The Bible is Catholic -

[joe370]

Protestant101,

Linda, just thought I’d bounce this off you. How do you think p101 will respond to the following? He’s not on-line right now.

p101, When you say the bible isn’t catholic, do you mean to say that the bible is not a product of the C.C.? —and that they had nothing to do with the canonization or codification of Sacred Scripture?

If the bible is not Catholic, what is it!

 

[jblake]

abucs;:

Is it not a fact that it was the best part of 4 centuries after Jesus Christs incarnation that it was decided to put together a bible ?

The earliest extant text that provides a list of canonical books by name, is Marcion’s, circa 140 CE. Extant lists prior to this date do not provide the names of the specific books, but either the subject matter, or group name. The earliest text that suggests that there is an authoritative Christian canon dates to circa 70 AD.

Is it not a fact that it was the catholic church who decided that and then defined what was in it ?

Parthanenian Christianity demonstrates otherwise.
( Bön has also been cited as evidence, but the archaeological data supports several other interpretations.)

xan

jonathon

 

[JRKH]

The earliest extant text that provides a list of canonical books by name, is Marcion’s, circa 140 CE. Extant lists prior to this date do not provide the names of the specific books, but either the subject matter, or group name. The earliest text that suggests that there is an authoritative Christian canon dates to circa 70 AD.

Parthanenian Christianity demonstrates otherwise.
( Bön has also been cited as evidence, but the archaeological data supports several other interpretations.)

xan

jonathon

jblake,
Your posts are interesting, but I would appreciate some links or sources when you make statements such as above. It would be most helpful to those of us trying to learn.

Also, I had previously asked about the groups you refered to with different canon’s. I would still appreciate a list of the ones who were not included on the link I had provided.
Can yo provide such a list?

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

The earliest extant text that provides a list of canonical books by name, is Marcion’s, circa 140 CE. Extant lists prior to this date do not provide the names of the specific books, but either the subject matter, or group name. The earliest text that suggests that there is an authoritative Christian canon dates to circa 70 AD.

Parthanenian Christianity demonstrates otherwise.
( Bön has also been cited as evidence, but the archaeological data supports several other interpretations.)

xan

jonathon

Parthaenian Christianity?

Whatever that is, or whatever earlier lists there may have been, the closing of the canon dates at the late 4th century.

Marcion’s ‘canon’ was, um, idiosyncratic, to say the least. Allegations that his ‘canon’ represents the earliest documentation of the New Testament have been overturned by the discovery of NT manuscript fragments that pre-date Marcion’s. Moreover, while scholars acknowledge that Marcion probably did NOT make some of the “excisions” of which he has been accused, they recognize that the missing portions do BELONG to the text.

Red herring here.

 

[JRKH]

Parthaenian Christianity?

Whatever that is, or whatever earlier lists there may have been, the closing of the canon dates at the late 4th century.

Marcion’s ‘canon’ was, um, idiosyncratic, to say the least. Allegations that his ‘canon’ represents the earliest documentation of the New Testament have been overturned by the discovery of NT manuscript fragments that pre-date Marcion’s. Moreover, while scholars acknowledge that Marcion probably did NOT make some of the “excisions” of which he has been accused, they recognize that the missing portions do BELONG to the text.

Red herring here.

I hope I’m wrong, but it appears that jblake is not long on details and sources. That is unfortunate.

Peace
James

 

[joe370]

The earliest extant text that provides a list of canonical books by name, is Marcion’s, circa 140 CE.

**Not so! The bible never came with a table of contents. We have the C.C. to thank for that!
**

Extant lists prior to this date do not provide the names of the specific books, but either the subject matter, or group name.

**“Extant lists prior to this date (and subsequent of) do not provide the names of the specific books,” —at least not names of specific canonized and codified books. Any list prior to the canonization of the bible at the end of the 4th century, included books that are not part of the canon today! Again, a table of contents was furnished by the C.C. **

The earliest text that suggests that there is an authoritative Christian canon dates to circa 70 AD.

If so, what is this text? --keeping in mind, this “authoritative Christian canon that dates to circa 70 AD” must reflect what we see in the bible today, excluding books like the Apocalypse of Peter or the gospel of Thomas. Link below gives us a look at the hodgepodge of writings floating around before the C.C. finally, via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, canonized and codified the bible. This list clearly proves that the bible did not, could not stand on its own!

earlychristianwritings.com/

Parthanenian Christianity demonstrates otherwise.
( Bön has also been cited as evidence, but the archaeological data supports several other interpretations.)

Never heard of it…

xan

jonathon

The Christians of the first three centuries (and even beyond) did not have a New Testament! They did have what they considered scriptures, namely the Jewish writings known as the Law and the Prophets, but the process that led to the collection of writings or canon we now know as the “New Testament” was a long one. In fact, the earliest evidence we have of any church body establishing a list of authoritative Christian books that coincides exactly with the 27 books now in the New Testament was in 393 CE. Even that emerged out of a local meeting of church authorities in North Africa rather than some “universal” decision that was implemented in some way.

The process that led to the collection of writings that were considered authoritative as scripture, namely the canon, was quite painstakingly extensive. From a very early stage, christians were collecting and using Christian writings of various sorts. Sometimes one community used the same writings as another community, but seldom did everyone agree which ones should be considered “scripture”, if they considered this issue at all. In some cases writings accepted by one christian community could be utterly rejected as “heretical” by another, as was the case with many “gnostic” writings. The process of choosing the writings that were considered canon and excluding certain other documents was, in some ways, the triumph of one Christian view over another. In the mid-second century, as Jblake has pointed out, “The earliest extant text that provides a list of canonical books by name, is Marcion’s, circa 140 CE” however, Marcion of Sinope had clear ideas of what he would include in an authoritative collection, including the Gospel of Luke and certain letters of Paul, but he did so in a way that tried to remove any passages that seemed to equate the Jewish God with the God who sent Jesus (he thought there were two gods involved) invalidating that list!!!

Others disagreed with Marcion, although some began to agree that it was probably a good idea to define the writings that were apostolic in nature and indubitably authoritative. The Muratorian canon on the other hand is an extant list of writings (perhaps from around 200 CE), and does in fact coincide with the books that were later included in the New Testament and the C.C. provided us with this list of canonical books by name, in the form of a table of contents. However this was not the final draft; that would come later! Other Christians at this time would still continue to make a different list, and even the Muratorian canon mentions an Apocalypse of Peter, which some held to be authoritative but which did not ultimately make it into the New Testament, codified by the C.C. Even the Apocalypse of John, also known as Revelation, continued to be hotly debated into the fourth century.

 

[joe370]

The lack of any established, authoritative collection of writings and the variations within these writings used by different Christian communities circumventing the Mediterranean sea, reflected and further facilitated the propagation of variety and diversity among early Christians. And when there were differences of opinion regarding belief or practice among these diverse Christian groups, there was no set of early Christian writings that everyone could agree was the benchmark or authority to settle disputes regarding what belief or practice was right or wrong. However there was an authoritative church established by Jesus Christ circa 33 AD, to settle disputes regarding what belief or practice was right or wrong; the C.C. —the same church we see in the 21 century, still settling disputes regarding what belief or practice is right or wrong, and again with Divine authority, according to the bible and the catholic apostolic church!

Christians of this era should not assume that the views expressed in any one writing are somehow representative of all early Christian views. A 21st century christian perspective of what is considered authoritative, apostolic scripture is totally different then a 1st 2nd 3rd or even a 4th century one; at least until the C.C. finally canonized and codified the Bible! In light of this, Christians should refrain from attempting to use one book, or even worse, one passage of the N.T. e.g. (2 Timothy 3:16) to define or sum up another book(s) in the N.T. Simply turning to another book, by a different author for authoritative answers is nothing more than a non-sequitur approach, as can be evidenced in the first few centuries prior to its canonization. Sola scriptura would have been the end of Christianity! Finally, we should consider the writings in the New Testament within the broader context of early Christian literature that did not make it in the canon, e.g. the Didache, and give each its due, strictly in the name of perspectivism.

When all is said and done, the bible is very catholic and the C.C. is its proper custodial guardian!!!

 

[mercygate]

The Christians of the first three centuries (and even beyond) did not have a New Testament! They did have what they considered scriptures, namely the Jewish writings known as the Law and the Prophets, but the process that led to the collection of writings or canon we now know as the “New Testament” was a long one. In fact, the earliest evidence we have of any church body establishing a list of authoritative Christian books that coincides exactly with the 27 books now in the New Testament was in 393 CE. Even that emerged out of a local meeting of church authorities in North Africa rather than some “universal” decision that was implemented in some way.

The process that led to the collection of writings that were considered authoritative as scripture, namely the canon, was quite painstakingly extensive. From a very early stage, christians were collecting and using Christian writings of various sorts. Sometimes one community used the same writings as another community, but seldom did everyone agree which ones should be considered “scripture”, if they considered this issue at all. In some cases writings accepted by one christian community could be utterly rejected as “heretical” by another, as was the case with many “gnostic” writings. The process of choosing the writings that were considered canon and excluding certain other documents was, in some ways, the triumph of one Christian view over another. In the mid-second century, as Jblake has pointed out, “The earliest extant text that provides a list of canonical books by name, is Marcion’s, circa 140 CE” however, Marcion of Sinope had clear ideas of what he would include in an authoritative collection, including the Gospel of Luke and certain letters of Paul, but he did so in a way that tried to remove any passages that seemed to equate the Jewish God with the God who sent Jesus (he thought there were two gods involved) invalidating that list!!!

Others disagreed with Marcion, although some began to agree that it was probably a good idea to define the writings that were apostolic in nature and indubitably authoritative. The Muratorian canon on the other hand is an extant list of writings (perhaps from around 200 CE), and does in fact coincide with the books that were later included in the New Testament and the C.C. provided us with this list of canonical books by name, in the form of a table of contents. However this was not the final draft; that would come later! Other Christians at this time would still continue to make a different list, and even the Muratorian canon mentions an Apocalypse of Peter, which some held to be authoritative but which did not ultimately make it into the New Testament, codified by the C.C. Even the Apocalypse of John, also known as Revelation, continued to be hotly debated into the fourth century.

I really wish Catholics would qualify what is meant when they say that for the first three centuries there was no New Testament. That is simply not true. The documents that became the New Testament were circulated among the Churches with much consensus about which ones were accepted for use in the liturgy. The four Gospels were undisputed pretty much from the time of their writing.

The difference between the New Testament of the earliest Church and the Church following the closing of the canon was that after the canon was closed, THEN these documents were KNOWN de fide (with “divine and infallible faith”) that these writings were Scripture.

 

[joe370]

I really wish Catholics would qualify what is meant when they say that for the first three centuries there was no New Testament. That is simply not true. The documents that became the New Testament were circulated among the Churches with much consensus about which ones were accepted for use in the liturgy. The four Gospels were undisputed pretty much from the time of their writing.

The difference between the New Testament of the earliest Church and the Church following the closing of the canon was that after the canon was closed, THEN these documents were KNOWN de fide (with “divine and infallible faith”) that these writings were Scripture.

I AGREE…

 

[joe370]

*“I really wish Catholics would qualify what is meant when they say that for the first three centuries there was no New Testament. That is simply not true. The documents that became the New Testament were circulated among the Churches with much consensus about which ones were accepted for use in the liturgy. The four Gospels were undisputed pretty much from the time of their writing."

The difference between the New Testament of the earliest Church and the Church following the closing of the canon was that after the canon was closed, THEN these documents were KNOWN de fide (with “divine and infallible faith”) that these writings were Scripture.”
*

CLARIFICATION…

Sacred Apostolic Tradition gave way to the Sacred Scripture, (27 books of the N.T.) and WAS certainly circulating among the early churches by the end of the 1st century AD! --and WAS used as preaching and teaching sources. However as I mentioned at post 180 spurious writings were also in circulation, and of course the C.C. KEPT THESE WRITINGS AT BAY BY COMPARING THEM TO APOSTOLIC TRADITION HANDED DOWN TO THE C.C.

“Link below gives us a look at the hodgepodge of writings floating around before the C.C. finally, via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, canonized and codified the bible. This list clearly proves that the bible did not, could not stand on its own!”

earlychristianwritings.com/

However, The New Testament, as we have received it, wasn’t finally canonized and codified until the latter part of the 4th century AD. Until then, what gave the church its cohesion between the Apostles and the canonization of the New Testament? What determined orthodoxy of faith in the face of heresies and heretics? Except for a few minor variations, why did the Church worship God the same throughout the known world? How could writer after writer call the Church “catholic” (universal) without the unifying element of the New Testament? What kept the Church afloat until the New Testament could be canonized? In fact, what was the “rule” the Catholic Church used to admit certain books, and exclude others from the New Testament canon?

The answers to these questions is found in the Traditions of the Apostles handed down to the Early Church Fathers. This sounds strange to Protestant ears, who, (like myself as a former Lutheran) have been taught the “word” has pre-eminence over everything! Yet I was ignoring the very Church that gathered, preserved, and produced the bible. Does the Tradition of the Apostles and Church Fathers have precedence over the Bible? By no means! The Bible with the Traditions of the Apostles and Church Fathers give us the total picture of God’s work in and through the Church.

 

[joe370]

The Jews well understand the place of tradition in their faith. The Torah was given by God to Israel at Sinai, but there was also an “oral tradition” called, the Talmud, on how the Torah should be applied. For example, the Torah stipulated the times and types of sacrifices the priest should offer, but did not always tell how the animal was to be slaughtered, dismembered, or presented on the altar. Judges were to administer justice, but the Torah did not tell how court was to be held. Engagements and marriages were to be held; the Torah did not detail how or where the marriages were to be performed. The details and applications were handed down through oral, priestly traditions.

Of course oral traditions did not have the authority of divinely inspired literature, and many times Jewish traditions conflicted with revelation knowledge. These were the traditions Jesus condemned (Matthew 12:2, 10; 16:12; Mark 7:1-23). Yet He followed certain traditions:

1. He accepted the title of Rabbi
2. He gathered about Him disciples
3. He wore a beard
4. He recognized the tradition of feet-washing for guests
5. He rarely ventured outside of Israel to have contact with Gentiles
6. He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath
7. He recognized the “seat of Moses” as the legitimately ordained teaching office of the Jewish religion (Mat.23:1).

Apostolic Tradition, however, differs significantly from Jewish traditions in that Apostolic Tradition contains ALL that the Apostles handed on to their successors, both written and oral. It is the total revelation of Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church, not accumulative practices and interpretations that many wrongly assert today. This sacred tradition (Gk. Paradosis = “that which is handed down”) IS divine revelation transmitted from one generation to another as a sacred body of knowledge. It is the “faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). In 2 Thessalonians Paul admonished the Thessalonians:
Stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.(2 Thessalonians 2:15)
He wrote to the Corinthians:
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, (paradosis) just as I passed them on to you . (1 Corinthians 11:2)
To some who refused his authority, Paul appealed to the universally practised but unwritten traditions of the church:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice (custom)-- nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)
These statements made by Paul show that practices and traditions recognized by the Apostles had begun to develop within his lifetime. In fact, he quotes teachings attributed to Jesus that cannot be found in the gospels:
*…remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.
In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should– receive their living from the gospel. *(1 Corinthians 9:14)

Hence, the Christian faith began to grow well beyond the pages of the New Testament. Customs, practices, traditions, all practised and recognized by the Apostles, guided the first century church through its formative years. Without knowledge and familiarity with ALL of the Church’ s teachings, our grasp of the Christian message may be good, but certainly it is not complete.

 

[Lilyflower]

The Nicene Creed, (so called) is nothing short of the doctrine of spiritualism. Not all Protestants would support this “Creed.”

Another thing that is not found in the Bible is “catholic” or “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic.” You have proved nothing with all your long posts, and then to try and “use” Scripture to “prove” your point, saying how “not everything is in the Bible;” you mock the intended context of God’s Word. Anyone who knows the doctrine of “sola scriptura” correctly would know that it is not correct to say “the Bible has everyting in it;” regarding salvation; yet, it has to be recognized that the Bible has everything NECESSARY for our salvation. The same cannot be said for the APOCRYPHA.

If these is something outside the Bible which relates a Bible truth, then it would not contradict anything in the Bible; and you could then relax and go back to being a Protestant. That’s one thing we are right about. The Bible speaks for itself; and it says all that we need to know. The Apocrypha adds NOTHING that is essential, in addition to the Bible.

Perhaps because ‘Catholic’ was before the Bible. When St Ignatious of Antioch [a disciple of St John the Evangelist] used the term Catholic [taken from the Greek Katholicos], the Bible was still two centuries away from being formulated and canonised…

St Paul says 'when I persecuted The Church of God and tried to destroy it’. Galations 1:13. Note he did not say ‘churches of God’ nor ‘tried to destroy them!!’ If you do not like the term ‘Catholic’ then just use the term ‘Church’ we don’t mind!

I note that ‘Protestant’ isn’t mentioned in the Bible either.

Blessings and peace

 

[SIA]

Perhaps because ‘Catholic’ was before the Bible. When St Ignatious of Antioch [a disciple of St John the Evangelist] used the term Catholic [taken from the Greek Katholicos], the Bible was still two centuries away from being formulated and canonised…

St Paul says 'when I persecuted The Church of God and tried to destroy it’. Galations 1:13. Note he did not say ‘churches of God’ nor ‘tried to destroy them!!’ If you do not like the term ‘Catholic’ then just use the term ‘Church’ we don’t mind!

I note that ‘Protestant’ isn’t mentioned in the Bible either.

Blessings and peace

Then why does St. Paul’s teachings differ so much from those of the RCC? You may want to really ponder whether the RCC is following Biblical teachings in some of the doctrines or not.

 

[JRKH]

Then why does St. Paul’s teachings differ so much from those of the RCC? You may want to really ponder whether the RCC is following Biblical teachings in some of the doctrines or not.

What teachings of Paul’s do you believe are “So much different” than the RCC?

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Then why does St. Paul’s teachings differ so much from those of the RCC? You may want to really ponder whether the RCC is following Biblical teachings in some of the doctrines or not.

You’re joking. Right? Sometimes humor doesn’t transmit well on the Internet.