The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[East_Anglican]

If Donatus was right (I assume you mean the founder of the Donatists in the fourth century; not the grammarian who tutored St. Jerome, since I see nothing to object to in the small amount of writings he left to us) then no one can be saved, since what he said was that, if the minister of the Sacrament is a sinner, then the Sacrament has no effect.

Since we are all sinners, this means that no Sacrament can have any effect - which means that no one can be saved. (Donatus had no concept of “faith alone” and would have objected even more strongly to the idea that a mere thought, being thought by a sinner, could have any effect towards salvation whatsoever, since he believed that the actions of sinners could have no effect.)

OK what I should have said was that Donatus was right when he was against Christians lording it over each other. It was Donatus’ opposition to the Imperielist system of Ecclesial governance that first got him branded a heretic.

 

[East_Anglican]

The “Roman Catholic Church” is a label foisted on the Catholic Church in the 1600s as a slur by those with a vested interest to try to make it appear that said church was ‘only’ Roman.

It’s system of governance is based on the governance of imperial Rome contrary to what the Apostle Paul said and contrary to Christ command for us not to lord it over each other. It’s governance eminate from Rome with The pope as its head. The Pope is ceasar in Christian wrapping.

 

[East_Anglican]

All of the sees were in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, back then. Most of them are still in full communion even today. There were only seven of them (out of many thousands) that split away during the 1000s AD.

The Christians who traveled East never were and also Jerusalem, Rome Constantinople and Alexandria were often in disagreement. In those days all Christians valued truth over unity. Not anymore.

For example, I live in Calgary, and I am under the Bishop of Calgary, but we are “Roman Catholic” because the Diocese (See) of Calgary is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. .

Irrelevant.

All of the Sees back then were also “Roman Catholic” - the Bishops of Hippo and Carthage were in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Definitely not the case. The Church Fathers were far from in unity and in agreement with each other.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

It’s system of governance is based on the governance of imperial Rome contrary to what the Apostle Paul said and contrary to Christ command for us not to lord it over each other. It’s governance eminate from Rome with The pope as its head. The Pope is ceasar in Christian rapping.

So in other words, Catholics are pagans with a Christian name? Or paganism mixed with Christianity?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nice try. . .totally wrong though (and I think you mean ‘wrapping’ as the mental picture of Pope Benedict, who is a true musician, standing up and pretending to be Eminem is rather shocking). . .

 

[East_Anglican]

So in other words, Catholics are pagans with a Christian name? Or paganism mixed with Christianity?

No Catholics are not pagans with a Christian name but paganism has been mixed with Christianity.

 

[East_Anglican]

Nice try. . .totally wrong though (and I think you mean ‘wrapping’ as the mental picture of Pope Benedict, who is a true musician, standing up and pretending to be Eminem is rather shocking). . .

Believe your own version of church history. You do anyway. Don’t mention the crusades sacking Christian Constantinople. Actually as they were Eastern Orthoodox they weren’t proper Christians were they?

 

[jmcrae]

Believe your own version of church history. You do anyway. Don’t mention the crusades sacking Christian Constantinople.

Yes, that happened. Apparently there was a mix-up in communications, combined with some over-enthusiastic soldiers.

Actually as they were Eastern Orthoodox they weren’t proper Christians were they?

They were not the intended target - but the damage is now done, and we can’t reverse time - and it isn’t relevant to this thread, anyway.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

No Catholics are not pagans with a Christian name but paganism has been mixed with Christianity.

Yet you mention the papacy…So Catholicism is Roman paganism with Christianity? Please tell me your sources.

 

[ricko]

It’s system of governance is based on the governance of imperial Rome contrary to what the Apostle Paul said and contrary to Christ command for us not to lord it over each other. It’s governance eminate from Rome with The pope as its head. The Pope is ceasar in Christian wrapping.

Many years ago Pope John Paul was here in America. A show was put on in his honor. He was sitting on a chair on a stage. Just at the end of the stage was a young Mexican boy who had no arms. This young man played the guitar with his FEET! It was amazing to see. When he finished the Pope and others gave him a tremendous applause. The Pope jumped out of his chair and rushed to the young boy, the leader of the largest Christian Church in the world, went down on his knees and gave him a hug and a kiss. Is this what you mean by the Catholic Church lording it over others?

 

[jmcrae]

It’s system of governance is based on the governance of imperial Rome contrary to what the Apostle Paul said and contrary to Christ command for us not to lord it over each other. It’s governance eminate from Rome with The pope as its head. The Pope is ceasar in Christian wrapping.

Right. This would be why the Pope is called “Lord High Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury,” and not “the servant of the servants of God” like the head of the Anglican Church.

Oh, wait … :ehh:

 

[ricko]

Right. This would be why the Pope is called “Lord High Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury,” and not “the servant of the servants of God” like the head of the Anglican Church.

Oh, wait … :ehh:

HA!

 

[ErrorCMDR]

Great one bud

God Bless

EC

 

[East_Anglican]

Yes, that happened. Apparently there was a mix-up in communications, combined with some over-enthusiastic soldiers.

They were not the intended target - but the damage is now done, and we can’t reverse time - and it isn’t relevant to this thread, anyway.

The city’s wealth was the intended target.

 

[East_Anglican]

Right. This would be why the Pope is called “Lord High Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury,” and not “the servant of the servants of God” like the head of the Anglican Church.

Oh, wait … :ehh:

As I’m a disestablishmentarian, it doesn’t matter.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, all the ‘little churches’ and the sees were Catholic, catholic. . .little and small c. The Catholic Church of today is the same Catholic Church that came into existence when Christ revealed to Peter that He would build a Church.

Neither you nor Josiah can in any way prove that at point A there were a bunch of ‘separate’ 'churches (Christ founded A Church, not the 'alexandrian church and the Antiochian church and the church over in THIS town here). ALL the various members (Christian) wherever they met, whether they met in a church, a temple, or out in the fields, were Christians. . .CATHOLIC Christians. . from Pentecost onward.

1. You have yet to provide any evidence to the issue of this thread: Whether it is historically substantiated that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. Begin with the Ten Commandments (generally regarded as the oldest Scripture in the Bible) and go through the Revelation of John (generally regarded as the newest Scripture in the Bible) and show that this came specificly from The Catholic Church.
2. I don’t think the church catholic was EVER a bunch of congregations - united or otherwise. I believe that the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints - IS the mystical union of all believers (past and present). It’s always been, it always will be. World without end. Amen (lol). Of course, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with congregations or associations of congregations (denomination) and thus nothing to do with The Catholic Church.
3. Now, let’s turn to the issue of this thread. Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible? The question of this thread is not if Christians gave us Genesis - Revelation, it’s not if Catholics penned all the material (including The Ten Commandments), it’s not if most denominations (including your and mine) offficially embraced the list of books regarded as Scripture at some point, the issue is clear: Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible - from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. Either you agree with the opening poster that it did not or you agree with the often made Catholic claim that it did.

.

 

[jmcrae]

1. You have yet to provide any evidence to the issue of this thread: Whether it is historically substantiated that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. Begin with the Ten Commandments (generally regarded as the oldest Scripture in the Bible) and go through the Revelation of John (generally regarded as the newest Scripture in the Bible) and show that this came specificly from The Catholic Church.
2. I don’t think the church catholic was EVER a bunch of congregations - united or otherwise. I believe that the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints - IS the mystical union of all believers (past and present). It’s always been, it always will be. World without end. Amen (lol). Of course, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with congregations or associations of congregations (denomination) and thus nothing to do with The Catholic Church.
3. Now, let’s turn to the issue of this thread. Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible? The question of this thread is not if Christians gave us Genesis - Revelation, it’s not if Catholics penned all the material (including The Ten Commandments), it’s not if most denominations (including your and mine) offficially embraced the list of books regarded as Scripture at some point, the issue is clear: Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible - from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. Either you agree with the opening poster that it did not or you agree with the often made Catholic claim that it did.

You are a real Johnny One-note, aren’t you? It has been explained to you already that the individual books (or individual chapters) are not, in and of themselves, “the Bible.” They are parts of what ultimately became, in 405 AD, the Bible, but prior to that, they were scattered across the whole world. They were not even all together in the same city, never mind the same building, or the same room, or the same codex.

The codex that we call “the Bible” began to exist when St. Jerome had translated all of the books on the list that was given to him by Pope Innocent I, and once he had placed them into the same codex where he was keeping the Books of the Old Testament (which he had been commanded by Pope Damasus to translate, as well, earlier on).

If you have a book, and it has every book of the Bible in it except for the Book of Revelation, this is not “the Bible” or “a Bible.” It is just an incomplete collection of books. It only becomes “a Bible” when all of the books are present, all of them are translated into the same language, and they are arranged in the proper order.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just tell me Josiah: Let’s take it that God is the author of Scripture (I take it we can both agree on that?)

Every book from Genesis through Revelation is the inspired, inerrant word of God. Well and good. We agree on that.

The books we call the Old Testament were ‘penned’ by various Jewish men over a period of many centuries.

The books of the New Testament were ‘penned’ by various Christians in the early Church which was a single entity established by Christ. This single entity had various ‘sees’ as it was spreading to various cities/countries; each see had a leader and all the leaders ultimately deferred to one leader, Peter, who was given the ‘keys’ by Christ. Symbolically speaking all Jewish and indeed all Gentiles would know from history that any king had a ‘prime minister’ to whom all the other court officials would come in the physical absence of the king and who could act with the authority OF the King by virtue of the keys.

Peter had the keys; Peter was the ultimate authority. And in accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Peter was led to (what would have seemed folly to the ‘world’) the place which was the most dangerous for any Christian–so dangerous it was code-named “Babylon”-- Rome. Christ’s first ‘conquest’ of the world was in taking the empire which crucified Him and turning it into the seat of His Church on earth.

All the Christians, whether they were in Corinth, Jerusalem, Damascus. . .anywhere on earth–were part of this same catholic or universal Church. The Catholic Church retains the name’ catholic’ because it IS universal. It is not ‘solely’ Roman as though only the ‘see of Rome’ somehow overthrew all the other ‘sees’ which had been existing as bunches of little ‘churches’ and denominations.

So the Christians writing the New Testament were Catholics.

Furthermore, the men called by the Spirit to assemble the canon of the Bible (remember, men had been existing for 350 years with ‘bits’ of Scripture but no one had assembled all those bits into the Bible as we know it today) were all Catholic.

The monks who copied out the Bible for the next 1000 years until the advent of the printing press were Catholics. The first book printed was the Bible and it was printed by a Catholic for Catholics. (When the Orthodox spit in 1054 they were still Catholics but just not Catholics in communion with Rome. So my Orthodox brothers would equally claim that the Catholic universal Church --of which it is a part–was responsible for determining the canon of Scripture as God decreed.)

 

[Anna_Scott]

1. You have yet to provide any evidence to the issue of this thread: Whether it is historically substantiated that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. Begin with the Ten Commandments (generally regarded as the oldest Scripture in the Bible) and go through the Revelation of John (generally regarded as the newest Scripture in the Bible) and show that this came specificly from The Catholic Church.
2. I don’t think the church catholic was EVER a bunch of congregations - united or otherwise. I believe that the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints - IS the mystical union of all believers (past and present). It’s always been, it always will be. World without end. Amen (lol). Of course, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with congregations or associations of congregations (denomination) and thus nothing to do with The Catholic Church.
3. Now, let’s turn to the issue of this thread. Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible? The question of this thread is not if Christians gave us Genesis - Revelation, it’s not if Catholics penned all the material (including The Ten Commandments), it’s not if most denominations (including your and mine) offficially embraced the list of books regarded as Scripture at some point, the issue is clear: Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible - from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. Either you agree with the opening poster that it did not or you agree with the often made Catholic claim that it did…

You are a real Johnny One-note, aren’t you? It has been explained to you already that the individual books (or individual chapters) are not, in and of themselves, “the Bible.” They are parts of what ultimately became, in 405 AD, the Bible, but prior to that, they were scattered across the whole world. They were not even all together in the same city, never mind the same building, or the same room, or the same codex.

The codex that we call “the Bible” began to exist when St. Jerome had translated all of the books on the list that was given to him by Pope Innocent I, and once he had placed them into the same codex where he was keeping the Books of the Old Testament (which he had been commanded by Pope Damasus to translate, as well, earlier on).

If you have a book, and it has every book of the Bible in it except for the Book of Revelation, this is not “the Bible” or “a Bible.” It is just an incomplete collection of books. It only becomes “a Bible” when all of the books are present, all of them are translated into the same language, and they are arranged in the proper order.

Just tell me Josiah: Let’s take it that God is the author of Scripture (I take it we can both agree on that?)

Every book from Genesis through Revelation is the inspired, inerrant word of God. Well and good. We agree on that.

The books we call the Old Testament were ‘penned’ by various Jewish men over a period of many centuries.

The books of the New Testament were ‘penned’ by various Christians in the early Church which was a single entity established by Christ. This single entity had various ‘sees’ as it was spreading to various cities/countries; each see had a leader and all the leaders ultimately deferred to one leader, Peter, who was given the ‘keys’ by Christ. Symbolically speaking all Jewish and indeed all Gentiles would know from history that any king had a ‘prime minister’ to whom all the other court officials would come in the physical absence of the king and who could act with the authority OF the King by virtue of the keys.

Peter had the keys; Peter was the ultimate authority. And in accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Peter was led to (what would have seemed folly to the ‘world’) the place which was the most dangerous for any Christian–so dangerous it was code-named “Babylon”-- Rome. Christ’s first ‘conquest’ of the world was in taking the empire which crucified Him and turning it into the seat of His Church on earth.

All the Christians, whether they were in Corinth, Jerusalem, Damascus. . .anywhere on earth–were part of this same catholic or universal Church. The Catholic Church retains the name’ catholic’ because it IS universal. It is not ‘solely’ Roman as though only the ‘see of Rome’ somehow overthrew all the other ‘sees’ which had been existing as bunches of little ‘churches’ and denominations.

So the Christians writing the New Testament were Catholics.

Furthermore, the men called by the Spirit to assemble the canon of the Bible (remember, men had been existing for 350 years with ‘bits’ of Scripture but no one had assembled all those bits into the Bible as we know it today) were all Catholic.

The monks who copied out the Bible for the next 1000 years until the advent of the printing press were Catholics. The first book printed was the Bible and it was printed by a Catholic for Catholics. (When the Orthodox spit in 1054 they were still Catholics but just not Catholics in communion with Rome. So my Orthodox brothers would equally claim that the Catholic universal Church --of which it is a part–was responsible for determining the canon of Scripture as God decreed.)

jmcrae & Tantum ergo: Very informative posts. I have to admire your patience.

Anna

 

[YADA]

They rebuked him because they knew that his commandment was from God, and that he himself was not free to break it, even though it came originally from him. It was not a denial of his authority that caused St. Paul to rebuke him - it was recognition of his authority, and that his every commandment is the Law of God for us, the Church - including himself!!

We should be very clear about the “rebuke” of Peter by Paul …

Peter received a ‘revelation’ regarding th eating of ‘clean and unclean’ foods … an issue that arose beacuse of the Gentile converts …

the Council held in Jerusalemm had denounced ‘judaizing’ gentile converts …

There remained some jewish folowers who still wanted gentiles to observe jewish customs …

Peter, who sat at table with gentile Christians in the absence of these judiazers refrained from eating with those same Chrisitans when the judaizers arrived … At no time did Peter teach in a manner that denied his revealtion … his personal actions were seen as an affront and an acquiescence … that ‘personal’ hesitation is what Paul rebuked Peter for … Peter failed to ‘live the example’ to his flock …

Now, Paul later actually compelled another to submit to circumcision to appease judaizers [and this after Paul had publically rebuked Peter for far less!]…

Just as Jesus chose Judas as a disciple, Jesus also bestowed upon Peter the responsibility for His Church … to strengthen and unify, to tend and feed … to hold the “Keys” … Peter’s rebuke by Paul does nothing to deny Christ’s Church nor the leadership He personnally instituted …

Pax Christe