The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotTooSmart
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irish_Catholic said:
Look, when we say the Church gave us the Bible, we mean She gave us the Bible in its present form.
Click to expand...
That is correct as long as you mean the church comprised of all the sees and not just your Roman one…You can’t say the Roman catholic church alone we know it today brought us the bible in it’s completeness…I just get the feeling from some it was just the Rome see…They were christians from all areas moved by the Holy Spirit…
 
Anna_Scott said:
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”:

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
Click to expand...
Mother of God come around because Mary Is the MOTHER OF GOD
 
Hiskid1973 said:
That is correct as long as you mean the church comprised of all the sees and not just your Roman one…You can’t say the Roman catholic church alone we know it today brought us the bible in it’s completeness…
Click to expand...
Oh yes I can! It was the Bishops in union with Pope Damasus I who canonized the NT. Are there other bishops in union with the Pope besides the Catholic bishops? No.

You may not see the ancient Church when you look at Rome today, but I most certainly do. When you look at your baby picture, is it you or another person in the picture? The babe in the picture is you, not someone else, despite the fact that there is no resemblance whatsoever.
 
Hiskid1973 said:
That is correct as long as you mean the church comprised of all the sees and not just your Roman one…You can’t say the Roman catholic church alone we know it today brought us the bible in it’s completeness…I just get the feeling from some it was just the Rome see…They were christians from all areas moved by the Holy Spirit…
Click to expand...
FYI: Officially it’s called the Catholic Church and comprises both Eastern Rites and Western Rites ( Churches ). It is called Roman Catholic only because Rome is the see of The Bishop Of Rome, who we consider to be the successor of Peter, and all of the Churches are in communion with that see.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Irish_Catholic said:
certainly do. When you look at your baby picture, is it you or another person in the picture? The babe in the picture is you, not someone else, despite the fact that there is no resemblance whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I see a see split away from the rest…They were in accord at one time even though they had issues…It is still different then your individual see…Your see had a part …
 
Hiskid1973 said:
I see a see split away from the rest… …
Click to expand...
Then you see it backwards. It is the protestants who “protested” and broke away from the Church, not the other way around. The popes go back 2000 years. Protestantism is no older than 500 years.

Keep it real: Don’t get it twisted
 
Javl said:
FYI: Officially it’s called the Catholic Church and comprises both Eastern Rites and Western Rites ( Churches ). It is called Roman Catholic only because Rome is the see of The Bishop Of Rome, who we consider to be the successor of Peter, and all of the Churches are in communion with that see.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Click to expand...
But back then it was the “church” as in all sees…It was called “catholic” as a descriptive word of christians in all the sees…They gathered all the letters/writings and moved via the Holy Spirit assembled them together…NT scriptures were there all along the way mixed with dubious writings…So was there a Jerusalem and Corinth Catholic churches also…Or Did the Roman Catholic name start after the schism…
 
Is it offensive here in the USA, because there are churches called like St. Paul’s Roman Catholic church…
 
Thank you brother…I guess I use Roman as a descriptor of a singular see in regards to “catholic” being a descriptor of all the sees…
 
Thank you Jharek. I use the term to emphasize the difference between the Catholic Church and those who are in schism, but still call themselves Catholic, Such as the Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, Sedevacantist Catholics, Liberal Catholics, etc. These are not in communion with the Roman see. I also call my self Roman Catholic for the same reason since I am faithful to the Magisterium which is based in Rome.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
To My Argumentative Protestant Brethren:

I think that you are arguing the point for the sake of arguing with we Catholics just to get our dander up. If not, then I bet that even if authoritive Non-Catholic scholars and theologians would prove you wrong you still would not believe them. Am I wrong?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Javl said:
To My Argumentative Protestant Brethren:

I think that you are arguing the point for the sake of arguing with we Catholics just to get our dander up. If not, then I bet that even if authoritive Non-Catholic scholars and theologians would prove you wrong you still would not believe them. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes.

I have no idea of whom you speak, but I simply wish to note what history does: Obviously, The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. Scripture in some cases was accepted as such as much as one thousand, four hundred years before even The Catholic Church itself claims to have come into existence; the claim is simply baseless.

Without a doubt, The Catholic Church eventually did what most denominations have done: embraced the canon of books in some official manner. But acknowledging is not the same as forming or choosing or giving. And I don’t doubt that there may have been a Catholic involved in the process of choosing, but having a Catholic involved doesn’t make it an action of The Catholic Church anymore than having a Baptist go to the Moon means that The Baptist Church went to the Moon or that The Baptist Chruch gave us the Moon.

Now, if you have solid history to say that the Israelites accepted The Ten Commandments because The Catholic Church told them such was Scripture - then I’ll reconsider my position. If you can tell me that when Jesus said “Scripture” as He did over 20 times, He did so as an employee of The Catholic Church simply stating what The Catholic Church had authorized Him to say, then I think you’ll have a point. But I see NOTHING in history that supports that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible. Or even had a THING to do with it.

.
 
AmericanJosiah said:
Yes.

I have no idea of whom you speak, but I simply wish to note what history does: Obviously, The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. Scripture in some cases was accepted as such as much as one thousand, four hundred years before even The Catholic Church itself claims to have come into existence; the claim is simply baseless.

Without a doubt, The Catholic Church eventually did what most denominations have done: embraced the canon of books in some official manner. But acknowledging is not the same as forming or choosing or giving. And I don’t doubt that there may have been a Catholic involved in the process of choosing, but having a Catholic involved doesn’t make it an action of The Catholic Church anymore than having a Baptist go to the Moon means that The Baptist Church went to the Moon or that The Baptist Chruch gave us the Moon.

Now, if you have solid history to say that the Israelites accepted The Ten Commandments because The Catholic Church told them such was Scripture - then I’ll reconsider my position. If you can tell me that when Jesus said “Scripture” as He did over 20 times, He did so as an employee of The Catholic Church simply stating what The Catholic Church had authorized Him to say, then I think you’ll have a point. But I see NOTHING in history that supports that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible. Or even had a THING to do with it.
.
Click to expand...
Josiah, you seem to have a problem dealing with the fact that all your history sources were Catholics! Clearly, you don’t want to accept that Catholics sifted through ALL the OT documents, and sifted through the new scribblings AFTER Christ, to decide the NT, and together through various councils of The Church compiled the CANON OF THE CHRISTIAN SCIPTURES!

It’s as factual as the small matter of all Biblical historians NEEDING to go through The Church’s history to determine for themselves HOW Holy Writ comes to be in its present form.

In which case, this is going to hurt you even worse; since Christ instituted The Catholic Church, guess what He Is?

Yeah! And He gave us (Humanity) The Book as a ‘roadcode’ to where he Lives.

:cool:
 
AmericanJosiah said:
…I simply wish to note what history does: Obviously, The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it…
Click to expand...
You call that history? Sounds like biased personal opinion.

That garbage works over at www.christianforums.com , but not here.
Yes, I recognize your posting style, CaliforniaJosiah.
Deconi said:
Josiah, you seem to have a problem dealing with the fact the all your history sources were Catholics!..
Click to expand...
He’s use to having the anti-Catholic hater mods at www.christianforums.com backing him up
 
Your understanding of history is woefully flawed. Even Martin Luther acknowledged that the world ‘owed’ Scripture to the Catholic Church.

It appears some people are deliberately (though hopefully not maliciously but only in ignorance) trying to make it appear that the “Roman” Catholic church was not involved in the canon of Scripture because the “Romans” did not appear until X date ‘after’. (unfortunately a lot of these people claim that ‘Romans’ came in with Constantine. Though that is untrue of course, even there, Constantine is about 50 years BEFORE the canon of Scripture. Ooopsie! Of course, if this is pointed out to the anti-C’s they then will give themselves whiplash in moving on to the SECOND part --the part that Josiah has been parrotting. Oh yes, says Josiah, you RCs were AROUND in AD 380. But you see, you RCs didn’t have anything to do with the canon. God used his ROBO power to ‘implant’ what he wanted done into people (who just happened to be RCs and others) and, like with the Borg, resistance was futile. They just listened to the collective queen (I mean god) and wrote and collected whatever he beamed into their brains. THEY didn’t have anything to do with it.

If you start asking them about ‘free will’ they will la-la-la-not listening and go back to argument A, that in any case the people doing the canon were not ROMAN CATHOLICS.

It’s like Morton’s fork so to speak. Prong A: There were no ROMANs in AD 380. Prong B. There were Romans but they were forced into doing what god beamed into their brains so they really didn’t have any choice. Prong A. There were no ROMANS in AD 380.

This is repeated over and over and over. No ‘proof’ is offered by them other than their two prongs above neither of which makes sense and both of which are obviously wrong. . .but they figure as long as they can get people ARGUING over any one prong, they’re safe. If it looks like people actually realize that prong A is utter drivel, they move on to arguments with prong B, and if the same, on to A again
 
Joshia, what is your definition when you say the “catholic church” . Do you mean just the see of Rome alone or all the sees of chirstians together ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top