C
Church_Militant
Guest
History shows that it was not.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
There is no question that the OT existed before the Church. However, that was not the question.
Did the Bible exist before the Church?
No, the Bible is a collection of books that was put together by the Church in the fourth century after a careful review of many books and letters that were in circulation.
Indeed, many of the the letters now contained in the Bible were written to various local churches which were obviously in existence before the letters were written to them.
Now, if the OP is wondering if the Church did not have the teaching of Jesus in ORAL form before the Church was formed (at the Cross for Catholics, on the day of Pentecost for Protestants), then the answer is yes.
Sacred Scripture is the written portion of the Tradition that the Church holds as the full deposit of faith.
Did the Bible exist before the Church?
No, the Bible is a collection of books that was put together by the Church in the fourth century after a careful review of many books and letters that were in circulation.
Indeed, many of the the letters now contained in the Bible were written to various local churches which were obviously in existence before the letters were written to them.
Now, if the OP is wondering if the Church did not have the teaching of Jesus in ORAL form before the Church was formed (at the Cross for Catholics, on the day of Pentecost for Protestants), then the answer is yes.
Sacred Scripture is the written portion of the Tradition that the Church holds as the full deposit of faith.
V
VociMike
Guest
I think you’re confusing the bible with the deposit of faith. The deposit of faith is everything that God revealed to the apostles. The bible is a subset of that total revelation. John says that hardly anything Jesus did (that would including teachings) was written down.Do you agree with the title of this thread? Why or why not?
This is something that has been weighing on my heart as of late. Technically the bible was being written and developed as christianity was getting its start. The words that Jesus spoke…
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Cute!I think it is more likely, that Church Doctrine developed, and this predudiced, the way the Bible was translated from the written words of the original Authors of the Scriptures, into other languages.
The New Testament…from Greek into Latin… From Latin into English as example.
Interpretation as opposed to Translation.
God does watch over his word however, enough of it survives intact to contradict Church Doctrine… enough for any lay student of the Bible to go in search of the truth… because God does not Lie… and God NEVER contradicts himself.
Peace
K
kaycee
Guest
3 legs to the Roman Catholic stool.Singingbeauty,
Your definition of the “Bible” pre-existing the pen [or being written down] is a form of oral tradition. This is a wonderful testimony to what the Church teaches. There are three legs to the Christian stool, The Church, Tradition, and Scripture [the Bible].
S
scylla
Guest
I would be completely impossible for the Bible to exist as the Book of Revelation didn’t exist until the revelation of Jesus to John actually happened way after the Church existed.
The definition of the Bible would be the collection of Books which are God’s Word and Revelation.
To remove a book then would not make it the Bible but most the books of the Bible.
To not have a book exist would mean that the Bible did not exist even in theory as it would be impossible to access the information contained in the book that is missing, as it would not exist yet.
Now the revelation to St John was direct from Heaven, and this was not publically known until it was spoken of or written down.
This happened after Jesus went back to heaven and after the founding of the Church, so it is impossible and would be insulting God to speak as if we knew what God would say to John. It would be like we are placing ourselves in God’s place, and our revelation should come from God not from our guess of what God is going to say.
This theory would actually negate the value of truth as then it really wouldn’t matter what Jesus taught as it wasn’t really true. Did Jesus come to teach us 100% truth or did He not. To state that it changed would be to deny the reason Jesus taught as truth doesn’t matter to God. It would also be to deny that Jesus is God as He would just be another teacher who didn’t do His job.
This is fundamentally evil as it denies that Jesus is God and that He actually cared about truth.
Now to affirm that Jesus is God is to state that He did teach truth, that He taught it 100% and that He has the power to maintain it for all ages even the 50 or so years where there was no Bible books written or 2000 years later. Truth would be know to all ages and able to be known. This is affirming the divinity of Jesus.
In Christ
Scylla
The definition of the Bible would be the collection of Books which are God’s Word and Revelation.
To remove a book then would not make it the Bible but most the books of the Bible.
To not have a book exist would mean that the Bible did not exist even in theory as it would be impossible to access the information contained in the book that is missing, as it would not exist yet.
Now the revelation to St John was direct from Heaven, and this was not publically known until it was spoken of or written down.
This happened after Jesus went back to heaven and after the founding of the Church, so it is impossible and would be insulting God to speak as if we knew what God would say to John. It would be like we are placing ourselves in God’s place, and our revelation should come from God not from our guess of what God is going to say.
This theory would actually negate the value of truth as then it really wouldn’t matter what Jesus taught as it wasn’t really true. Did Jesus come to teach us 100% truth or did He not. To state that it changed would be to deny the reason Jesus taught as truth doesn’t matter to God. It would also be to deny that Jesus is God as He would just be another teacher who didn’t do His job.
This is fundamentally evil as it denies that Jesus is God and that He actually cared about truth.
Now to affirm that Jesus is God is to state that He did teach truth, that He taught it 100% and that He has the power to maintain it for all ages even the 50 or so years where there was no Bible books written or 2000 years later. Truth would be know to all ages and able to be known. This is affirming the divinity of Jesus.
In Christ
Scylla
Y
YADA
Guest
I beg to differ, it is a “Christian Stool”
Roman, is a term that describes one Rite of the Universal Christian Church. It comes out of the Reformation which of course is also the birth place from which Protestants and the many churches spawned by the ‘reformers’. All Christians were at one time referred to as “Catholic”
In the days before the fracture, there existed a Church, frm which a Tradition flowed. Out of that Tradition came a collection of writings. Thise writings were collected, scrutinized, some accepted, some rejected. Those that were acccepted were cherished, preserved, copied, translated and handed on to future christians. That collection is called the New Testament. The New Testament was combined with the writings from the faith community [the Jews] that gave birth to the Christian Church, The Hebrew Texts we call the “Old Testament” into a compendium called “the Bible”.
You can attempt to re-write history, you can malign the Church and her teachings, but the fact remains that the early Church was, in its scripture, traditions, practice and beliefs, “Catholic”.
Want God’s Truth? Seek God’s Church and read her [the Church’s] documents, like the Bible, follow the instruction and teaching of the successors of the apostles.
Roman, is a term that describes one Rite of the Universal Christian Church. It comes out of the Reformation which of course is also the birth place from which Protestants and the many churches spawned by the ‘reformers’. All Christians were at one time referred to as “Catholic”
In the days before the fracture, there existed a Church, frm which a Tradition flowed. Out of that Tradition came a collection of writings. Thise writings were collected, scrutinized, some accepted, some rejected. Those that were acccepted were cherished, preserved, copied, translated and handed on to future christians. That collection is called the New Testament. The New Testament was combined with the writings from the faith community [the Jews] that gave birth to the Christian Church, The Hebrew Texts we call the “Old Testament” into a compendium called “the Bible”.
You can attempt to re-write history, you can malign the Church and her teachings, but the fact remains that the early Church was, in its scripture, traditions, practice and beliefs, “Catholic”.
I think it is more likely, that Church Doctrine developed, and this predudiced, the way the Bible was translated from the written words of the original Authors of the Scriptures, into other languages.
The New Testament…from Greek into Latin… From Latin into English as example.
Interpretation as opposed to Translation.
God does watch over his word however, enough of it survives intact to contradict Church Doctrine… enough for any lay student of the Bible to go in search of the truth… because God does not Lie… and God NEVER contradicts himself.
The scriptures, being written BY A FAITH COMMUNITY FOR A FAITH COMMUNITY, is exactly an interpretation of the FAITH of that COMMUNITY. The Hebrew Texts and the New Testament are the Churches understandings. They are inspired by God but written with human hands… Want God’s dictated word, investigate Mormanism and Islam, they have the dictation. Want to seek your own truth, read the bible and seek your personal interpretation [inspired by the Holy Spirit of course!] After all if you believe that is what it means, it must be so!Peace
Want God’s Truth? Seek God’s Church and read her [the Church’s] documents, like the Bible, follow the instruction and teaching of the successors of the apostles.
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
Prior to the Incarnation the Jewish priesthood only considered the Penteteuch (sp.) to be inspired/holy writings. The laity considered both the Penteteuch and the Prophets and some wisdom literature to be holy writings. It was for this reason that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and the Pharisees did.
It was the Church that determined what holy writings constituted the Bible, that is why the Protestant Bible differs from the Catholic Bible. Luther didn’t care for some of the things taught in the deuterocanonical books so he tossed them. He also wanted to toss James, Revelation, Philemon, and a couple of other N.T. books if I recall correctly. Without the Teaching Authority of the Church anyone could claim that any writings were holy and stick them in the canon.
Ergo, the Church predates the Bible.
It was the Church that determined what holy writings constituted the Bible, that is why the Protestant Bible differs from the Catholic Bible. Luther didn’t care for some of the things taught in the deuterocanonical books so he tossed them. He also wanted to toss James, Revelation, Philemon, and a couple of other N.T. books if I recall correctly. Without the Teaching Authority of the Church anyone could claim that any writings were holy and stick them in the canon.
Ergo, the Church predates the Bible.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.