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.
Click to expand...
To do so would be an admission that there is an elephant in the room.
 
Cat Herder,
And what is your point? The LDS also believe the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus “was a Person”
Cat_Herder said:
They definitely thought that the Holy Spirit was a Person.
And that this Person is God.
And it goes without saying that they thought the same of Jesus Christ Himself.
Click to expand...
 
joe370 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because the canon of the Western Church is not the same as the Eastern Churches.
 
JonNC said:
Not necessarily. Scroll down to the bottom of the link to the chart.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

For example, the Prayer of Manasses is canonical in virtually all Orthodox traditions, but not in the West, including the CC.

Jon
Click to expand...
That chart is not quite accurate. The Prayer of Manasses is chanted during the Orthodox Christian and Byzantine Catholic service of Great Compline.
 
Cat_Herder said:
That chart is not quite accurate. The Prayer of Manasses is chanted during the Orthodox Christian and Byzantine Catholic service of Great Compline.
Click to expand...
Find me a chart, then, that shows the western (Catholic) canon of scripture is the same as any Orthodox tradition.

Jon
 
Cat_Herder said:
You are either defining Protestantism as the “Western Church” or the Ethiopian Orthodox as the “Eastern Church.”
Click to expand...
Actually neither, because development of the biblical canon predates both Protestantism and the Great Schism. The point is that there is a difference (both in content and theology) between the Roman Catholic canon and the various biblical canons of the various Eastern Churches. The OP is essentially asserting that the Holy Spirit only guided the Roman Church, I guess to the detriment of everyone else?
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Actually neither, because development of the biblical canon predates both Protestantism and the Great Schism.
Click to expand...
And what was the Church called back then? :rolleyes:
The point is that there is a difference (both in content and theology) between the Roman Catholic canon and the various biblical canons of the various Eastern Churches.
Click to expand...
A difference in content? Maybe where they put the books–but not which books are used in the liturgy.

But a difference in theology? You have got to be kidding.
 
Todd520 said:
Cat Herder,
And what is your point? The LDS also believe the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus “was a Person”
Click to expand...
… along with every exalted Latter Day Saint (at least if you are a Brighamite Mormon). That’s not a Trinity, that’s a lot more than three Divine Persons.

Which is why you need more Scriptures to explain it all and fit 'em all in. 😉
 
Cat_Herder said:
And what was the Church called back then? :rolleyes:

A difference in content? Maybe where they put the books–but not which books are used in the liturgy.

But a difference in theology? You have got to be kidding.
Click to expand...
Yes, a difference in composition of the Bible itself, not just “where they put the books.” For example, the 3rd Book of Maccabees is not in Catholic Bibles, is in Orthodox Bibles, is read in the the Orthodox liturgy and is part of the Orthodox Old Testament. However, the book is considered deuterocanonical by most Orthodox church because it’s not in the Hebrew Bible, and is thought of as a “tier-two” book and of lesser authority–a theology of the biblical canon and deuterocanonicity that I don’t think post-Reformation Catholics would embrace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top