The Bible is a Catholic Document

[Becky]

Greg_McPherran:

Firstly, isn’t is quite obvious that the Bible was not originally compiled by Protestants? They did not even form until the time of Luther in the 1500s and Luther himself used the Scriptures of the Catholic Church at that time.

Greg,

You are assuming that the early church was Roman Catholic, and thus you are arguing from that position. It was the Council of Trent which formally canonized the RCC’s version of the Bible nearly 1500 years after Christ founded His Church.

Secondly, for the sake of starting a thread on a Catholic web site about something that is an accepted truth by Catholics, there is really no need to give evidence.

I disagree with you my brother. For the sake of a poster’s credibility, especially to those who hold a different opinion, it is important that posters cite their evidence in their opening post. It is one thing to state something as your own opinion, it is very different than to state something as fact.

Also, to start a serious dialogue with an “opponent” one must state their opinion and then cite their evidence first, so that the opponant can examine their evidence and give their POV, then so on and so forth.

May Our Saviour Christ richly bless you this week brother,
Becky

 

[La_Chiara]

Becky–After repeatedly asking Little Mary to support her original post, aren’t you going to acknowledge her response in which she addressed your comments?

 

[Becky]

Little Mary:

Please take another look at my original post. I did not use the word “Roman” although many of your posts infer that I did. Please do not add words to my posts.

That is why I put Roman in (). I apologise if you thought I inferred that you said something. Having said that, you do infer that the early “Catholic” Church is the same church as what we know today as the church centered in Rome correct? That is what I have assumed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Becky, I’m sorry if I have upset you by my question.

I am not upset. I am just asking that you cite your “historical evidence”, which is what I regulary ask of threadstarters who don’t cite their evidence at other MBs that I frequent that’s all

Who compiled the bible? Catholics. That’s a fact.

Yes, “Catholics”-meaning those in the universal Church, not “Catholics” as in members of a church centered in Rome. IOW, the church centered in Rome did not give us the Bible, which is what I assume that you are claiming.

For those of you who demand historical evidence for this, please feel free to look it up for yourself.

We’re not the ones making the bold claim, you are sis.

Any way you go about it, the Catholic church teaches the truth and the truth will always become apparent to those who seek it. So, study away. Collect your evidence. But don’t demand it from me just because you don’t like the question. Check it out for yourself.

I’m not demanding, I am simply asking you to cite your historical evidence for this “fact”. You may do as you wish. However, if all you do is offer mere opinions as facts then non-RCCs will not to take your posts too seriously. If that is your position, well then, suit yourself sis

YSIC,
Becky

 

[Becky]

La Chiara:

Becky–After repeatedly asking Little Mary to support her original post, aren’t you going to acknowledge her response in which she addressed your comments?

I just did sis. You do realize that I am not on this MB all the time right, and I will get to posts in my own time correct? I do have a job search going on, so please keep that in your prayers-I would greatly appreciate it.

YSIC,
becky

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Becky,

Becky:

I do have a job search going on, so please keep that in your prayers-I would greatly appreciate it.

I will. I recently found new employment. I wish the same for you. Keep at it and stay positive. The great thing about finding a job is it might take 100 (or more or less) tries but you only have to obtain 1.

As far as the Bible being Catholic, the Roman Catholic Church has decided which Scriptures are part of the accepted canon (except the apocrypha) that you use in your Bible - true? I believe the first set of Scriptures was listed in about 350 and then finalized at Trent. I think Jerome may have questioned what you call the apocrypha but also acknowledged that it is for the magisterium to decide. This is an example of obedience to Jesus who gave authority to the apostles.

I have more to say about understanding Scripture but I will await your response.

Love Jesus, love His Church,
Greg

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

Can we all agree that the Bible was compiled under the authority of some church in the late fourth century? If we can, we’re halfway home.

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.”
Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384),Decree of,Council of Rome,The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN,33

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.”
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400

continued . . .

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.”
Council of Carthage III,Canon 47(A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

This is Holy Scripture as Christians in the fourth century knew it. Interestingly enough, it is only the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Churches) today that honors this official decision by these early Christians. Therefore, it is not difficult to reason that these early Christians were either Catholic (under the authority of the successor of St. Peter) or Orthodox Christians. However, it is impossible that they would be Orthodox Christians for the Oriental Orthodox did not schism until c. 1000 A.D. From this, one can deduce that, yes, the Church that compiled the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the Catholic Church, the same Catholic Church of today.

Becky, by the way, not all Catholic rites are Roman. This refers to the western, or Latin rite. However, Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic rites are in full communion with the pope and are often offended if the universal Catholic Church is referred to as “Roman” Catholic.

In Christ,

Andrew

 

[jimmy]

Becky:

That is why I put Roman in (). I apologise if you thought I inferred that you said something. Having said that, you do infer that the early “Catholic” Church is the same church as what we know today as the church centered in Rome correct? That is what I have assumed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am not upset. I am just asking that you cite your “historical evidence”, which is what I regulary ask of threadstarters who don’t cite their evidence at other MBs that I frequent that’s all

Yes, “Catholics”-meaning those in the universal Church, not “Catholics” as in members of a church centered in Rome. IOW, the church centered in Rome did not give us the Bible, which is what I assume that you are claiming.

We’re not the ones making the bold claim, you are sis.

I’m not demanding, I am simply asking you to cite your historical evidence for this “fact”. You may do as you wish. However, if all you do is offer mere opinions as facts then non-RCCs will not to take your posts too seriously. If that is your position, well then, suit yourself sis

YSIC,
Becky

Becky what is your proof that the Catholic church of today is a different church than that that was around in 400AD. I would like to discuss this issue.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello, I’m Greg from MA,
Andrew Larkoski:

This is Holy Scripture as Christians in the fourth century knew it. Interestingly enough, it is only the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Churches) today that honors this official decision by these early Christians. Therefore, it is not difficult to reason that these early Christians were either Catholic (under the authority of the successor of St. Peter) or Orthodox Christians. However, it is impossible that they would be Orthodox Christians for the Oriental Orthodox did not schism until c. 1000 A.D. From this, one can deduce that, yes, the Church that compiled the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the Catholic Church, the same Catholic Church of today.

Becky, by the way, not all Catholic rites are Roman. This refers to the western, or Latin rite. However, Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic rites are in full communion with the pope and are often offended if the universal Catholic Church is referred to as “Roman” Catholic.

Very well stated, Andrew! :clapping:

 

[Becky]

Greg:

I will. I recently found new employment.

Congrats! I hope your new job works out well for you bro

I wish the same for you. Keep at it and stay positive. The great thing about finding a job is it might take 100 (or more or less) tries but you only have to obtain 1.

Thank you for your kind words Greg. It is so difficult to stay positive and motivated when I send in applications, yet get no interviews I know that Jeremiah tells us that God knows the future and has good things in store for us, but deep down inside I don’t believe that. Lord, help my unbelief.

As far as the Bible being Catholic, the Roman Catholic Church has decided which Scriptures are part of the accepted canon (except the apocrypha) that you use in your Bible - true?

:nope: We are not bound by the Council of Trent. Not to get off-track, do you know when the Greek Orthodox codified their Bible?

jimmy:

Becky what is your proof that the Catholic church of today is a different church than that that was around in 400AD. I would like to discuss this issue.

Hi Jimmy, I’m just stating a counter opinion to Mary, you take it or leave it There are (should be) non-RCs here who are better skilled in the areas of church history and the church fathers and can offer better arguments than I. I am better arguing from Scripture, and prefer evangelizing non-Christians who don’t know Jesus

I will say this though Jimmy, I know that the Greek for church means called out ones, and I know that the word catholic means universal. That doesn’t sounds like it describes a single, visible institution to me. I have not seen compelling evidence that the early church was what we know today as the RCC, however; I am just beginning the process of studying and re-evaluating the very “basics” of Christianity. I hope that answers your question friend.

Anyway, I really should be much more focused on my job search, so please pray for me in that area. Thank you.

God Bless You Both,
Becky

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Some Protestants and non-Catholics can deny and evade obvious truths about the role of the Catholic Church in compiling the scriptures. It is wonderful that our Church is the true Church of Jesus. Let us never forget that scripture warns strongly against those who cause divisions. They claim to love the Lord, yet they oppose His Church. Am I wrong? I am learning that it is probably not worth discussing truth with those who evade truth. Anyone can deny anything if they want to. It’s an easy thing to do. Yet, it is clear that the Catholic Church has preserved and compiled the Scriptures throughout the centuries. Glory to God! The Bible clearly warns that people will leave and follow teachers that tickle their ears. Does this refer to non-Catholics who obdurately deny the Catholic Church and yet are Christians in that they believe in Jesus? Can a true believer in Jesus reject the Catholic Church? The Church says they are separated brethren. Have they not followed teachers that tickled their ears? Yet they are still brethren as the Church teaches. Any insights to this?

Never let Protestant and non-Catholic denial discourage you. Denial and disagreement is the easiest thing to do. It does not build up the body of Christ.

Mary, you have every right to start this thread or any thread you like. It’s a wonderful thread that challenges non-Catholic Christians to consider the origins of the Scriptures.

We have the Lord in the Eucharist. This is His gift to His people.

Yes, the Catholic Church compiled the Scriptures and even the inspired writers were apostles and members of the Catholic Church. If other Chritstians don’t accept that, then that is their problem not ours. Plenty of evidence has been given here (see Andrew’s excellent thread). We have more than done our duty to separated brothers and sisters. They can accept it or deny it and they are responsible to Jesus for their decision. We have done our job here very well for His sake! We have nothing to prove beyond the truth to be helpful. However, we never have to prove anything in the manner of defense. Rather, those who have caused the divisions had better be ready to give an answer to Jesus. Divisions are an evil among Christians. It slows down the mission of Jesus to the world and confuses non-Christians.

Mary you asked for comment. That’s my comment! Great thread Mary!

Greg

 

[Little_Mary]

Thank you for your kind words and support, Greg. I notice your charity with Becky as well. That is as it should be. I only hope that some of it rubs off on her before she authors any more posts.

God bless you.

God bless you, too Becky.

 

[Little_Mary]

Becky:

Hi Jimmy, I’m just stating a counter opinion to Mary, you take it or leave it There are (should be) non-RCs here who are better skilled in the areas of church history and the church fathers and can offer better arguments than I. I am better arguing from Scripture, and prefer evangelizing non-Christians who don’t know Jesus

Hi Becky,

In my own defense, I noticed in several previous posts by you that you did not accept the evidence provided by others and you insisted that the original poster (in this case, me) be the one to support the claims.

If you continue to insist on styling the discussion in this manner, then you owe Jimmy the same courtesy here.

However, since your requirements for posts are so stringent I’ll follow the tone you just left for Jimmy : the bible was compiled by the Catholic church (and here I mean Catholic in the sense that it is the universal Church that Jesus founded and set forth as the way He wanted us to live for him and if you want to call it Roman Catholic feel free) …as I was saying regarding the fact that the bible was compiled by the Catholic church and ratified by its Pope is an historical fact - take it or leave it. Better yet, look it up.

Toodles, sis. And may God bless you and your new job.

LM

 

[Becky]

Andrew Larkoski:

Council of Carthage III,Canon 47(A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

From what I understand about church councils such as this one is that they do not bind the entire church.

Becky, by the way, not all Catholic rites are Roman. This refers to the western, or Latin rite. However, Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic rites are in full communion with the pope and are often offended if the universal Catholic Church is referred to as “Roman” Catholic.

Andrew, I am using “Roman Catholic” in the sense of any person who belongs to the denomination (including all the various “rites” such as the Byzantine, Latin, etc., etc.) that is centered in the Vatican.

If you click here you will notice that it is the "Roman Catholic Diocese of Corpus Christi". This official website is using the terms “Roman Catholic” they same way that I am using it.

Do you understand???

YSIC,
Becky

 

[Becky]

Little Mary:

Hi Becky,

In my own defense, I noticed in several previous posts by you that you did not accept the evidence provided by others and you insisted that the original poster (in this case, me) be the one to support the claims.

Now in my own defense sis I never stated my opinions as “fact” as you did in the OP either. My opinions are just that-opinions. My point being-if one starts a thread stating their opinion as a fact then I believe that they themselves should be the ones to back their own claims up. I am fine if a person states their opinion-as just that-an opinion. Do you understand my point?

However, since your requirements for posts are so stringent I’ll follow the tone you just left for Jimmy …as I was saying regarding the fact that the bible was compiled by the Catholic church and ratified by its Pope is an historical fact - take it or leave it. Better yet, look it up.

I’ll leave your opinions thank you very much sis

Toodles, sis. And may God bless you and your new job.

Thank you and may God bless you as well

 

[Becky]

Greg_McPherran:

Some Protestants and non-Catholics can deny and evade obvious truths about the role of the Catholic Church in compiling the scriptures.

Greg, I don’t know if this is directed at me, but I’ll comment anyway

Greg, in order for you, or LM to convince any non-RC, whether it be another Christian, an athiest/agnostic, a hindu, etc., to concur with your opinion then you must first provide evidence for your underlying assumption-that the “Catholic Church” of the early centuries is the same as what we know today as the denomination centered in the Vatican. And if you look at the Early Church you will see Church Fathers vehemently disagreeing with each other over major issues, secular Emperors calling councils, RCC dogmas that cannot be found in the Early Church (the Assumption of Mary comes to mind, and that comes from a Gnostic text if I correctlly recall), etc., etc., etc.

In Christ,
becky

 

[La_Chiara]

Becky–You demand evidence of others but provide none to support your statements or opinions. Greg and others have provided solid historical evidence to support their statements. Could you please supply some evidence to support your statements 1. that the early Church Fathers vehemently disagreed about major issues and 2. that the early Church of Christ is not the same Church in Rome and headed by the Pope. It is only appropriate that you hold yourself to the same debating standards to which you hold others.

 

[La_Chiara]

Becky–There is a thread under “Non-Catholic Religions” thread called “Is the Catholic Church Today the Same Church that Codified the Bible?” Your questions on that topic should be addressed there. We are supposed to keep our posts on the topic of the thread. As this thread’s topic is “The Bible is a Catholic Document”, you seemed to be straying off topic. Besides, you provide no proof to support your opinions though you have asked for and received excellent proof to support the fact that the Bible IS a Catholic document.

 

[realityofitall]

La Chiara:

you have asked for and received excellent proof to support the fact that the Bible IS a Catholic document.

I’ve read this entire thread COMPLETELY…I’ve not seen any of this evidence (I’ve seen a lot of statements, but no facts with historcal citations) that you say is in the thread, please proved the post numbers that contain the evidence…

 

[La_Chiara]

realityofitall:

I’ve read this entire thread COMPLETELY…I’ve not seen any of this evidence (I’ve seen a lot of statements, but no facts with historcal citations) that you say is in the thread, please proved the post numbers that contain the evidence…

Perhaps you missed posts # 105 and 106.