I
Irish_Catholic_1
Guest
Great postmcbob said:
- Status
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
The issue of this thread is whether it is historically documented that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible…
Now, if you mean the tome I own, then I bought it. No one or no thing gave it to me. I paid $38.00 plus shipping/handling.
If you mean the Scriptures contained in it, then no - The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. The Holy Spirit inspired it, penmen wrote it. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with a single letter of a single word of it.
If you mean the list of books embraced as Scripture, then no - The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. By the time ANYTHING did ANYTHING in that regard, that had largely already been done. It is absurd to argue that The Catholic Church gave us The Ten Commandments as Moses brought them down the Mountain - The Catholic Church doesn’t even claim to have existed at the time (and not for nearly 1500 years after that) and yet those tablets were accepted as Scripture. Jesus references “the Scriptures” some 450 years before ANYTHING did ANYTHING about this subject. Most denominations of the world have officially acknowledged the list of books regarded as Scripture (there’s nothing unique about The Catholic Church in that regard - mine did the same thing), but acknowledging a list of books is entirely unrelated to “giving us” the Bible.
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Read posts 556 and 558.
I’d agree that your specific denomination had not officially acknowledged the list until the very end of the 4th century, but that doesn’t mean there was no sense of Scripture before that; to acknowledge something is not to cause or create or give it. I acknowledge that Obama is the President of the United Stated, but I didn’t make it so (I didn’t even vote for him). Acknowledging is not giving. And, of course, most denominations have done what The Catholic Church did - acknowledge the books. There’s nothing unique about The Catholic Church in that regard.
.
I
Irish_Catholic_1
Guest
It is historically documented. You just want to ignore the obvious
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Did you see the “denomination” jab there, my fellow Catholics? Again, Josiah persists in equating today’s Catholics with some mythical “RCC” which is apparently to be ‘limited’ to ‘the see of Rome’ and further limited in having anything whatsoever to do with ‘penmen’. Robo-Christians who transcribed God’s word (having absolutely no cooperation with God, imparting none of their own personal style or gifts to what was said) and would have done so whether they were Catholic, pagan, or men from Mars. . . .
It’s hard to dialogue with someone whose mind is so tightly closed but. . .we’ll keep trying! Heroic patience etc.
It’s hard to dialogue with someone whose mind is so tightly closed but. . .we’ll keep trying! Heroic patience etc.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
So, is it your postion that The Catholic Church gave us The Trinity and gave Jesus His divine nature?
The question before us is this: Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible?
I agree with the opening poster, there’s zero evidence of that. And I have welcomed Catholics to document this very often made claim: Start with the first Scriptures, The Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, and show how The Catholic Church gave it all to us.
Now, IF Catholics instead claimed, “The Catholic Church at an official meeting officially ACKNOWLEDGED the list of books, just as most other denominations have done” THAT I think we’d all historically agree with. Even if a Catholic stated, “Catholics penned the books of The New Testament” I’d find that baseless but I’d let it pass. But the issue is neither of those, the issue is whether The Catholic Church GAVE US the Bible (Genesis - Revelation), that we have everything from Genesis - Revelation solely, only, exclusively because of The Catholic Church: that physical entity alone.
IMHO, either document the oft made claim as true, or take it back and replace it with something that can be documented.
.
I
Irish_Catholic_1
Guest
I’m through with you. You are not even trying to read the posts.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
Josiah…What is your definition of " the catholic church"… Is it pre schismatic? Do you mean the Rome see ? Do you mean just “christians” with “catholic” as a description ?
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
It is MY point that Scripture and the embrace of such PREEXISTED any denomination officially acknowledging such.
You disagreed, nothing that The Catholic Church defined the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ but didn’t “give us” these.
IMHO, you (perhaps unknowingly) just agreed with me. The Catholic Church didn’t “give us” the Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus. These preexisted The Catholic Church by a considerable period of time. The Catholic Church ACKNOWLEDGED these in some official, formal sense as it defined its doctrines, etc. But that’s a whole other issue than “giving” Jesus His divinity or making God Triune.
MY position is The Catholic Church (just like most other denominations) did - in some formal sense - acknowledge the list of books regarded as Scripture. But history shows us: it “gave” or created or caused NOTHING. To say that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible is to state that we have everything from Genesis - Revelation (and every letter contained therein) because The Catholic Church alone, exclusively, solely gave it. I find that historically baseless.
IMHO, this every often made Catholic claim (I should say a claim of Catholics because I’ve never read where The Catholic Church has claimed this - in fact, my Catholic teachers ridiculed it and denied it), is that it either needs to be documented: from The Ten Commandments through Revelation. Or it needs to be abandoned, for the sake of truth. Perhaps better would be: “We believe the New Testament was written by catholics, protected, gathered and finally authenticated by The Catholic Church.” I wouldn’t entirely agree with that, but THAT has at least SOME credibility. Or “We believe that The Catholic Church officially acknowledged the list of books for members of The Catholic Church at __________ (fill in whatever Council you like).” No one would deny that. But those are not the issue of this thread. This examines that age-old, often repeated claim that The Catholic Church GAVE US the BIBLE. I find it puzzeling and baseless. No matter how many times the claim is made.
.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, Josiah, the Catholic Church existed from Pentecost at the very latest. There is no 'RCC" which dates back to some nebulous 4th century ‘see of Rome’. There is one Catholic Church which your abitrary, recent and self-bestowed title of “RCC” is a blatant attempt to backdraft and revise history to make it APPEAR that said Church ‘did not exist’ at the time of Christ’s death and resurrection.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
I’ve never once mentioned “the RCC” or Rome.
Now, can you document that The Catholic Church (the specific physical entity by that name today) is the cause, source, of what we regard as Scripture - from The Ten Commandments on two tablets upon Mt. Sinai through St. John recording his revelation on the isle of Patmos around 95 AD? Did The Catholic Church GIVE US the BIBLE - that entity: alone, exclusely, solely, individually, independently? If so, then we need the documentation of that.
.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You have been told, repeatedly, that while parts of Scripture were written by Jews (the 'old testament), that parts were written by Catholic Christians (the New testament) and that ALL parts, ‘old and new’ alike, existed as manuscripts and scrolls for centuries (OT) and decades (NT) but that none was authoritatively known to be ‘the Bible’ until the canon of the Bible which was done under the auspice and authority of the Catholic Church.
Now you tell me that the Catholic Church was not the means through which God ensured that we knew exactly what of the Jewish scripture, and what of the many writings of the Christian era (including ones like the Didache which many people prior to the canon considered inspired as much as say the gospel of Mark)??
Usually people who are so bent on ignoring the role of the Church and insisting that Robo-Christian ‘penmen’ just ‘regurgitated’ God’s word like machines used to insist the KJV fell from the sky. Now even the Bible from which the KJV descends (stepwise as I know the KJV does not claim to be the ‘English Vulgate’) is likewise something that 'came from the sky?"
You do not know history,
Now you tell me that the Catholic Church was not the means through which God ensured that we knew exactly what of the Jewish scripture, and what of the many writings of the Christian era (including ones like the Didache which many people prior to the canon considered inspired as much as say the gospel of Mark)??
Usually people who are so bent on ignoring the role of the Church and insisting that Robo-Christian ‘penmen’ just ‘regurgitated’ God’s word like machines used to insist the KJV fell from the sky. Now even the Bible from which the KJV descends (stepwise as I know the KJV does not claim to be the ‘English Vulgate’) is likewise something that 'came from the sky?"
You do not know history,
M
Melissa
Guest
Not to mention that, whatever personal questions or doubts he may have had, St. Jerome in the end chose obedience to Pope St. Damasus and translated the books in question because they had been included in the canon by previous Church councils (his preface to Judith specifically points to the Nicene Council as having counted the text as Scripture).Not quite right. The books that was set at Carthage were the same that was dogmatized at Trent. The reason it was only dogmatized at Trent was because prior to Luther trying to come up with his own canon (the total audacity of the man) there was no need for it being dogmatized because everyone accepted it, It is only when something is questioned that it finally gets defined.
By the way, St Jerome died in 420, the council of Carthage was in 397, the canon was dogmatized as closed in 1546. So Jerome could be forgiven for not being aware of an event that happened 1200 years later after his death.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
So, all references to “Scripture” prior to 397 AD were incorrect because The Catholic Church had not yet officially declared what it acknowledged as Scripture? Jesus was wrong to say (In John 5:39) “Seach the Scriptures…” because they were not yet known since this was almost 400 years before The Catholic Church said what they are?
You seem to be confusing what a specific denomination acknowledges with what it “gave.” And you seem to be confusing the New Testament with the Bible.
Look, no one is denying that at some point, in some official and formal way, most denominations (including The Catholic Church) embraced the books regarded as Scripture. Yours did it, mine did it, most did it. But that’s entirely moot to the issue of this thread, which is whether it is a historical fact that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. Apples and oranges.
Read # 556 and 558. Even if we replace “Bible” with “New Testament,” it STILL doesn’t hold that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. By the time ANYTHING did ANYTHING, what was regarded as Scripture was largely settled. AT MOST, it affirmed that list in a formal, official sense - just as most denominations have done. Apples and oranges.
.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The Catholic Church is not a ‘denomination’. It isn’t some church that popped into being as a Johnny come lately and it isn’t ‘one of many’. It is THE one. The One Scripture tells us that Jesus gave us. . .then, you know, before the Scripture was actually written down that spoke of the incident.
YOUR church (I believe you said on another thread that you are a current Lutheran and a former Catholic, which certainly helps to explain why you are so intent on ‘dissociating’ the Catholic Church from any authority, doesn’t it?) may have ‘accepted Scripture’ but your own founder Martin Luther acknowledged that Christianity owed Scripture to the Catholic Church.
YOUR church (I believe you said on another thread that you are a current Lutheran and a former Catholic, which certainly helps to explain why you are so intent on ‘dissociating’ the Catholic Church from any authority, doesn’t it?) may have ‘accepted Scripture’ but your own founder Martin Luther acknowledged that Christianity owed Scripture to the Catholic Church.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
IF The Catholic Church is not a physical institutional entity, then IT could not have given us anything… including the Bible.
The issue of this thread is this: Is it historically documented that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible - from Genesis through Revelation - solely, exclusively, individually? The Scripture Jesus said speaks of Him, for example? Did The Catholic Church supply that?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, we’re an entity. Apples and oranges. . .it is not the fact of the Catholic Church being an entity that is under discussion, is it?
As we have ceaselessly pointed out, nobody said that Moses was a member of the Catholic Church when he wrote Genesis, for example. . .he was a Jew (as was, indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ) But that is not the point. The Church gave us the Bible which itself was a collection from various times and people. And yes, Jesus quoted Scripture. Now you tell me, did Jesus Christ ‘quote’ from St. Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews? Did Jesus Christ ‘quote’ from Revelation? Gee, Jesus didn’t quote them, by your logic they weren’t Scripture.
How do you — Lutheran and ‘former’ Catholic–know that Revelation is as much authentic inerrant God-breathed Scripture as Genesis and Exodus? HOW?
I feel you have the germs (so to speak) of that unfortunate Protestant tendency (though not all Protestants are guilty of it) to erect false dichotomies and to insist that things must be ‘either/or’. In your case, you appear to labor under the delusion that because Scripture is God-breathed (which in itself is correct and nobody, least of all a Catholic like me, denies it) it somehow cannot possibly be ‘tainted’ or contaminated by human cooperation or touch.
The “RoboChristian” modern and (pardon me) rather ridiculous theory that God just used ‘penmen’ (I’ll bet you think He just used Mary as a ‘vessel’ too and she had absolutely no say over it) to upchuck His word and nothing else is a fradulent attempt to bypass the authority of the Church God gave us. Jesus founded a Church (not a Bible). . .it is through the Church that the written Word that He wished to have given was indeed known and put into canon.
Without the Catholic Church, Josiah, you would still be running around looking at various manuscripts and not knowing what was “scripture” and what was not.
As we have ceaselessly pointed out, nobody said that Moses was a member of the Catholic Church when he wrote Genesis, for example. . .he was a Jew (as was, indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ) But that is not the point. The Church gave us the Bible which itself was a collection from various times and people. And yes, Jesus quoted Scripture. Now you tell me, did Jesus Christ ‘quote’ from St. Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews? Did Jesus Christ ‘quote’ from Revelation? Gee, Jesus didn’t quote them, by your logic they weren’t Scripture.
How do you — Lutheran and ‘former’ Catholic–know that Revelation is as much authentic inerrant God-breathed Scripture as Genesis and Exodus? HOW?
I feel you have the germs (so to speak) of that unfortunate Protestant tendency (though not all Protestants are guilty of it) to erect false dichotomies and to insist that things must be ‘either/or’. In your case, you appear to labor under the delusion that because Scripture is God-breathed (which in itself is correct and nobody, least of all a Catholic like me, denies it) it somehow cannot possibly be ‘tainted’ or contaminated by human cooperation or touch.
The “RoboChristian” modern and (pardon me) rather ridiculous theory that God just used ‘penmen’ (I’ll bet you think He just used Mary as a ‘vessel’ too and she had absolutely no say over it) to upchuck His word and nothing else is a fradulent attempt to bypass the authority of the Church God gave us. Jesus founded a Church (not a Bible). . .it is through the Church that the written Word that He wished to have given was indeed known and put into canon.
Without the Catholic Church, Josiah, you would still be running around looking at various manuscripts and not knowing what was “scripture” and what was not.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
No, it’s not.
The question of this thread is this: Did The Catholic Church give us the BIble? The Bible includes The Ten Commandments, of course, so if The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, then it must have gaven us The Ten Commandments, or is your point that it gave us PART of the Bible (and if so, which part)?
Nor is the question whether Catholics gave us the Bible (so that you’d need to prove that Moses was a Catholic); the statement is not whether Catholics gave it but rather whether The Catholic Church did.
???
My point was Scripture must have in some sense existed when Jesus refers to such. So, if The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, it must have done so prior to Jesus’ command. OR maybe Scripture and the embrace of such as such PREEXISTED any action of The Catholic Church?
I never remotely implied any such thing. You seem to live under the delusion that there are only two ways that Scripture might be embraced as such: Because The Catholic Church said so (and evidently Moses and Jesus knew what that decision would be) OR some “upchuck” theory.
Friend, the question of this thread is this: Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible (all the material from Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 (that material)? The claim that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible" is one found all over the internet and from a wide range of Catholics (although my Catholic teacher called it “absurd”). Now, if you wish to argue the claim is true, then start with the oldest Scripture (the Ten Commandments) and show us all how The Catholic Church gave us that, then proceed with each through the Book of Revelation usually regarded as the newest Scrpture around 95 AD.
Now, perhaps you too desire to abandon that claim and instead make a new one, without making it clear that you are doing just that. Perhaps what you desire to replace the claim with is that you believe it was Catholics who penned the New Testament, preserved and collected it? Or perhaps you wish to replace the claim with is that you believe that The Catholic Church officially and formally embraced the commonly accepted books of Scripture as such - just like almost every other denomination has done? If so, you’ll get no great debate from me. But I’m just sticking with the topic of this thread, not hijacking ti to another topic. Namely: Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible?
I see. So, the Jews had no idea that The Ten Commandments were Scripture? And when Jesus told the people to search the Scriptures, He was misleading the people because none of them had a clue what the Scriptures even were. And all the persons of whom I quote in post 556 and 558 - they all misspoke, because none of them COULD have known what was or was not Scrpture because The Catholic Church wouldn’t say until 397 AD? And when Paul wrote that “all Scripture is inspired by God” he knew not of what he spoke becuse Paul didn’t have a clue what was or was not Scripture - and his words worthless since no one knew what it was until 397 AD. You should be aware there are 51 times in just the NT alone when it refers to “the Scriptures.” But, according to you, neither the penmen nor their audience (until after 397) had a clue what Scripture was. Kind of makes you wonder why the NT speaks of such 51 times when such wouldn’t even exist for over THREE HUNDRED years. Somehow, I don’t find your argument compelling.
.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, Josiah, the Jews knew that the 10 commandments were the word of God. They may even have used the word Scripture.
But I challenge you, my friend, to go to the nearest synagogue and ask them if they happen to know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. are Scripture.
Shouldn’t they know? I mean, the gospels have been around nearly 2000 years.
But you won’t find any Jews (unless they are Messianic ones) who will tell you that they accept the gospels as Scripture.
So. . .The Jewish people in AD 33 would have accepted the OT as Scripture. (And in fact, SOME Jewish people around AD 100 decided to **rewrite their canon of Scripture in order to ‘delete’ books which they had previously accepted as Scripture but which were felt to be too pointedly in reference to that ‘pesky’ carpenter that too many good Jews were following and leaving the ‘real faith.’)
**How then did both the Jewish and Gentile convert Christians which of the two ‘Jewish canons’ which were portrayed as being a part of the “Scripture” which Jesus spoke of (not wrote Himself but spoke of) and how did they know which of the many, many writings (some of which were said to be apostolic like the Didache, and some of which were accepted as being Scripture ‘early’ (The Shepherd of Hermas) in Christianity, before the canon?
You still don’t seem to be able to answer that.
Until the canon of Scripture, any given Christian could (and did) accept as Scripture a whole plethora of writings, some of which were authentic and some of which were not.
Then the canon of the Bible was finalized.
What group was it, Josiah, under whom the canon of the Bible was authoritatively pronounced as Scripture?
Why it was the Catholic CHURCH which did so call for, have assembled and authoritatively pronounced exactly what Scripture was.
But I challenge you, my friend, to go to the nearest synagogue and ask them if they happen to know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. are Scripture.
Shouldn’t they know? I mean, the gospels have been around nearly 2000 years.
But you won’t find any Jews (unless they are Messianic ones) who will tell you that they accept the gospels as Scripture.
So. . .The Jewish people in AD 33 would have accepted the OT as Scripture. (And in fact, SOME Jewish people around AD 100 decided to **rewrite their canon of Scripture in order to ‘delete’ books which they had previously accepted as Scripture but which were felt to be too pointedly in reference to that ‘pesky’ carpenter that too many good Jews were following and leaving the ‘real faith.’)
**How then did both the Jewish and Gentile convert Christians which of the two ‘Jewish canons’ which were portrayed as being a part of the “Scripture” which Jesus spoke of (not wrote Himself but spoke of) and how did they know which of the many, many writings (some of which were said to be apostolic like the Didache, and some of which were accepted as being Scripture ‘early’ (The Shepherd of Hermas) in Christianity, before the canon?
You still don’t seem to be able to answer that.
Until the canon of Scripture, any given Christian could (and did) accept as Scripture a whole plethora of writings, some of which were authentic and some of which were not.
Then the canon of the Bible was finalized.
What group was it, Josiah, under whom the canon of the Bible was authoritatively pronounced as Scripture?
Why it was the Catholic CHURCH which did so call for, have assembled and authoritatively pronounced exactly what Scripture was.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
We’re not talking about Matthew,Mark, Luke or John. We’re talking about the BIBLE - and all therein. So, if The Catholic Church gave us the Bible in 397 AD, and if it is so that unless it had “no one would have a clue what is or is not Scripture” as is the claim, then how ODD that Jesus would tell His audience THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY years early to “search the Scripture.” And if Jews knew that The Ten Commandments was Scripture, say ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINTY SEVEN YEARS before The Catholic Church said it was, how did they know that?
Well, there’s most of the Bible, so there goes the claim and you now agree with me that this oft repeated claim - found all over the net - just isn’t so.
Read posts # 556 and 558. It’s all there.
It was a growing consensus. MOST in place by the end of the first century. About 20 of the books in place by the end of the second. The sense of what is and is not Scripture was pretty much in place LONG before ANYTHING did ANYTHING in this regard - including The Catholic Church.
So, even if we change “Bible” to New Testament, we still find the claim baseless.
What you COULD say is that FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, the list was officially and formally acknowledged at Trent in the 16th Century. You might even TRY to say in 397 (although that’s a far, far weaker position). But that’s entirely unrelated to the issue of this thread, which is NOT about The New Testament is not about officially acknowledging anything. Acknowleging is not forming or causing and certainly not GIVING.
I guess some formal board of astrophysists could declare the exact moment the sun arose this morning in Greenwich Mean Time. But it did not cause the event, it did not “give us” the sun. And it would of insignificant importance if such was already known and accepted. Especially 200-1700 YEARS earlier.
.
- Status