The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[jake23]

Actually, every word of Scripture pre-dates The Catholic Church doing ANYTHING in this regard - as history shows. Most of the Bible was written and regarded as Scripture CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church itself alone claims to have come into existence, so therefore it is historically IMPOSSIBLE for it to gave given that to anyone. And we know from history that every single one of the books now regarded as Scripture was so regarded generally LONG before The Catholic Church finally (well, later is better than never) The Catholic Church did a THING in that regard.

IF you wish to defind this often made Catholic claim (well, Catholics - I’ve never read where The Catholic Church claims this), then show that every bit of Scripture was given by The Catholic Church. Start with the oldest part (generally thought to be The Ten Commandments written around 1400 BC) and right through all the material through Revelation (thought to be the newest part, around 95 AD) and document that The Catholic Church gave it. Not God, not people, not Jews or Christians, but specifically, particularly, The Catholic Church. OR you could agree with my Catholic teachers who taught me that God gave the Scriptures via His penmen (the identity of many of whom are not even known), believers were lead to embrace them as Scriptures, the later - most denominations officially, formally acknowledged the list (yours did officially in Trent, Italy, in the 16th Century, but even if you regard Hippo or Carthrige around 400 - that’s centuries after the fact for most of the books). Acknowledging something is entirely unrelated to giving or forming or causing such. I acknowledge that the Constitution of the United States was written, but I didn’t give it. I didn’t have a thing to do with it.

.

You should start standing on your tippy toes since everything seems to be going over you head. All of the new testemant was written after the existance of the holy catholic church. Peter is the Bishop of all bishops which the bible refers to as apostles. The church that was formed by Christ himself was, is, and always will be the holy catholic church wither you choose to realize it or not. Good luck on your journey! I will pray for you!

 

[Hiskid1973]

The Catholic Church identified it, and collected it, and that’s where the Bible came from.

Josiah, If he replaced the words “Catholic church” with believers from the one, holy, catholic church comprised of what it now the Catholic and the Orthodox churches would you agree ?

 

[jmcrae]

It’s not? What Scriptures do you believe are such but are not in your Bible (or vise versa?)

None, that’s the point. The Bible is the box. The Scriptures are what the box contains.

“Bible” can refer to specific tomes, like the one my mom bought me (in which case, my mom gave me the Bible), but generally, it means the corpus of Scriptures.

Right. The corpus (body, or container) came into existence in the last decade of the 300s AD. Prior to that, the various books were scattered all over the world, each in different cities, and different libraries. Before then, you could not “pick up a Bible”. You could pick up the Letter to the Ephesians in the library at Ephesus, and you could pick up a copy of the Torah in a Jewish synagogue in Jerusalem, but they were not together, yet.

If The Catholic Church gave us all of the Scriptures,

Nobody says it did - the Church gathered all of the Scriptures together from every city throughout the known world, and put them into the Bible.

t

hen it’s a rather simply process to document that as truthful: Just start with the oldest part (The Ten Commandments - around 1400 BC) and show that it came specificly, solely from The Catholic Church, and just proceed through all the material.

The Church ensured that the Ten Commandments got into the Bible, in 397 AD. That how you and I know today that it’s Scripture.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, If he replaced the words “Catholic church” with believers from the one, holy, catholic church comprised of what it now the Catholic and the Orthodox churches would you agree ?

No.

I believe that God gave us the Bible, and did so via His penmen (many of whom we cannot identify, and probably most of them lived and wrote CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself even claims to have begun).

Now, for the New Testament (roughly one - third of the Bible), I do not think it can be claimed that all the penmen were officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with specific, particular Catholic Church. I’m sure they were all Christians (and thus of the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints) but that’s a whole other issue. We don’t even know who was the penmen in several cases. But, IMHO, GOD inspired all the words, and MEN wrote them down. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it.

Now, I think what may be MEANT is sometime entirely different. Not that The Catholic Chruch gave us the Bible (which flies in the face of history and the Catholic Church’s own doctrine of Scripture), but rather that some Catholic’s claim the Councils of Hippo and Cathage as specificly CATHOLIC councils (I wonder if the EO and OO agree - that they had nothign to do with it?) and that they formally stated the embraced list of books. Let’s pretend all that is true, then history reveals that It did nothing other than acknowledge what already was. To acknowledge is unrelated to forming or creating or causing - and certainly from giving. Most denominations (including mine) have - at some formal, official meeting - said “These are the Scriptures.” But that’s not the same thing as giving them. I could point to a Corvette and say, “This is a Corvette!” but that doesn’t mean I created it or formed it or give it to you, lol. I can acknowledge (as officially or formally as you’d like) that the sun came up this morning. I didn’t make it happen.

Now, IF the Council of Hippo had happened in say 95 AD, this ALTERNATIVE claim would have some teeth to it, but it comes 300 years too late to mean much; it’s after the reality. And again, this alternative is not the claim. The often heard claim is that The Catholic Church (that specific institution) “gave us” the Bible and all therein. I find it historically incredible. AT MOST, what it did is what nearly all denominations have done: acknowledge the Scriptures as such - the writing, collecting and affirming as such was done by people (no denomination) in most cases centuries before any denomination did anything. It’s just undeniable history.

.

 

[Javl]

I specify because some define the Catholic church differently…

The Catholic Church today is the exact same Church as it was back then. How else can it be specified or defined?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[jmcrae]

No.

I believe that God gave us the Bible, and did so via His penmen (many of whom we cannot identify, and probably most of them lived and wrote CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself even claims to have begun).

What do you mean by “penmen”? Are you under the impression that God was talking audibly in their ears, and that they were just taking dictation from Him?

Now, for the New Testament (roughly one - third of the Bible), I do not think it can be claimed that all the penmen were officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with specific, particular Catholic Church.

All of them were in full communion with St. Peter, our first Pope. Mark may even have been his son.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Thanks Josiah, now I see where your coming from…God Bless…K

 

[Hiskid1973]

The Catholic Church today is the exact same Church as it was back then. How else can it be specified or defined?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I’d say there is a difference with the catholic church then and what it is now…peace to you also…

 

[Hiskid1973]

Yes sir…Thanks Bro…

 

[jmcrae]

Most denominations (including mine) have - at some formal, official meeting - said “These are the Scriptures.”

And it is nothing but an astounding coincidence that they all came up with the same list, right?

It’s far more likely that, in the interests of efficiency (since the Catholic Church took more than 200 years to discern the canon of the Scriptures) to simply assume that they got it right, and they went with the Catholic New Testament, and (for reasons no one has ever been able to explain, since the Janvians were anti-Christian) the Janvian canon of the Old Testament.

 

[historyb]

No.

I believe that God gave us the Bible, and did so via His penmen (many of whom we cannot identify, and probably most of them lived and wrote CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself even claims to have begun).

Now, for the New Testament (roughly one - third of the Bible), I do not think it can be claimed that all the penmen were officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with specific, particular Catholic Church. I’m sure they were all Christians (and thus of the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints) but that’s a whole other issue. We don’t even know who was the penmen in several cases. But, IMHO, GOD inspired all the words, and MEN wrote them down. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it.

Now, I think what may be MEANT is sometime entirely different. Not that The Catholic Chruch gave us the Bible (which flies in the face of history and the Catholic Church’s own doctrine of Scripture), but rather that some Catholic’s claim the Councils of Hippo and Cathage as specificly CATHOLIC councils (I wonder if the EO and OO agree - that they had nothign to do with it?) and that they formally stated the embraced list of books. Let’s pretend all that is true, then history reveals that It did nothing other than acknowledge what already was. To acknowledge is unrelated to forming or creating or causing - and certainly from giving. Most denominations (including mine) have - at some formal, official meeting - said “These are the Scriptures.” But that’s not the same thing as giving them. I could point to a Corvette and say, “This is a Corvette!” but that doesn’t mean I created it or formed it or give it to you, lol. I can acknowledge (as officially or formally as you’d like) that the sun came up this morning. I didn’t make it happen.

Now, IF the Council of Hippo had happened in say 95 AD, this ALTERNATIVE claim would have some teeth to it, but it comes 300 years too late to mean much; it’s after the reality. And again, this alternative is not the claim. The often heard claim is that The Catholic Church (that specific institution) “gave us” the Bible and all therein. I find it historically incredible. AT MOST, what it did is what nearly all denominations have done: acknowledge the Scriptures as such - the writing, collecting and affirming as such was done by people (no denomination) in most cases centuries before any denomination did anything. It’s just undeniable history.

.

Great post!

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

That’s my point…Some argue that it was the only CC that was responsible…ie Rome see…

Thats because before the schism, the Catholic Church WAS the Church, and because the bishops’ decisions were ratified by Pope Damasus

 

[mskejj]

Mark was St. Peter’s secretary…he had followed St. Paul for awhile and then became his secretary…and when St. Peter was asked to write down all of the things he knew…Mark did it for him. That is one of the reasons Mark’s gospel is critical of Peter…he knew him better than most…This information is from the writings of the early Church Fathers…by reading them you have a better understanding of who wrote the books and how they came about and what audience they were writing to etc…

BTW…there were over 250 “books” that were being used by various churches in the early centuries…some legit and some not…That was the reason for the church council to gather together to choose (through the Holy Spirit) which of the books were truly the inspired Word of God. In Jesus’s day the canon of the Old Testament had not even been settled.Different groups in Palestine honored different cannons. The canon the apostles and Jesus used was the Septuagint and the NT writers quoted this canon 90% of the time (340 times to the Hebrew canon 33 times) Hebrew canon doesn’t include the books not written in Hebrew and are the books taken out by Luther in the 1500’s.

Which OT would you rather use- the OT used by the apostles and other NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by the later Jews who rejected Christ?

 

[PRmerger]

Now, for the New Testament (roughly one - third of the Bible), I do not think it can be claimed that all the penmen were officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with specific, particular Catholic Church. **I’m sure they were all Christians **(and thus of the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints) but that’s a whole other issue.

Indeed! And they were Christians who believed
in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
in the Baptism of infants
in praying for the dead
in the priesthood
and celebrated the Divine Liturgy.

Now, what Christian church today does that sound like, Josiah?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, if Josiah refuses to allow the “Catholic Church the title on the grounds that the Orthodox were a part of the Church then” (and they are now but that’s beside the point) one wonders that Josiah has not become Orthodox. What is to stop him? He himself points out that the “EO and OO” to use his own words’ were there’.

But he will neither accept the Western (Latin) Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox. Why is that? If one was ‘wrong’ surely the other is correct, yes?

 

[Javl]

I’d say there is a difference with the catholic church then and what it is now…peace to you also…

Can you please tell me what the difference is? Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Hiskid1973]

Can you please tell me what the difference is? Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

There are a few differences that the orthodox have compared to the Catholic church after the schism…papal authority, indulgences, filoque, Marian dogma, immaculate, conception, purgatory ect…

 

[jmcrae]

There are a few differences that the orthodox have compared to the Catholic church after the schism…papal authority, indulgences, filoque, Marian dogma, immaculate, conception, purgatory ect…

All of those things have their roots in Apostolic doctrine and practices - some of them even go back into the Old Testament.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Is that the same apostolic doctrine and practices the Orthodox use? Is it apostolic doctrine after the original apostles…

 

[jmcrae]

Is that the same apostolic doctrine and practices the Orthodox use?

The Orthodox dropped a lot of stuff, and interpreted a lot of things differently, after they broke communion with the Pope. Each group of Orthodox basically has its own “take” on these things, since they don’t have any kind of unifying head or center for doctrine.