The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[Deconi]

And the difference between us is** I take God at His word and believe Him** when He said I don’t need anyone else to teach me. U want to believe tradition and history thats up to you.

Not completely, it seems!

But, hey, who is The Church to try and tell you anything, right?

Ah well! Maybe She’s just here to mislead people as she’s been doing since Christ ascended.

Fortunately, there’s you and your friends with a Book you found!

WHOA! And God teaches you HIMSELF??! Then you know EVERYTHING ‘Mohammed!’ Let’s sweep up the trees and turn off the rivers; pack away the stars and let’s all go home; there’s nothing left to be done here!

 

[Javl]

Mosacked:

We’ve tried to explain the whole situation to you, but you’re of the type “My mind is made up, please don’t confuse me with facts”…Why is your mind so closed? Why don’t you listen and at least try, try, try, to understand?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[PRmerger]

You do realize that the messages contained in written Scripture were transmitted orally, often long before making it to the written page, right?

Anna

Indeed.

My favorite verse in Scripture that depicts the oral tradition so well is: [BIBLEDRB]Acts 20:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Paul gives a teaching of Christ–never mentioned in the Gospels– which had been clearly handed down orally.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

And the difference between us is I take God at His word and believe Him when He said I don’t need anyone else to teach me. U want to believe tradition and history thats up to you.

I can give you numerousd ways in which you do not take God at Hids Word:

1. “This is my Body”
2. “I will give to you (Peter) the keys to the kingdom”
3. “Baptism now saves you”

There’s three off the top of my head that I’ll bet you do mental backflips over in order to avoid the plain meaning of the text

 

[ccolley2]

Actually, I stopped drinking Kool-aid, and started reading source documents, and thinking for myself.

You should try it!

Excellent answer!

 

[ccolley2]

Why stretch it when it sternly warned us not to?

Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.

Like, adding the word “alone” after the phrase “you are saved by faith” in the Scriptures?? now remind me again of who that was??? Oh, yes a man and then the Protestant church passed down that “tradition”~ ~

 

[Bill_Pick]

Like, adding the word “alone” after the phrase “you are saved by faith” in the Scriptures?? now remind me again of who that was??? Oh, yes a man and then the Protestant church passed down that “tradition”~ ~

You do know that REV is just talking about Rev and not all the bible

Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.

 

[AmateurPianist]

And the difference between us is I take God at His word and believe Him when He said I don’t need anyone else to teach me. U want to believe tradition and history thats up to you.

Question?

Do you attend a church? Does your pastor teach? Are you aware that teacher is one of the five offices in the Bible listed in Ephesians 4.

With regards to tradition, here is a question for you to think about. Do you have the right to determine your own personal New Testament? Say you decided you didn’t like the book of Hebrews and decided to drop it from your personal Bible?

You probably think this is an absurd proposition, correct. So my question to you is what exactly prevents you from doing that?

 

[graceandglory]

How?.. did it fall from the sky? how?

It must have been the “wonderful, magical” bible fairy…

 

[graceandglory]

And the difference between us is I take God at His word and believe Him when He said I don’t need anyone else to teach me. U want to believe tradition and history thats up to you.

You sound more like an anarchist than a Christian.

You are believing some man-made anti-establishment teaching, not the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You do know that REV is just talking about Rev and not all the bible

Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.

We’re “cherry picking” again. So, I’ll pick a few more cherries.

I don’t think you can use Revelation as an argument against Catechism/ECF, etc.–if that is your intention.

Have you forgotten about the verses quoted, below? We received more instructions, even from Christ Himself, since Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 4 (ESV): 1"And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you. 3Your eyes have seen what the LORD did at Baal-peor, for the LORD your God destroyed from among you all the men who followed the Baal of Peor.

Deuteronomy 12: 32 "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

**Proverbs 30: ** 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

I have to ask: how much study have you done regarding the transmission of Scripture?

You do realize that the messages contained in written Scripture were transmitted orally, often long before making it to the written page, right?

Anna

And I thank God for putting these down in scripture and teaching me HIMSELF as He hath promised. Amen.

Mosacked,
You missed the point. As Bill Pick said, Revelation is talking about Revelation, not all of the Bible.

There are more than 5,000 N.T. manuscripts known today. It was very common for scribes to scribble notes in the margins, when copying texts. Sometimes, the next scribe came along and copied the notes in the margin into the main body of text.

There were also scribes who decided to give the text a boost with a few of their own words. It was not uncommon for an author to issue warnings against changing his text. That is found in other writings, even outside those of the Biblical Cannon.

The point is the warning in Revelation applies only to Revelation. At one point in history, Revelation was considered to be a rather controversial book–and almost didn’t make it into the N.T Cannon. In fact, Luther wanted to scrap it.

There are many things that we really can’t fully explain by Scripture alone. The Trinity doctrine is the one often used to demonstrate the role of tradition in interpretation.

Also, the Biblical Cannon was established by the Catholic Church. As Protestants, we owe them a great debt.

As you know, the Apocrypha were removed during the Protestant Reformation. I can’t say that I believe that was an action inspired by God.

Many cling to the The King James Bible of 1611, even though the KJV contains many errors, having been translated from unreliable manuscripts. The KJV originally contained all 80 Books to include the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha were removed around 1885 (long after Luther’s death in 1546) leaving the 66 Books of the Protestant Biblical Cannon. That means the Apocrypha remained in the KJV for more than 270 years.

I’ve read a number of Books on the transmission of Scripture. For the sake of convenience I’ll refer you to Wikipedia for a quick, though rough, overview on Luther’s take on the Biblical Cannon. Notice, Luther was not fond of Revelation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”[6]

Like, adding the word “alone” after the phrase “you are saved by faith” in the Scriptures?? now remind me again of who that was??? Oh, yes a man and then the Protestant church passed down that “tradition”~ ~

The Wikipedia article does say that Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[3] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[4] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning. This is a literalist view rather than an literal view of the Bible which is contrary to all other references in the Bible, especially the book of James. [5]

I urge you to do some research on the transmission of Scripture and the history of Bible translations.

Anna

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

You are talking to a brick wall. Mosacked does not care about facts.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You are talking to a brick wall. Mosacked does not care about facts.

I do hope something gets through. It’s painful to watch.

Anna

 

[Joseph651]

I thank all of you for explaining your different side of the question, on who gave us the Bible. I have not seen any response from NoToSmart for awhile, and am wondering what he has received from this forum? If we say we have an open mine, I believe that from the answers given with all of the research and background checking that one could only draw to one conclusion, that maybe the Catholic Church is the one true church and 1.3 billion
(I believe?) can’t be wrong.

I have be informed with information ****that I was not aware of, and I thank all, for your answers and opinions.

Praise be to Christ

 

[Anna_Scott]

I thank all of you for explaining your different side of the question, on who gave us the Bible. I have not seen any response from NoToSmart for awhile, and am wondering what he has received from this forum? If we say we have an open mine, I believe that from the answers given with all of the research and background checking that one could only draw to one conclusion, that maybe the Catholic Church is the one true church and 1.3 billion
(I believe?) can’t be wrong.

I have be informed with information ****that I was not aware of, and I thank all, for your answers and opinions.

Praise be to Christ

Actually, NotTooSmart is doing very well on the forums, with some very insightful and respectful Posts.

He changed his forum name to AmateurPianist, with a note under the signature line saying, “Formerly NotTooSmart who got fed up with the wise cracks.concerning my old screen name.”

This is a quote from the Thread: “Catholics…For Your Advise”:

Hi Mosacked.

For the record, I am not Catholic btw.

For the record, Catholics do not believe the Sacraments save in themselves.

Now you and I may or may not disagree exactly how they work. But don’t you think you might want to know precisely what you disagree with, and what (surprise) you may agree with. Misrepresenting their beliefs does neither.

Now you might want to do some research on this one and learn exactly how the title “Mother of God” came to be. You might learn something.

Hint…Jesus is God (presuming you are trinitarian), Mary is the mother of Jesus. So connect the dots.

Worst case is that this is an ambiguous title (Mary is not the mother of God the father). But this is by far not the worst title that I have seen (for example the title Sola Scriptura is far worse as far as describing what Protestants actually believe). So pot meet kettle here.

Now the Catholic church does not claim to be above Scripture.

Now you might have that perception. But wouldn’t it be more honest and less confrontational just to say that you have this perception and ask whether or not your perception is the truth. You might still disagree in the end, but you might also have a clearer understanding on what it is exactly that you disagree with.

If you approach these matters with an open mind, you might possibly find that although you still disagree with Catholics on certain matters, at the same time you might be misinformed as to what they believe. And you might learn something.

And learning something is a good thing methinks.

I think this is great.

If we, Protestants, stick around long enough; we do eventually learn from the very patient Catholics and Orthodox, as well.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah:

You still don’t get it, do you? The Bible is a collection of books of Scripture. It consists of the books that were recognized, and used, by the Jews and those that were considered as inspired of God in telling the story of Jesus Christ ( the 4 Gospels ), plus the epistles of the Apostles. The Bishops of the Catholic Church ( the word Catholic Church was in use in the second century ), in council assembled the books under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine the spurious and false writings so prevelant at the time. The result was what we refer to as the Bible today. Since the Bishops were Catholic and under the auspices of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has the right to say that it gave us the Bible. It is Catholic in origin. It was not miraculously put to gether. Now do you get it???

Shalom Aleichem

The EARLIEST you can point to for that is 393 AD.

Let’s see, that’s 1,793 years AFTER the Ten Commandments were embraced as Scripture.
That’s at least 200 years AFTER at least 20 of the NT books were embraced as Scripture…

Read the history. Read posts 556 and 558. These books were embraced as Scripture LONG, LONG before the meeting at Hippo in African. In most cases, CENTURIES before any of those present at that meeting were born. That meeting “gave us” nothing. Believers beat them to it - by as much as 1,800 years.

Now, IF you want to claim that every believer who was a part in this embrace was officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with specifically The Catholic Church - from Moses and the 600000 with him at Mt. Sinai to those who embraced the Revelation of John, then try to prove that, but that’s not the issue of this thread. This thread is not that CATHOLICS gave us the Bible, it’s that The Catholic Church did: from the first Scriptures written about 1400 BC to the last written around 100 AD.

Now, NO ONE has argued that AFTER THE FACT, most denomination have, in some formal and official sense, embrace and acknowledged that list of books. Your denomination officially did this at Trent, Italy in the 16th century. Mine did it officially at St. Louis, MO in the 19th century. But ACKNOWLEDGING something is not creating it or giving it or forming it. I acknowledge that the sun rose this morning. I had nothing to do with it. The Catholic Church did not “put it together” and IT did not “give it” to us. History denies that. Yes, it did - at some point - officially embrace it (as have most denominations) but that’s a whole other issue. I acknowledge that God created the universe, that doesn’t mean I gave it to you or that I had a THING to do with it. The RCC did NOTHING that almost all other denominations haven’t also done: it officially embraced what existed.

.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

The EARLIEST you can point to for that is 393 AD.

Let’s see, that’s 1,793 years AFTER the Ten Commandments were embraced as Scripture.
That’s at least 200 years AFTER at least 20 of the NT books were embraced as Scripture…

Look, when we say the Church gave us the Bible, we mean She gave us the Bible in its present form. Nobody denies that the OT preceeded the Church. We are not idiots you know. But the NT was canonized by the Bishops in union with Pope Damasus I. Thats a historical fact whether you like it or not.

So, the OT coupled together with the NT is the Bible in its present form, which we have thanks to God working through the Bishops and the Pope. I might add that, even then, the protestants managed to corrupt their Bible by removing books from the OT. That is another area in which you err.

BTW: Are you California Josiah from Christianforums.com?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s at least 200 years AFTER at least 20 of the NT books were embraced as Scripture…

Embraced as Scripture by whom, Josiah?

Who was it that knew that the Protoevangelium was not inspired by the Gospel of Matthew was?

 

[Javl]

Originally posted by AmericanJosiah
Let’s see, that’s 1,793 years AFTER the Ten Commandments were embraced as Scripture.
That’s at least 200 years AFTER at least 20 of the NT books were embraced as Scripture…

And who was it that determined what the 20 NT books were? Who determined what of that that was circulating was inspired and what was not? Who assembled the Bible and presented it in it’s form as it is today, and is accepted by all of Christianity?

Keep in mind that the term Catholic was in use in the second century. Also the council only ratified what had been in use and made it official and uniform for the whole Church. It was done primarily to combat heresies and dispell spurious and false writings ( epistles, gospels, etc. ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Bill_Pick]

Ann I was noy looking for a fight I was just saying Rev 18 was not talking about all the bible and I think later you agree with me,Thank You