The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[AmericanJosiah]

Stop making silly comments

Do you believe The Ten Commandments are Scriptures? It is generally regarded that they were the first Scriptures. Do you believe they are biblical? If so, then they are included in the issue of the Bible. The point of this thread is that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible. That includes The Ten Comandments, IMHO. The point is not that Catholics gave us The Bible (which would require that Moses be documented as a Catholic since he’s the one who brought the tablets down the Mountain), etc. The point is that The Catholic Church did it. I disagree. I think history disagrees.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

… and the point of this thread is that The Catholic Church did it.

I disagree. History disagrees.

Of course, as a Protestant, I disagree. I don’t believe Christians were or are a denomination. I believe that Christians are people. But yes, by faith, all Christians are bound together into one holy and catholic church - the “communion of saints.” But that, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with any congregations or associations thereof (denominations) - including The Catholic Church. But all that aside, the point of this thread is that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible - from the Ten Commandments (around 1400 BC) through the Revelation of John (perhaps 95 AD). It did it. I don’t agree. And I don’t think history agrees.

Well, among other things, that was an issue at Trent in the 16th century. But, of course, Scriptures had been embraced as such LONG before that - in some cases, nearly 3000 years before that. And even if you want to point to Hippo (and the issue of the canon wasn’t an issue there), that too was simply FAR too late to have any relevance to the issue whatsoever. I agree with my Catholic teachers that The Catholic Church did not forum or choose or decide the books of the Bible, it officially affirmed them - EXACTLY as has almost all other denominations. But affirming something already done and making it happen are two very, very different things. I affirm that the sun came up this morning; I had nothing to do with it.

… entirely moot to the issue of this thread, but actually, the adjective “catholic” was used to describe the church. That beginning in the second century. It STILL is one of the adjectives used to describe the church. It has nothing to do with The Catholic Church or with the issue of this thread.

So, it was The Catholic Church that wrote those two tablets on Mount Sinai? It was The Catholic Church that caused Jesus to reference such some 50 times? Friend, history shows that the first time ANY institutional entity did ANYTHING in reference to this subject was in 393. Even if you want to claim this was a distictive action of The Catholic Church, it’s too late to have any relevance to the issue of this thread. Sorry, that’s just he history.

AmericanJosiah: Have you studied the history of Biblical Cannons?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Its a fact.

And just as god worked through men to write the scriptures, he also worked through men to canonize the Bible, and those men were the Bishops in union with Pope Damasus I.

Thanks for proving my case

You seem to be confusing ACKNOWLEDGING for formally approving of something with the forumation or causation or “giving” of it. I hereby acknowledge that the sun rose this morning. I didn’t cause it. I didn’t give you the sun. I didn’t cause the new day to arrive. The truth is: Scriptures were accepted as such CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church itself claims to have even come into existence; it thus is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have given us the Bible. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for it to have chosen the books - and my Catholic teachers never claimed that it did. People did. Believing people. LATER, after the process was essentially done, the Council of Hippo listed the list. Cool. Most denominations have done EXACTLY THE SAME THING, also in some formal official way. But even if ten billion people or organizations state, “Yes, we accept that list” it doesn’t mean ANY of them formed it or chose it or caused it or “gave it.” Your denomination and mine are among those that have formally, officially embraced the list. NO denomination formed it, caused it, chose it or “gave” it. Sorry, it’s just history.

.

 

[jmcrae]

But all that aside, the point of this thread is that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible - from the Ten Commandments (around 1400 BC) through the Revelation of John (perhaps 95 AD). It did it. I don’t agree. And I don’t think history agrees.

What the Catholic Church did was, it assembled all of these works into one library (because originally, they were scattered throughout the whole world - some were in Macedonia, some were in Palestine, two of them were in Corinth, one of them was in
Ephesus, etc.), translated them into a single common language, bound them into one set of covers, and then had the whole thing copied and bound for use in the Churches.

This takes nothing away from the men who wrote them (the only words written by God Himself were the Ten Commandments, and we have two possible versions of these - one in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy) - they were inspired by their experiences of God, to write what they had seen and heard so that future generations could know about them.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Do you believe The Ten Commandments are Scriptures? It is generally regarded that they were the first Scriptures. Do you believe they are biblical? If so, then they are included in the issue of the Bible. The point of this thread is that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible. That includes The Ten Comandments, IMHO. The point is not that Catholics gave us The Bible (which would require that Moses be documented as a Catholic since he’s the one who brought the tablets down the Mountain), etc. The point is that The Catholic Church did it. I disagree. I think history disagrees.

Dude, you’re doing the same thing that you do over at CF. You are totally ignoring the answers and regurgitating the same exact questions over and over. You are just arguing for arguments sake.

Four pages ago I said:

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.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’d still like to see Josiah tell us exactly who the people were who were involved in the writings of the New Testament, specifically, and who were involved in the council and in the research and in the final decision of the canon.

And let’s not hear that they weren’t “RCs” or “RCCs” because as has been made abundantly clear to those who are not spiritually ‘challenged’, the Christians of the 4th century and the Catholic Christians of the 21st century are the same. We didn’t have Jerome for example wearing his “RCC” T-shirt, or St. Augustine wearing an “Antioch see” etc. And the Catholics of today whom Josiah terms “RCC’s” as not now, and were not then, limited to the ‘see’ of Rome. They were Catholic. Some were associated with one see, some another, all the sees were (and are) Catholic. Universal.

So please, Josiah, stop trying to spread a lie as truth. Now that you can see you were mistaken, at least have the courtesy to acknowledge it. You might still argue about the Catholic Church but at least argue about what it truly is and not the chimerical edifice you THINK it is. Thank you.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Dude

I’m responding to the question of this thread. Read the title.
You are defending the position that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.
I’m taking the posiiton that history does not confirm this.

the NT was canonized by the Bishops in union with Pope Damasus I. Thats a historical fact whether you like it or not

This thread is not about the New Testament, it’s about the Bible.

Again, you seem to be confusing embracing and causing, acknowledging and giving. The “historical fact” is that the “selection of books” was pretty much a done deal with 393 (the very, very earliest you can claim ANY action of ANY denomination) - and that body actually settled nothing anyway. I agree with history and my Catholic teachers: The Catholic Church officially acknowledged the list of books. Yep. So has virtually every other denomination. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of this thread.

I disagree; The Catholic Church did not give us the Bible.

.

 

[jmcrae]

I’d still like to see Josiah tell us exactly who the people were who were involved in the writings of the New Testament, specifically, and who were involved in the council and in the research and in the final decision of the canon.

I am thinking that he doesn’t know their names. (I don’t know most of their names, either, but I am gradually learning.)

We didn’t have Jerome for example wearing his “RCC” T-shirt, or St. Augustine wearing an “Antioch see” etc.

I hope not - he was the Bishop of Hippo, and actually he was the guy who ultimately ratified the current canon of the New Testament at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So please, Josiah, stop trying to spread a lie as truth.

If you can prove that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible - then do. So far, no one in this thread has even attempted to do so. Start with the first Scirpture - The Ten Commandments (around 1400 BC) and document how The Catholic Church “gave it”. Then we can progress through all Scriptures until The Revelation of John - generally regarded as the last Scripture, written around 95 AD.

I’ve read this claim dozens and dozens of times by Catholics. I’ve heard it from a lot of Catholics, read it from a lot of Catholics. Anyone can write or say anything, of course, but there’s nothing to substantiate this as true. Most of the Bible was written and accepted as Scripture before The Catholic Church even claims to have come into existence, so the claim is baseless on the face of it! And I realize that Catholics sometimes think that all the biblical penmen - from Moses through John - were all officially Catholic and were all registered in congregations affiliated with The Catholic Church but there’s just zero evidence of that. This is a claim - very often made, I realize - but it’s entirely baseless. As we see here - no one has even ATTEMPTED to substantiate it.

Now, what IS the case is that most denominations, in some official and formal sense, have officially acknowledged the list of books. The Catholic Church did that intentionally at Trent, Italy, in the 16th Century. Some Catholics like to look at earlier actions (not really about that), going all the way back to the Council of Hippo in 393. Well, EVEN IF we accept all those - going all the way back to Hippo - they document NOTHING since all Hippo did was acknowledged the commonly embraced books. As my Catholic teachers said, “The Church ACKNOWLEGED the list, it didn’t choose it.” THAT, I think, history supports. Such as it does for most other denominations that ALSO did that. But that’s a whole other topic than insisting that IT - and it alone - GAVE us the BIBLE. Apples and oranges.

.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you believe The Ten Commandments are Scriptures?

They are now. They weren’t, when they were first brought down the mountain. There was no leather binding or gold edging, or rice paper and black ink. They were carved words on stone blocks, at that time.

They didn’t become “part of Scripture” until the Bible itself began to exist, many centuries later.

It is generally regarded that they were the first Scriptures.

Of all the writings that eventually made it into the Bible, yes, they are the earliest.

Do you think that Moses started going around with a Bible in his hand after he received the Ten Commandments? NO.

The first person in history ever to go around with a Bible in his hand was St. Jerome. Prior to that, we had books, and scrolls, and tablets, in various places all over the world. They had not yet been gathered together into one place. They had not yet been translated into one common language. They had not yet been stacked one on top of the other, with Revelation at the bottom and Genesis at the top, and bound into a single volume of books. Heck, some of them were not even known yet to be Scripture at all - and in the time of Moses, before he began to write the Book of Genesis, none of them had yet been written down.

In other words, they were not yet “a Bible” or part of “the Bible.” The Bible did not yet exist.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I’d still like to see Josiah tell us exactly who the people were who were involved in the writings of the New Testament

This thread isn’t about the penmen of The New Testament. It’s about whether history confirms that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

Paul lists himself as the writer of 13 books. So, roughly half of the NT involved Paul. Peter is the penmen of 2 books.
We don’t know who penned any of the 4 Gospels or Acts - although history links them to two Apostles (Matthew and John) plus Mark and Luke.
Unknown are Hebrews, James (we know he was James, just not which), 1, 2, 3 John (tradition says St. John however), or Revelation (again, tradition says St. John).
But The Catholic Church wrote none of them, they were almost certainly all penned by people.

But, obviously, the point of this thread is not about the New Testament, it’s about the Bible.

specifically, and who were involved in the council and in the research and in the final decision of the canon.

Sorry, I don’t have a list of the persons voting at the Council of Trent - and I’m not aware that they “researched” anything. I don’t know who was at the Council of Hippo or if they researched anything - much less how they went about that. Do you? All I know is Hippo simply embraced what was already embraced. It ACKNOWLEDGED the list, it didn’t form it. People where embracing books as Scripture CENTURIES before The Catholic Church even came into existence. Jesus was referencing books as Scripture LONG before the Council of Trent.

If The Catholic Church gave us The Bible - then document that as the case. Begin with The Ten Commandments and progress chronologically through them and show us how The Catholic Church “gave us” them.

Thank you.

.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Mind if we ask you, Josiah, in your opinion, just exactly how did God ensure that His people were able to assemble a Bible when the writings themselves were, in some cases, centuries old, when there was no ‘table of contents’ available whereby the scribes would say, “OK, I found Genesis, and Psalms and Malachi and Ruth; Patronicus found Titus and St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. . . come on you guys, bring me the rest! And really, Suetonicus, would you stop waving the Didache at me–I keep telling you it’s not on the approved list!”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, Paul wasn’t a Catholic Christian? (News to me and to him too).

Again, mind telling me just how Catholic Christians ‘knew’ which of the Jewish scriptures were to be part of the Bible? Where is the table of contents that God revealed and to whom was it revealed?

Ah, I see from one of your posts that you’re of the ilk that no ‘penman’ can be considered to have cooperated with God. Talk about your ultimate (holy) ghost-writer. . .

 

[Hiskid1973]

So, Paul wasn’t a Catholic Christian? (News to me and to him too).

I would say Paul was just a “christian” the usage of “catholic” as a descriptor of the christian church came along later…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, dear. You show us how that fine upstanding Christian Didymus (living in Thrace in circa AD 200), who was baptized a Christian, ‘knew’ Scripture.

Didymus probably knew the pentateuch, and perhaps some of the psalms, bits of the book of Job and Isaiah. He may have been familiar with the gospel of Luke and Acts, perhaps have heard some of the gospel of John. He may not have ever in his life heard Revelation, Mical, Hosea, or the gospel of Matthew or Mark. He may have heard some of the letters of Paul.

He may also have heard, and been taught as authentic Scripture, the Didache. He may have heard the gospel of Thomas, and the shepherd of Hermes, and the proto-evangelium. Emphasis of course is on ‘heard’ as few were literate and most services held were held after dark and in out of the way places which wouldn’t have been conducive to ‘reading’ anyway.

Now, is Didymus not an authentic Christian? Didymus did not have the ‘complete’ Bible as we know it. In fact, he may have thought other works (which are not in the Bible today) were authentic Scripture.

But in AD 380, the formal canon of the Bible was brought together. Who brought it together, Josiah? Without these people, we’d still be having Didymus without a knowledge of “the Bible’ if he lived today, wouldn’t we? So. . .whom did God ‘use’ to convey what He wished to have given as Scripture, and what was NOT Scripture? You aren’t going to say that God didn’t even USE Catholic Christians as ‘penmen’ and 'robo-Christians”, are you?

 

[jmcrae]

This thread isn’t about the penmen of The New Testament. It’s about whether history confirms that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

Paul lists himself as the writer of 13 books. So, roughly half of the NT involved Paul. Peter is the penmen of 2 books.
We don’t know who penned any of the 4 Gospels or Acts - although history links them to two Apostles (Matthew and John) plus Mark and Luke.
Unknown are Hebrews, James (we know he was James, just not which), 1, 2, 3 John (tradition says St. John however), or Revelation (again, tradition says St. John).
But The Catholic Church wrote none of them, they were almost certainly all penned by people.

“The Catholic Church” is a group of people. The word “Church” means “assembly.” All of the writers of the New Testament were members of the Catholic Church; any that were not Apostles were certainly Bishops.

Sorry, I don’t have a list of the persons voting at the Council of Trent - and I’m not aware that they “researched” anything.

If I get some time this week, I’ll look it up for you. I have the Council records on my hard drive.

I don’t know who was at the Council of Hippo or if they researched anything - much less how they went about that. Do you?

I don’t have the records of the Council of Hippo, but I already know that St. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo at the time of that Council, and no doubt there is some account of it somewhere in his writings.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hiskid, the first use of “catholic” which means "universal’ was actually written in AD 100 or so, within the lifetime of St. John the Evangelist. For it to exist in writing means that the outstanding likelihood is that the term existed orally in reference to the Christian **well before its appearance in writing.

Christians were Catholic from the very beginning. **

There weren’t ‘jus’ plain Christians’ from AD 33 to AD 100, and THEN ‘Catholic Christians’ and later still “ROMAN Catholic christians, etc.”

A Christian = a Catholic Christian from the very start.

 

[Hiskid1973]

There weren’t ‘jus’ plain Christians’ from AD 33 to AD 100, and THEN ‘Catholic Christians’ and later still “ROMAN Catholic christians, etc.”

A Christian = a Catholic Christian from the very start.

I am surprised nobody used during the original apostles writings…We see it was written they were called christians…It’s just when people see the bible was written by the catholic church they seem to equate it to just the Roman see and not christians from all the sees…They miss that the two churches were once one when it was assembled…

 

[Hisalone]

Hiskid, the first use of “catholic” which means "universal’ was actually written in AD 100 or so, within the lifetime of St. John the Evangelist. For it to exist in writing means that the outstanding likelihood is that the term existed orally in reference to the Christian **well before its appearance in writing.

Christians were Catholic from the very beginning. **

There weren’t ‘jus’ plain Christians’ from AD 33 to AD 100, and THEN ‘Catholic Christians’ and later still “ROMAN Catholic christians, etc.”

A Christian = a Catholic Christian from the very start.

Just like Hiskid and me are catholic Christians.
Just like!!!

 

[jmcrae]

I am surprised nobody used during the original apostles writings…We see it was written they were called christians…It’s just when people see the bible was written by the catholic church they seem to equate it to just the Roman see and not christians from all the sees…They miss that the two churches were once one when it was assembled…

Yes, they were all One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, united by the Pope.

Unfortunately, some of them separated from the Pope later on, and started doing their own thing instead.