The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[jmcrae]

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

These are all excellent points. Thanks for the elaboration and clarification!

 

[YADA]

There is ZERO evidence for that.

Actually, the person espousing dubious facts with ZERO evidence is you …

Moot. Read posts 556 and 558. By the time ANY DENOMINATION DID ANYTHING (including The Catholic Church), the issue was largely settled, and to the degree that it was not, those meetings contributed nothing. Read the history.

Many have read history, perhaps very few learn from it - You are correct in that there were no “denominations” at that time … there was and is only one Church … The Church of Christ is not comprised of a bunch of ‘denominations’ as if there can be “this Truth and that Truth” … in fact that is one of the reasons why the recgnized Church leaders came together to “gather those writings” deemed to represent the core beliefs and teachings of the Church of Christ as taught and handed down through the ages from the Apostles …

Using your analogy then the Church of Dan Brown and his bible comprised of the Infancy Gospels of Thomas and other Gnostic works is just as validly “scriptural” as yours … after all you do not represent the Church any more then Dan Brown does and he can be just as 'inspired by the Holy Ghost [Spirit] as any other Christian …

As for is these persons were “Catholic” in the way theCatholic Church is today [comprised of the Latin Rite, Armenian Rite and the other Rites] - well they are ‘catholic’ in their beliefs and practice - far more so than any “protestant denomination or non-denomination” Church …

And just as the ‘term’ Roman Catholic arose from the Protestant Refomration - so to did the whole idea of ‘demoninations’ … the fracturing of the Protestant movement gave birth to the idea of ‘demoninations’ and denominational creeds … becuase there is no ‘catholicity [universal] belief’ to be found …

Each denomination is free to pick and choose and modify the faith … they can do this modification around a charismatic leader [a protestant version of a pope] or around a leadeship committee of congregational elders [a protestant version of the magisterium] …

And ultimately that leads to each individual “Christian” being led to join or seperate from any other group of 'Christians" or any individual Christian at will based upon his / or her own beliefs - all of course led by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost

So you can take your faith …

As for me I will stick with my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ … I will remain a member of the First Church of Christ … the Church Jesus prayed would be one and to whom He [Jesus] entrusted the “keys” to and to whom Jesus gave the command to strengthen and feed … The Universal Church - the historical Catholic Church …
.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Actually, the person espousing dubious facts with ZERO evidence is you …

Actually, I think a compelling case can be made that at least 2/3’s of the Bible COULD NOT have been given to us by The Catholic Church - that part existed before even The Catholic Church itself claims that it even existed. If you are going to prove that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, begin with the oldest part of it, the Ten Commandments (usually dated around 1400 BC) and take each part through the newest part of it (generally regarded to be the Revelation of John around 95 AD) and show that it all was given by The Catholic Church. So far, no one has even attempted to substantiate this often made Catholic claim.

You are correct in that there were no “denominations” at that time

Then The Catholic Church couldn’t have given us anything, it didn’t exist.

As for me I will stick with my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ … I will remain a member of the First Church of Christ … the Church Jesus prayed would be one and to whom He [Jesus] entrusted the “keys” to and to whom Jesus gave the command to strengthen and feed … The Universal Church - the historical Catholic Church …
.

A good diversion, but I’ll just give you my view: As for me I will stick with my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ … I will remain a member of the first church of Christ … the church Jesus prayed would be one and to whom He [Jesus] entrusted the “keys” to and to whom Jesus gave the command to strengthen and feed … The universal church - the historical one, holy, catholic church …

Now, back to the issue of the historical evidence for the often made Catholic claim that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Just tell me Josiah: Let’s take it that God is the author of Scripture Every book from Genesis through Revelation is the inspired, inerrant word of God. Well and good. We agree on that.(I take it we can both agree on that?)

I agree, but the issue of this thread is whether THE CATHOLIC CHURCH gave us the Bible. Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21.

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

I agree. How does that substantiate that The Catholic Church gave it to us?

The books of the New Testament were ‘penned’ by various Christians

I agree. How does that substantiate the The Catholic Church gave it to us?

So the Christians writing the New Testament were Catholics.

Let’s assume for a moment that there was an ounce of anything to support that. How does that substantiate that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible? Are you trying to substitute the often made Catholic claim with, “Catholics penned the New Testament?” A debatable claim, but wholly different than the one so often made and wholly different than the issue of this thread.

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.

Again, you seem to be confusing embracing Scripture as such with a denomination having an official, formal acknowledgment of that. Apples and oranges - and entirely moot to the often made Catholic claim and the issue of this thread.

We KNOW that biblical books were accepted as such CENTURIES before your denomination (or any other) did ANYTHING in this regard. The Jews regarded The Ten Commandments as Scripture - some 1800 years before ANYTHING did ANYTHING in this regard. Over 50 times, Jesus referenced Scriptures some 400 years before even The Catholic Church claims to have done ANYTHING in this regard (the Council so often referenced in this thread). Look, most denominations have had some official declaration at some official meeting stating that for it, this is the acknowlegded list of books. The Catholic Church did that at Trent, Italy in the 16th Century. Mine did it in St. Louis, MO in the 19th century. But ACKNOWLEDGING something is entirely unrelated to giving or causing it. I acknowledge that the sun came up today. I didn’t have a thing to do with it. And my acknowledging it just affirms what already was a reality. You seem to be confusing the two entirely separate issues.

**But back to the issue of this thread. ** Which is NOT if The Catholic Church at some point acknowledged the list of books in some formal sense. We all know it did. So has most other denominations, too. So what? The issue before us is the often made Catholic claim that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. Let’s get back to that.

.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, I think a compelling case can be made that at least 2/3’s of the Bible COULD NOT have been given to us by The Catholic Church - that part existed before even The Catholic Church itself claims that it even existed. If you are going to prove that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, begin with the oldest part of it, the Ten Commandments (usually dated around 1400 BC) and take each part through the newest part of it (generally regarded to be the Revelation of John around 95 AD) and show that it all was given by The Catholic Church. So far, no one has even attempted to substantiate this often made Catholic claim.

The fact that the Ten Commandments existed before the CC is irrelevant. So did the Hindu Scriptures. And lots of other writings of a religious nature.

What’s significant is that it was the CC that told YOU that the Ten Commandments are to be considered inspired. It was the CC that told YOU to accept Leviticus but reject the Didache as part of the inspired text.

Heck,* every single time *you quote a verse from Scripture you’re giving tacit approval to the authority of the CC.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, I think a compelling case can be made that at least 2/3’s of the Bible COULD NOT have been given to us by The Catholic Church - that part existed before even The Catholic Church itself claims that it even existed.

There were up to 70 books floating around that were being used for Synagogue and Temple readings in their Liturgy of the Word, but there was no set canon of Scripture (there were two common canons - the Mosaic canon, consisting of the five books of Moses, also called the “Torah”, and the canon of the Pharisees, which is the 46-book canon that we all know and love in the Catholic Church - later, after the destruction of the Temple, there came a third canon, which is the 39-book canon which is used by modern day Jews and Protestants - this canon was created in order to delete all of the overtly descriptive references to Christ in the Old Testament. The Jews never defined a once-and-for-all canon, however, and even today we still see various different groups of Jews using different canons of Scripture, anywhere from five to 53 books in length.

If you are going to prove that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, begin with the oldest part of it, the Ten Commandments (usually dated around 1400 BC) and take each part through the newest part of it (generally regarded to be the Revelation of John around 95 AD) and show that it all was given by The Catholic Church. So far, no one has even attempted to substantiate this often made Catholic claim.

The Ten Commandments is not “the Bible.” The Bible is a codex (a binding with turnable pages) of 73 books, as defined by the Church.

Then The Catholic Church couldn’t have given us anything, it didn’t exist.

It certainly did - the Catholic Church is what Christ established on Peter in 33 AD, and was the only form of Christianity in existence for the first 1,000 years.

 

[YADA]

Like I said before, the Bible is authored by God, not anyone else. We humans are mere vessels. If we are to listen to God, then we should listen to what God wrote INSIDE of it, and not what some vessels performed during the conveyance of the message.

1 John 2:27 The anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you don’t need anyone to teach you. Instead, His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie; just as it has taught you, remain in Him.

.

That is the belief [God authored - as in pened - dictated etc ] the “Bible” that led to others [Mohammed and Smith] to develope new ‘scriptures’ authored and dictated by God …

Jewish and Christian believe that the Scriptures we hold are ‘inspired’ by our Creator, revealing himself to man throughout history. That revelation was written down by humans as they understood God’s Self Revelation … the Scriptures are Inspired and Innerrent [will not present error in fith or morals] - Held Sacred … but they are not dictated tomes authored in the sense that God dictated each and every sentence - as we understand authorship today …

In fact even the authorship attributed to the various writers is not understood as we do today …

And choosing isolated quotes out of context does not help your case … in fact that is the activity that has led to the proliferation of denominationalism within Protestant Christianity … in essense you are making of yourself a ‘pope’ …

 

[YADA]

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 are making yourself the arbiter of God’s Word … I take our Lord at His Word … In fact He is the Word, the Word Made Flesh … Sacrificed for the world and for me … Jesus founded Church, visible and led by people - whom He prayed would remain unified - unified with the leadership and with the faith once given for all … not a faith that is fractured and dis-unified in faith and practice …

You accept what you want and disregard with the same obstinate will … you are following your desires not submitting to the will of Christ …

 

[YADA]

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.

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…

Paul was not writing “Canonical Scriptures” …Paul was writing [as a recognized leader in the Universal [read Catholic] Christian Faith … letters to correct errors and build up communities …

It was later recognized leaders of this same Catholic Christians who took those letters and “canonized them” …

So of these early Christians - who you admit recognized and promolgated the ‘biblical cannon’ -
1- how many practiced a faith and Christian belief that resembles your Protestant one and 2]-how many practiced a fatih and Cristian belief that resembles the catholic faith? …

[Hint: 1- zero and 2- all …] …

What is the earliest Christian extant bible and what are the Books and Letters contained therein? Will it be comprised of those writings found in Protestant Bibles or Catholic?

[Hint: Catholic]

How many protestants [or Christians who for example - failed to believe in the Eucharist as the Actual and True Body and Blood of Christ] were represented in the Ecumenical Councils of the first 5 centuries? …

[Hint: zero]

 

[YADA]

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

But what other types of Christians existed in Paul’s day? … that is the point … Take the Eucharist … Paul believed in the Real Presence to such a degree that he believed partaking unworthily and without realizing that fact was to eat and drink to your death … yet many Christians today practice a purely symbolic communion …

Jesus prayed for unity in those who followed Him … Jesus prayed that we would be one … one Faith one Church - universal in following Him - ergo ‘catholic’ … Paul certainly practiced and preached that … we are all of Christ … not of Paul, not Peter etc …

We are baptized into the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit … one baptism, regenerative, life giving … yet in the fractured Christian community we now have ‘denominations’ [read not universal - not catholic] who preach a “sinenrs prayer” [not found in scripture] and being all that one needs … baptism can be ‘optional’ and not regenerative … merely symbolic …

So you can say that Paul was simply a follower of Christ bt what does that mean in the light of the historical dis-unity of Christianity?

You are denying the Church as founded by Christ upon a man [Peter] … that exists through time [Christ promised that the gates of hell could not overcome her] … and mking of yourself a “pope” decising what is and what is not Truth and / or essential to the faith… You are betraying the unitiy for which Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemene where He sweat Blood for us before giving His ultimate gift of Love - His very Life on the Cross …

 

[YADA]

Protestants did not remove any books from the cannon.
The Catholic cannon was not finalized untill Trent thus the Catholics added 7 books.

What is the earliest extant Christian Bible in existance and what are the writings contained it it? …

What is the earliest exatant bible that contains ONLY the wirtings as found in a Protestant Bible?

The Truth is that there exist no bibles that contain only those found in the protestant version until after the Reformation and there exist many pre Reformation versions that are very “catholic” in their writings …

History porves your accusation false - very false …

 

[YADA]

Wait, that’s EXACTLY your position: That just because The Catholic Church affirmed and defined something in a council, that means it “invited” it at that time and “gave it” us the world. You keep pointing to a council - and insisting THAT’S when it happened.

Do you know what the word Canon means … the “Bible” represents the Canon of the Church …

Read the definition here:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canon

Catholic leaders of the Church came together, gathered together various writings - Hebrew writings and Christian writings … these leaders - guided by the Holy Spirit - set a criteria and selected the writings that would become the Canon - Bible : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture] … and all of those Early Christians were catholic [as in they practiced the faith as it is still practiced in the Catholic Church today] in their faith and beliefs …

You can stamp your foot and decry that fact all you want -BUT you can’t change that historical fact …

 

[Javl]

Mosacked and Hisalone:

Now you are both spouting and supporting what the Jehovahs Witnesses say of the Bible. Are you both JWs? Next you’ll be running with the Mormons by saying that the bible is not correctly translated.

I guess you both know more than what Historians and Scholars do.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[YADA]

Read my post------ even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that Trent closed the cannon.
You read your history.

You read the history … they closed the Canon as it existed before Luther modified it … The Chruch was compelled to take that move because Martin Luther [individually and apart from the Chruch] was modifying the Canon … Luther removed 7 Hebrew writings and wanted to remove some of the Christian writings - though he was persuaded not to … Luther also added words to promote and force upon the scriptures his own theology …

No Catholic Christian misunderstands why the Canon was ‘closed’ at Trent -

reality check … the Church is forced to deal with issues when they crop up … like defining the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ …

Speaking of the Two Natures of Christ … until someone arises who denies that Jesus is both God and Man as opposed to solely God or solely man the Church is not compelled to address the issue …but the Church always believed that Jesus was both God and man even before the doctrine was ‘defined’ … it was that constant faith and belief found in the historical faith that was then “defined” … Similarly - it was not until Luther began to play fast ans loose with the Canon that the Church was compelled to act … and they closed the historical canon … not a new canon with 7 added books … that my friend - is you playing fast and loose with history …

 

[YADA]

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.

Please tell me … What other “denomination” existed in the 4th century?

 

[PRmerger]

Please tell me … What other “denomination” existed in the 4th century?

I dunno…but whatever denomination it was believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, prayed for the dead, revered the Blesed Mother, celebrated the liturgy, had ordained priests and bishops…

Does that sound like any denomination still in existence today?

 

[YADA]

I dunno…but whatever denomination it was believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, prayed for the dead, revered the Blesed Mother, celebrated the liturgy, had ordained priests and bishops…

Does that sound like any denomination still in existence today?

Well yes, only one … the one holy and apostolic catholic church [comprised of the latin rite et al] … The original and first Church of Christ, founded upon Peter, preserved and guided by the Holy Spirit … All praise and glory be to God!..

 

[Mosacked]

Sorry but you are terribly wrong there.

From 51-125 AD the Bible was written by the Church that Christ founded. Yes, the one that was born at Pentecost, i.e. the Catholic Church. Peter, James, John, Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew, Jude (the men who the Holy Spirit inspired to write the NT were members of Christ’s Church.

.

EVERYONE says theirs is the true church. Who doesn’t say that?

Back in the ancient days, every country thought theirs was the only country in the world. China thought India was heaven!

PLEASE…we all say what we THINK. But if yours is really the true church, don’t worry, on the day of judgement, your true church, which has always been the most populous religion in the world today will flood your heaven. And Jesus’s statement that ‘many will try to go in but will not’ will be put to naught (ie most will go to Hell). Luke 13:24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because I tell you, many will try to enter and won’t be able”

And you will all prove Jesus to be wrong!..HAPPY NOW?..NOW GO CELEBRATE…AND CHEER WHILE YOU STILL CAN, BECAUSE I’M SURE ONCE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GETS INTO HEAVEN, JESUS WOULD BE AT A LOSS FOR WORDS… WOW!

“I AM THE TRUTH, THE WAY AND THE LIFE, NO MAN GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME” - JESUS.

.

 

[jmcrae]

But if yours is really the true church, don’t worry, on the day of judgement, your true church, which has always been the most populous religion in the world today will flood your heaven. And Jesus’s statement that ‘many will try to go in but will not’ will be put to naught (ie most will go to Hell). Luke 13:24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because I tell you, many will try to enter and won’t be able”

5 out of every 6 people are not Catholics, so it’s still true that the majority are not going to Heaven - even if everyone who claims to be Catholic makes it.

“I AM THE TRUTH, THE WAY AND THE LIFE, NO MAN GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME” - JESUS.

Which is why we can’t make up our own religion 1500 or 2,000 years after He ascended into Heaven, and then pretend that it’s “Bible based.” Jesus won’t be fooled by that!

 

[Mosacked]

Luke 22: 25 And he (Jesus) said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

It is very clear from the above that Jesus NEVER intended for His disciples to have a LEADER. HE Himself was to be their master and even He is one who serves…yet the entire catholic system runs counter to his teachings.

.