The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[AmericanJosiah]

It became a “done deal” when Pope Innocent I made the infallible declaration and promulgated it in 405 AD. Up until that moment, anyone could have disagreed with it, and still been in full communion with the Church. After that point, it was known to be a dogmatic Truth, which means that it was no longer arguable.

Christians reached that consensus LONG before “Pope Innocent 1” did anything…

Now, it’s true - the Revelation of John and Hebrews would remain just a bit debated for centuries, but that only reveals that Pope Innocent 1 accomplished nothing with any statements he made.

Read the history. The books from Genesis - Revelation were embraced as Scripture in most cases many centuries before Pope Innocent was born.

It was God who formed it. The Pope was simply making known to the Church what God had already done

Right. Then “Pope Innocent 1” didn’t give us the Bible. Nor did The Catholic Church. Just as history proves.

.

 

[Bill_Pick]

You’re right. You are definitely “NotTooSmart”

Irish, You got that one right,he Is NotToomart,but he is a good guy and he has a new name now

 

[Hiskid1973]

You’re right. You are definitely “NotTooSmart”

Do you always season your speech with this much grace ? I always thought we address the argument and not the poster…

 

[Bill_Pick]

Christians reached that consensus LONG before “Pope Innocent 1” did anything…

Now, it’s true - the Revelation of John and Hebrews would remain just a bit debated for centuries, but that only reveals that Pope Innocent 1 accomplished nothing with any statements he made.

Read the history. The books from Genesis - Revelation were embraced as Scripture in most cases many centuries before Pope Innocent was born.

Can you please give us a time line of the Bible or some peak moments

Right. Then “Pope Innocent 1” didn’t give us the Bible. Nor did The Catholic Church. Just as history proves.

.

 

[jmcrae]

The church reached that consensus LONG before “Pope Innocent 1” did anything…

so you keep saying, and yet, according to your own time-line, St. Athanasius was the first to come up with the canon that we now use, in the mid-300s AD.

Now, it’s true - the Revelation of John and Hebrews would remain just a bit debated for centuries,

Which means that the canon was not yet settled, right?

but that only reveals that Pope Innocent 1 accomplished nothing with any statements he made.

What he accomplished was, he made it possible for every Christian priest on earth to know what is permitted to be read out during the Liturgy of the Word at Mass, and also made it possible for St. Jerome to add the New Testament to his translation of the Bible, thus producing the world’s very first Bible in the form that we all know and love today.

Read the history. The books from Genesis - Revelation were embraced as Scripture in most cases many centuries before Pope Innocent was born.

What is “many” in your mind? Keep in mind, the Church itself was less than five centuries old, and the books of the New Testament certainly don’t predate the coming of Christ.

Right. Then “Pope Innocent 1” didn’t give us the Bible.

Nope. He only made it possible for us to know what it is, so that we can read it for ourselves.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill_Pick:
Well who did give us the Bible,did it just fall out of the sky

 

[jmcrae]

Well who did give us the Bible,did it just fall out of the sky

Yep, and then King James found it under a rock in Palestine and translated it (despite being almost completely illiterate), thus making the English-speaking peoples the greatest civilization on earth, rising up out of their popish darkness and into the wonderful light of a zillion different interpretations, which is all fine and dandy, as long as they are anything but Catholic.

(I’m kidding, of course!)

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Do you always season your speech with this much grace ? I always thought we address the argument and not the poster…

Okay.

Then the difference between the canonization of the Bible, and the Inquisition, is that the canonization of the Bible was an inspired, infallible act. The Church is infallible in matters of faith & morals, and the books of the Bible are definitlely a matter of faith.

The Inquisition was a mere political escapade, and the consequences of them were mostly carried out by governments, not the Church. It had nothing to do with teaching faith or morals.

To compare the two is non-sensical. Hence my off-colored remark to the other poster. I don’t see why it is even neccessary to explain the blatantly obvious.

BTW: I recognize your screen name from another forum. Do you belong to another forum?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

did it just fall out of the sky

There is as much historical support for that as that it fell from The Catholic Church…

For the NT, read posts 556 and 558.

.

 

[peary]

Read posts 556 and 558.

That’s the history. And we see that The Catholic Church had NOTHING to do with it. It did not give us “the Bible” - OT or NT. It had nothing to do with it. That’s simply history.

.

“that’s the history”
“that’s simply history”

jrk

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

There is as much historical support for that as that it fell from The Catholic Church…

Thats just absurd. Everyone knows that the canon of the new testament was endorsed by the councils of Rome and Hippo, and ratified by Pope Damasus I. Thats just plain history

 

[jmcrae]

There is as much historical support for that as that it fell from The Catholic Church.

If you buy something that was made by employees of the Ford Motor Company, you say that “Ford made this,” usually, right? Because at the time that they made it, they weren’t just messing around in their spare time - it was their actual paid work that they were doing on behalf of the Ford Motor Company.

The Bishops who gave us the canon of the New Testament were working for and being paid by the Catholic Church, at the time, precisely for the very purpose of discerning the canon of the Scriptures, which is why we can say that “the Church” gave us the canon of the New Testament (not to mention the books themselves, which were also written by eight Catholic Bishops who lived during the first century, including our first Pope).

 

[peary]

If you buy something that was made by employees of the Ford Motor Company, you say that “Ford made this,” usually, right? Because at the time that they made it, they weren’t just messing around in their spare time - it was their actual paid work that they were doing on behalf of the Ford Motor Company.

The Bishops who gave us the canon of the New Testament were working for and being paid by the Catholic Church, at the time, precisely for the very purpose of discerning the canon of the Scriptures, which is why we can say that “the Church” gave us the canon of the New Testament (not to mention the books themselves, which were also written by eight Catholic Bishops who lived during the first century, including our first Pope).

Arguing with this guy is like talking to a wall. Let him be. Obviously, he is either in here to push buttons or is just being what we unspeakably think he is.

 

[jmcrae]

Arguing with this guy is like talking to a wall. Let him be. Obviously, he is either in here to push buttons or is just being what we unspeakably think he is.

You’re right, of course. I was thinking that if I could just put it into words of one syllable, he might “get it,” but of course, he is not interested in “getting it.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh wait. . .I think I have it.

The early Christians were not “Catholic”. They weren’t anything but ‘plain Christians’ (just like Protestants today who simply ‘follow Christ’).

And as for the people who were called to study the writings and see what was Scripture, they were, like “Robo-Christians”. They ‘identified’ what God had predestined to be Scripture. And of course (it cannot be emphasized enough) they were certainly not the same people as those pesky RCC ers. The nerve of those clods! Everybody knows that RCC people weren’t around back then. They only came into being by driving the ‘real’ Christians into hiding. First they chased away some good “plain Christians” in the East. Some of those became Orthodox and fell into error. The rest stayed "plain Christians’ and just kind of tried to maintain a low profile. And those RCCers also drove away "plain Christians’ in the West. Some of them they told LIES about (like the saintly Albigensians), but mostly they just tried to kill anybody who would not reject Christ and worship the 'Pope and an evil goddess whom they attempted to say was Mary, as IF some ‘human’ was powerful, as IF Mary mattered. ALso the RCCers were terrible anti Semites and made all sorts of rules to kill Jews (which the PLAIN Christians would NEVER have done), and they also went after the poor innocent Muslims in order to STEAL MUSLIM Land, rape their women, and force them to worship the Pope and Mary).

Finally God’s will prevailed and the "plain Christians’ gathered together and overcame the RCC’s because the RCC’s had NEVER allowed Christians to really READ the Bible which was full of stuff that showed how wrong the RCCs were and how perfect the “plain Christians were.” The common people rebelled against the awful RCCs and the plain Christians are able to worship God. . .except they have to be very careful because even now there is a worldwide conspiracy of JESUITS who are spying on them and the supercomputer at the Vatican has a list of all the heroic Protestants whom every Pope-worshipping, Mary-worshipping Papist is sworn to kill. . .



There you go. The gospel according to the anti-Catholics. A mixture of lies (there is no Vatican supercomputer or Jesuit conspiracy), distortion (the Church had always “allowed” the Bible to be read, for example, but sometimes people made up ‘false Bibles’ and tried to get the people to accept the false Bibles. THOSE were the ones that were forbidden, not the true Bible.), revisionist history, and wishful thinking. Sad.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If you buy something that was made by employees of the Ford Motor Company, you say that “Ford made this,” usually, right? Because at the time that they made it, they weren’t just messing around in their spare time - it was their actual paid work that they were doing on behalf of the Ford Motor Company.

The Bishops who gave us the canon of the New Testament were working for and being paid by the Catholic Church, at the time, precisely for the very purpose of discerning the canon of the Scriptures, which is why we can say that “the Church” gave us the canon of the New Testament (not to mention the books themselves, which were also written by eight Catholic Bishops who lived during the first century, including our first Pope).

So, when Moses came down the Mountain with the Ten Commandments, they were acknowledged as Scripture because Moses was on the payroll of The Catholic Church? And when Jesus refered to Scripture (some 50 times), He did so because He was on the payroll of The Catholic Church? Do you have any historical evidence of such?

Look, theres’ NOTHING in the quotes I provided that suggests ANY of these man are speaking specifically FOR The Catholic Church as a paid employee. They are sharing THEIR perspective. I’m officially an American citizen. I can state, “White Turkey meat is better than dark turkey meat” but that doesn’t mean that is the official position of The United States of America or that The United States of America made the white meat better. You are making much from nothing.

The history is clear. NOTHING in any of those quotes so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church. We see a growing consensus among believers. It began with the first Scripture which even The Catholic Church acknowledges was nearly ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED YEARS before it ever even came into existance. The New Testament was embraced LONG before ANY denomination did ANYTHING. The first thing you POSSIBLY could point it (and it would be a stretch) would be the Council of Hippo. But read the history: the list was already largely agreed upon. It MAY (at the very, very most) have ACKNOWLEDGED the list already agreed upon, but acknowledging something is entirely unrelated to choosing or causing it. I acknowledge that the sun came up this morning, I had nothing to do with it.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Oh wait. . .I think I have it.

The early Christians were not “Catholic”. They weren’t anything but ‘plain Christians’ (just like Protestants today who simply ‘follow Christ’).

You seem to think that sarcasism is an acceptable substitute for evidence…

Let’s pretend that every Christian from India to England before 393 was officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with The Catholic Church and accepted with docility all 2,875 points of the Catholic Catechism. Okay. Even if ALL of them believed that the world was flat, that would NOT mean that The Catholic Church made the world flat. You’d simply have a wide-spread opinion. The claim is NOT that “Catholics gave us the Bible” (which of course would require that Moses be a member of a congregation legally affiated with The Catholic Church and docilicly affirming all 2,875 points of the Catechism), but that The Catholic Church did.

I find the two “choices” you provide equally amusing but equally baseless.

The gospel according to the anti-Catholics. A mixture of lies (there is no Vatican supercomputer or Jesuit conspiracy), distortion (the Church had always “allowed” the Bible to be read, for example, but sometimes people made up ‘false Bibles’ and tried to get the people to accept the false Bibles. THOSE were the ones that were forbidden, not the true Bible.), revisionist history, and wishful thinking. Sad.

And gives no support to the claim that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible…

.

 

[jmcrae]

So, when Moses came down the Mountain with the Ten Commandments, they were acknowledged as Scripture because Moses was on the payroll of The Catholic Church? And when Jesus refered to Scripture (some 50 times), He did so because He was on the payroll of The Catholic Church? Do you have any historical evidence of such?

Did I even say such a thing? No. Moses was appointed by God to lead Israel. Read Numbers 16 to see what God did to those who didn’t follow His appointed leader - even when he was making mistakes.

Look, theres’ NOTHING in the quotes I provided that suggests ANY of these man are speaking specifically FOR The Catholic Church as a paid employee.

Nor would I have expected you to quote such a thing, since it would totally undermine your argument. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t, though.

They are sharing THEIR perspective.

They were acting on behalf of the Church; they weren’t doing this in their spare time for something to do.

I’m officially an American citizen. I can state, “White Turkey meat is better than dark turkey meat” but that doesn’t mean that is the official position of The United States of America or that The United States of America made the white meat better. You are making much from nothing.

That’s true, but the United States of America can also act as an entity in and of itself - for example, it can go to war with Iraq. We say “America is at war with Iraq” because this is an official act of the American government, acting on behalf of the people of America. The American soldiers in Iraq are not just there on a holiday of some kind - they are acting on behalf of America, and being paid by the American government to do what they do.

NOTHING in any of those quotes so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church.

Only because you didn’t include any. The fact that you didn’t include any doesn’t mean that there aren’t any (and in fact the book where that information comes from is called The Sources of Catholic Dogma, so obviously the original writers of those quotes thought they were Catholic), or that the Pope was not Catholic, or that the Bishops in union with him were not Catholic - of course they were! There was not really much else for them to be, back then Maybe a Gnostic, or an Arian, or something, but it’s obvious that they weren’t either of those.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

You seem to think that sarcasism is an acceptable substitute for evidence…

Pot meet Kettle.

Didn’t you just get through saying that there is as much historical support that the Bible fell from the sky as there is that it fell from The Catholic Church?

At least Tantum Ergo can afford to be sarcastic since his position is correct. You on the other hand are just plain wrong on both counts

 

[Bill_Pick]

Pot meet Kettle.

Didn’t you just get through saying that there is as much historical support that the Bible fell from the sky as there is that it fell from The Catholic Church?

At least Tantum Ergo can afford to be sarcastic since his position is correct. You on the other hand are just plain wrong on both counts

No I think that was a Baptist friend that siad he fell out of a plane.