J
Jesus_Freak_357
Guest
I’ve noticed a few Catholics posting this and I wanted to know if it’s widely accepted. Do Catholics believe that we(all Christians) recieved the Bible from them? Please comment!
- Status
C
Crumpy
Guest
If I understand the question (who is “them”), yes the Catholic Church assembled the Bible over several centuries.
the Bible is considered to be inspired by God, who is its Author.
Catholic “Tradition” with a capital T is the sum of the interpretation of scripture over time, with the aid of the Holy Spirit who inspired it. The first element of that Tradition is which books belong IN the Bible. Protestant tradition starts to pick up steam when they define which books they believe belong in the Bible. The Protestants essentially accept the Jewish view of which texts are inspired.
Although the Catholic church’s decision about which books belong follows also from the Jewish Greek Septuagint, as far as OT books go. The Septuagint is the oldest version of the Bible still in existence (as far as we know). The Jews and Protestants explicitly limit the books of the Bible to a later Hebrew version of scripture, known as the Masoretic Text. the key there to canonicity is that the manuscript was in Hebrew (and maybe Aramaic).
It was “nip and tuck” for a while, but Protestants and Catholics seem to accept the same books of the NT as inspired.
I can’t think of anybody else who even remotely would qualify for “giving us [any of us] the Holy Bible.”
the Bible is considered to be inspired by God, who is its Author.
Catholic “Tradition” with a capital T is the sum of the interpretation of scripture over time, with the aid of the Holy Spirit who inspired it. The first element of that Tradition is which books belong IN the Bible. Protestant tradition starts to pick up steam when they define which books they believe belong in the Bible. The Protestants essentially accept the Jewish view of which texts are inspired.
Although the Catholic church’s decision about which books belong follows also from the Jewish Greek Septuagint, as far as OT books go. The Septuagint is the oldest version of the Bible still in existence (as far as we know). The Jews and Protestants explicitly limit the books of the Bible to a later Hebrew version of scripture, known as the Masoretic Text. the key there to canonicity is that the manuscript was in Hebrew (and maybe Aramaic).
It was “nip and tuck” for a while, but Protestants and Catholics seem to accept the same books of the NT as inspired.
I can’t think of anybody else who even remotely would qualify for “giving us [any of us] the Holy Bible.”
T
thistle
Guest
A Protestant minister’s view: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic ChurchI’ve noticed a few Catholics posting this and I wanted to know if it’s widely accepted. Do Catholics believe that we(all Christians) recieved the Bible from them? Please comment!
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
A
aicirt
Guest
The Old Testament came from the Jews. The New Testament from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which were chosen from selected writings about 400AD.I’ve noticed a few Catholics posting this and I wanted to know if it’s widely accepted. Do Catholics believe that we(all Christians) recieved the Bible from them? Please comment!
The Protestant Reformation did not occur until 1500. Do you think the Bible did not exist until then?
J
JRKH
Guest
The Short answer is Yes, the Bible (NT) as ti is universally accepted today is a product of the Action of the Holy Spirit working through councils of the Catholic (Universal) Church.I’ve noticed a few Catholics posting this and I wanted to know if it’s widely accepted. Do Catholics believe that we(all Christians) recieved the Bible from them? Please comment!
The thing that needs to be remembered is that prior to the East West Schism, there was only one Christian Church, and that Church was Catholic. The various councils, synods, writings, etc were all a part of the universal “Catholic” Church.
For the first 300 + years there was no defined canon of books universally accepted by the Church. around the middle of the 4th century this began to change and a series of regional councils between 380 and 410 assembled the Bible as we know it today. Six Councils in all, from the Council of Rome in 382 to the Council of Florence in 1441all ratified the same 73 books as canonical.
This listing was reaffirmed again at Trent when it became apparent that at least some of the reformers were considering tampering with the canon of the bible which in fact happened when Some books of the OT were dropped.
Hope this helps.
Peace
James
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
If them, you mean a council of Catholic Bishops that defined a 73 book table of contents for the Bible, then yes.I’ve noticed a few Catholics posting this and I wanted to know if it’s widely accepted. Do Catholics believe that we(all Christians) recieved the Bible from them? Please comment!
M
mcrow
Guest
The Catholic Church compiled the books and organized them and did the research and study to determine which books made up the bible.I’ve noticed a few Catholics posting this and I wanted to know if it’s widely accepted. Do Catholics believe that we(all Christians) recieved the Bible from them? Please comment!
Protestants use bibles that are nearly the same, minus a few books. So, I would say that you guys got the bible from us and then took it your own direction.
T
TimothyH
Guest
But it is important to acknowledge that this was not the work of men. This was the work of the Holy Spirit who guided men to do God’s will.
I would say that the Bible was recieved by men from God through God’s Holy Catholic Church. I would say that the Catholic Church was more of a conduit through which God transmitted his written word to men, rather than the producer of it.
-Tim-
M
mcrow
Guest
Certainly, the Holy Spririt guided the authors, no question about that.
I’m just looking at this from the earthly POV and that is that the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit)compiled the books (that were inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit) that make up the bible.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Yes, there was only one Church back when the Bible was put together - the Catholic Church. It was put together at the council of Carthage.
J
JRKH
Guest
Dear JF,I’ve noticed a few Catholics posting this and I wanted to know if it’s widely accepted. Do Catholics believe that we(all Christians) received the Bible from them? Please comment!
Are the answers helpful so far?
What is your view of the development of the Bible?
Peace
James
J
Jesus_Freak_357
Guest
These anwsers are actually really helpful. Thank you for asking.
As far as my view on how the Bible was developed, I believe that it was written by men divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the early Christian church recognized what was Scripture, but did not establish it. Basically, it discovered what was already authentic. In John 10:27, Jesus said “My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.”
M
mcrow
Guest
The funny thing is that most Catholics would agree with you, I think.These anwsers are actually really helpful. Thank you for asking.
As far as my view on how the Bible was developed, I believe that it was written by men divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the early Christian church recognized what was Scripture, but did not establish it. Basically, it discovered what was already authentic. In John 10:27, Jesus said “My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.”
P
PJM
Guest
YES!=Jesus Freak 357;8059453]I’ve noticed a few Catholics posting this and I wanted to know if it’s widely accepted. Do Catholics believe that we(all Christians) recieved the Bible from them? Please comment!
WHY?
Because when the OT books were collected it was by the CC
When the NT was WRITTEN it was by Catholic Apostles
When the Books for the Bible were selected it was By the CC
When the Bible was FIRST Codified it was through the CC
AND THE Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church in existence for more than 1,000 YEARS!
So my friend, if not the CC then who:shrug:
God Bless you,
Pat
P
pablope
Guest
Yes, and these men were all Catholics.These anwsers are actually really helpful. Thank you for asking.
As far as my view on how the Bible was developed, I believe that it was written by men divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the early Christian church recognized what was Scripture, but did not establish it. Basically, it discovered what was already authentic. In John 10:27, Jesus said “My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.”
Here is a link to a list of early christian writings…earlychristianwritings.com/
With approximate dates of writing.
Keep in mind also, for the first 300 years, Christianity was under Roman empire persecution and was largely underground.
With the list, how could an early Christian determine which was scripture with this list of writings?
Any of these writings were read during the Mass. So one of the initial reasons for compiling an approved canon was to have a standard set of readings for the Mass.
A
aicirt
Guest
These men, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, were Catholics. They baptized, heard confessions, administered confirmation, ordained men, perforemed marriages, blessed the sick and dying and officiated at the Mass where, through the grace of their priesthood, changed the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.These anwsers are actually really helpful. Thank you for asking.
As far as my view on how the Bible was developed, I believe that it was written by men divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the early Christian church recognized what was Scripture, but did not establish it. Basically, it discovered what was already authentic. In John 10:27, Jesus said “My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.”
What exactly do you mean when you say the early Christian church (which answered to the Pope and, therefore, Catholic) “recognized what was Scripture but did not establish it”? Jesus did not write the New Testament. What Christ did do was initiate the sacraments. Adhering to the word of God is important but Christ said he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood shall have ever lasting life.
The basis of your church started 1500 years after Christ. How can it be that 30,000 Protestant sects all think their church is the right one so many centuries after Christ? Doesn’t that seem strange? If you look at the apostles, who did perform Masses, and read the writings of the church fathers, you’ll see the Catholic Church is doing exactly what they did 2011 years ago.
J
Jesus_Freak_357
Guest
These apostles might have been catholics in a sense because it was used to describe Christians in the early 2nd century. BUT, they did not teach certain modern Catholic doctrines such as purgatory, penance, salvation+works+baptism, etc.
About your question. What I mean by “they recognized what was scripture, but did not establish it” is that the scripture did not need to be deemed worthy by men. The documents in themselves carry power and authenticity because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
About your last paragraph, just because a movement starts late doesn’t mean that it is any less true. Also, the Bible allows us to have differences of opinion(Rom. 14:1-5). I believe that Christians are united under the essentials of Christianity and divided because of the non-essentials. Thus denominations are created.
J
JRKH
Guest
Actually you will likely find, as you study and question more, that the very early church did indeed teach, if not full blown doctrines, at least rudimentary concepts of these things.
While to a certain extent this is true, It is fairly well known that different regions of the Church were using different books and accepted them as “inspired scripture” but some of these did not make it into the NT - one widely used book was the Shepherd of Hermes. ON the other hand there was at least one book that was NOT widely used and even frowned upon in many places yet was included int he canon…That being the Book of Revelation.
So while I agree that the words of the Holy Spirit do carry authority it appears that this was not sufficient for acceptance universally until the Bishops of the Church were able to get together and settle the matter.
I have had many conversations with Protestants who like to say how they are “united on essentials” but in fact are unable to come up with a universally accepted list of just what those essentials are. I don’t say this to be contrary or to dismiss what you say, but in point of fact, The Bible points much more forcefully to unity, visible unity, in ALL things much more than it points to some vague “unity on essentials”.About your last paragraph, just because a movement starts late doesn’t mean that it is any less true. Also, the Bible allows us to have differences of opinion(Rom. 14:1-5). I believe that Christians are united under the essentials of Christianity and divided because of the non-essentials. Thus denominations are created.
You have provided a single bible reference to diversity. Allow me to illustrate the desire of God that we be fully and closely unified…
John 17:20-21
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Rom 15:5-6
5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.
Php 1:27
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,
1 Pet 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
Note in these, first that Jesus wishes us to be One as He and the Father are One…That is sublime unity.
Then look at the number of times Paul and also Peter exhort that we be “of one mind”, “agreeing with each other”, and that there be “no dissensions”…
Peace
James
C
CalCatholic
Guest
Matthew 28:19 (RSV); “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”
James 2:14-17 (RSV); ‘What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?** So faith by itself, if it has no works is dead.’**
James 5:13-16 (RSV); Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed."
While the word ‘purgatory’ does not appear in the NT, neither does the word ‘Trinity’, and I am assuming as a ‘Born again Christian’ you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Both of these finalized doctrines were formed in the Catholic Church based on writings from the Old and New Testaments and Tradition handed down through the Church.
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
Didn’t they? Are you sure? Have you checked?
Isn’t it rather telling that the oldest Christian churches - the Catholic and the many Eastern Orthodox - all still teach those doctrines? If these doctrines were not taught from the beginning, why do those churches, which cling to Tradition and refuse to change any teachings, still hold to and teach “purgatory, penance, salvation+works+baptism, etc.” while those communities which rejected Tradition and the blatantly biblical authority of the Church not only reject those teachings you mention but also, in many cases, the formerly universal Christian teaching that artificial contraception of any kind was sinful? Are you sure you know which teachings are the ones handed down from Jesus in the very beginning and which aren’t?
But what are the essentials?About your last paragraph, just because a movement starts late doesn’t mean that it is any less true. Also, the Bible allows us to have differences of opinion(Rom. 14:1-5). I believe that Christians are united under the essentials of Christianity and divided because of the non-essentials. Thus denominations are created.
As Hamlet said, “Aye, there’s the rub,” for isn’t it true that, even among those doctrines you point out, about which you and the Catholic Church disagree - about which many, many non-Catholics disagree even amongst themselves - are doctrines partaining to the very way in which we are saved from damnation. I don’t know about you, but I think the manner by which Christ intends us to be saved from our sins and brought safely into heaven is of the utmost importance. I would even venture to say that those doctrines are the most “essential.” Wouldn’t you? In fact, all of the ones you mention pertain to salvation.
Purgatory pertains to how we are cleansed from sins so that we might enter into eternal union with God - since, after all, nothing unclean can enter into God’s presence. If we die imperfect, but forgiven, and yet cannot be cleansed, how will we be saved??
Penance is a way in which, during this life, after confession and forgiveness, we are re-oriented to Christ so that our souls become more Christ-like. If we don’t do that - if we don’t become more completely Christ-like - how can we be saved??
Next, “salvation” quite obviously pertains to salvation and is thus the very heart of “the essentials.”
Whether works, by which I presume you mean doing what Christ asks of us, are required for us to be saved, again is a question of how we become more Christ-like. After all, James clearly says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). So, if you must question whether you are truly saved if you do not obey Jesus’ commands, can you really claim that this is not an essential doctrine??
And finally, Baptism, which St. Peter quite plainly tells us, “now saves you” (II Pet 3:21), clearly thus pertains, once again, to salvation, so it too must be part of “the essentials.”
All these, as you can clearly see, must be counted among “the essentials” and yet you disagree with other Christiansa about them all! Are you absolutely sure you know how denominations are started and whether floating about in the confusing sea of competing denominations is actually safe (eternally speaking)?? Remember, this is your eternal soul we’re talking about. If you’re not 100% sure, keep digging for Truth! You don’t want your house to be built on sand, do you? (Ours is built on Rock…[Matt16:18].)
- Status