The Origin of the Bible

[JonNC]

JohnNC I will admit to being very frustrated by the posters on here and perhaps my words came out harsh. My frustration is with the poster who claimed there was a “Protestant” cannon that was finished before the Catholic one. There is no such thing as a “Protestant” cannon as there is no such thing as a Protestant Church per say, rather thousands and thousands of churches that are not affiliated with each other. You have the decency to come on here and represent your church affiliation honestly and share your opinions reasonably, and trust me it is appreciated. Meanwhile, these posters do not have the valor to even say what denomination they associate with - so I use the generic term Protestant that they have chosen to use to define themselves here.

MercyMia,
I understand. We all get frustrated sometimes, and word things in a way we may later prefer we had done differently . I know I’ve done that. Thanks for your explanation, and your kind gesture here.

Jon

BTW, I join you in desiring that posters would more specifically identify their affiliation, as it makes dialogue easier.

 

[Hisalone]

JohnNC I will admit to being very frustrated by the posters on here and perhaps my words came out harsh. My frustration is with the poster who claimed there was a “Protestant” cannon that was finished before the Catholic one. There is no such thing as a “Protestant” cannon as there is no such thing as a Protestant Church per say, rather thousands and thousands of churches that are not affiliated with each other. You have the decency to come on here and represent your church affiliation honestly and share your opinions reasonably, and trust me it is appreciated. Meanwhile, these posters do not have the valor to even say what denomination they associate with - so I use the generic term Protestant that they have chosen to use to define themselves here.

Please dont try to obscure the point.
Catholic Cannon was not settled until Trent.
Some of us are NonDenominational so those who have to pigeon hole people best of luck.

 

[Hisalone]

hahahahahahahahha William Webster? You want me to trust a quote that comes from William Webster? I’ve looked everywhere and the only person claimed that quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia was William Webster. No one else. I don’t even think its really accurate. Maybe i should find a New Catholic Encyclopedia and read it myself before i defect to what William Webster says. I think I need a coffee. :compcoff:

If you google the first sentence you will see this quote in quite a few places. The quote is from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. William Webster uses it. The quote itself is in fact true.

 

[MercyMia]

Please dont try to obscure the point.
Catholic Cannon was not settled until Trent.
Some of us are NonDenominational so those who have to pigeon hole people best of luck.

Uh… I wasn’t obscuring the point I was merely addressing another poster’s unease with the tone of this thread.
You simply cannot argue your way around the fact that the Catholic Church chose the books of the New Testament and you are using those books to this very day. I know that is a tough truth to swallow because it leaves very little room for your “non-denominational” denomination to have any authority. IF the Catholic Church was wrong about some books, what makes you trust that we are not wrong about all of the New Testament books and thus you are following our false gospel Hmm? The holy spirit doesn’t make errors - and if he guided the Church to choose the right books for the NT I say thats pretty solid proof we are the one true Church. For you to disagree renders your belief in bible alone useless, since it is our bible that you follow. May I ask then name of your non- denominational church and the year it was founded. And if you say 33AD, pleae provide historical documentation of your non-denominationl church being referred to anywhere. Also, if your Church is the TRUE church - why did God not entrust you with his bible? Why did he leave you to rely on the books of the bible chosen by the “anti-Christ” church as you call it? Why did he leave you to have to rely on the King’s James Version of his word, which is a translation of a translation that came 1500 years after Christ?

 

[JonNC]

Trent says the following:

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession. It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.4

They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema. Let all understand, therefore, in what order and manner the council, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and who are the chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in conforming dogmas and in restoring morals in the Church.

Bolding is mine.

Maybe someone smarter than me can say whether or not in any of the early councils an anathema had ever been attached to belief regarding the canon of scripture, as is done here. I am not Catholic and admit readily to not always understanding the impact and intent of these kinds of things, but ISTM that if this is the first time there is an anathema, then it can be argued that Trent is not just simply reaffirming what has always been taught, but firmly closing the door on about 1200 years of debate.
And that has been my point. Debate was not closed until Trent, and Luther was participating in that debate, and cannot be singled out for doing so, as the Church permitted it until Trent.

Jon

 

[Sword_Brethren]

The cannon was unsettled from the time of Jerome to Trent in Catholicism. Many, many Cathilic churchmen sided with Jerome. It was not until Trent that the matter was settled. Long after the Jews closed their cannon and after the Protestants closed their cannon.
You have violated your user agreement by attacking a fellow member.

“The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.”

"Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West"
Widepedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

 

[SemperReformada]

“The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.”

"Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West"
Widepedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

First, the LXX (septuagint) is not synonymous with the deuterocanonical books.

As for the OT, Hippo and Carthage did set a canon but so what? They weren’t ecumenical councils and therefore couldn’t rule for the whole church. That is why you see differing opinions of the canon between the time of Carthage/Hippo and Trent.

 

[SemperReformada]

Trent says the following:

Bolding is mine.

Maybe someone smarter than me can say whether or not in any of the early councils an anathema had ever been attached to belief regarding the canon of scripture, as is done here. I am not Catholic and admit readily to not always understanding the impact and intent of these kinds of things, but ISTM that if this is the first time there is an anathema, then it can be argued that Trent is not just simply reaffirming what has always been taught, but firmly closing the door on about 1200 years of debate.
And that has been my point. Debate was not closed until Trent, and Luther was participating in that debate, and cannot be singled out for doing so, as the Church permitted it until Trent.

Jon

Jon,

If you listen to the debates between various Catholic apologists such as Pacwa, Michuta, Sungenis, etc. you will find all of them admitting that the first infallible pronouncment of the OT canon came at Trent.

You can read a good article on this at www.newadvent.org under the canon of the OT. Even this Catholic site clearly spells out that Trent was the first dogmatic and infallible pronouncement for the church universal.

 

[historyb]

So what specifically made you change your mind? Was it a specific event or a gradual change of opinion? I’m not asking to be rude i really want to know.

Well I knew the truth all along, I was just denying it. Christ convicted me and I knew I could not stay in the Catholic Church, it hasn’t been easy since I married a Catholic but thankfully she was rescued by Christ too. I’ll have it in my blog, I am just slow at typing it all. I am sorry I acted stupidly earlier to you or anyone else, sometimes I do that without meaning to.

To be quite honest I wish I never converted 15 years ago, I was happy where I was and did it only because I was rebelling and loved history at the same time. I believe the whole experience ruined my life, I was better off in ignorance

 

[CWBetts]

Well I knew the truth all along, I was just denying it. Christ convicted me and I knew I could not stay in the Catholic Church, it hasn’t been easy since I married a Catholic but thankfully she was rescued by Christ too. I’ll have it in my blog, I am just slow at typing it all. I am sorry I acted stupidly earlier to you or anyone else, sometimes I do that without meaning to.

To be quite honest I wish I never converted 15 years ago, I was happy where I was and did it only because I was rebelling and loved history at the same time. I believe the whole experience ruined my life, I was better off in ignorance

So now Catholics are ignorant?!? You and your wife were “rescued by Chrisr?” When will you stop spewing hatred towards the Body of Christ?

 

[historyb]

So now Catholics are ignorant?!? You and your wife were “rescued by Chrisr?” When will you stop spewing hatred towards the Body of Christ?

I don’t, the RCC is not any part of the Body of Christ

 

[MercyMia]

historyb - what denomination are you affilated with again? I just wonder how you know anything about Christ aside from the New Testament which the Catholic Church carefully and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit chose to be in cannon of scripture. Can you address my previous questions to clear things up for me?
**IF the Catholic Church was wrong about some books, what makes you trust that we are not wrong about all of the New Testament books and thus you are following our false gospel Hmm? The holy spirit doesn’t make errors - and if he guided the Church to choose the right books for the NT I say thats pretty solid proof we are the one true Church.
Also, if your Church is the TRUE church - why did God not entrust you with his bible? Why did he leave you to rely on the books of the bible chosen by the “anti-Christ” church as you call it? Why did he leave you to have to rely on the King’s James Version of his word, which is a translation of a translation that came 1500 years after Christ? **

 

[Sword_Brethren]

First, the LXX (septuagint) is not synonymous with the deuterocanonical books.

As for the OT, Hippo and Carthage did set a canon but so what? They weren’t ecumenical councils and therefore couldn’t rule for the whole church. That is why you see differing opinions of the canon between the time of Carthage/Hippo and Trent.

So what? Differing opinions?
"Synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter… The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since. " What Differing opinions? Differing opinions by revolutionaries like Luther, Calvin, so what?
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I don’t, the RCC is not any part of the Body of Christ

Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic

 

[historyb]

historyb - what denomination are you affiliated with again?

Right now I am not affiliated with any, I am a Calvinist though. Most likely I would go with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I just wonder how you know anything about Christ aside from the New Testament which the Catholic Church carefully and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit chose to be in cannon of scripture. Can you address my previous questions to clear things up for me?

The OT was accepted long before the Catholic Church got involved. There are others that have explained things well

IF the Catholic Church was wrong about some books, what makes you trust that we are not wrong about all of the New Testament books and thus you are following our false gospel Hmm? The holy spirit doesn’t make errors - and if he guided the Church to choose the right books for the NT I say thats pretty solid proof we are the one true Church.

My trust is not in the RCC

**Also, if your Church is the TRUE church - why did God not entrust you with his bible? Why did he leave you to rely on the books of the bible chosen by the “anti-Christ” church as you call it? Why did he leave you to have to rely on the King’s James Version of his word, which is a translation of a translation that came 1500 years after Christ? **

Seewe don’t make the false claims that the RCC does and I don’t use the King James Version, which did not come from the RCC it was translated from the Textus Receptius.I usethe ESV which was taken from the CR. None of these have much anything to do with the RCC, The RCC wants to take credit for way to much. Scripture wasn’t for one intistution to take charge of.

 

[historyb]

Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic
Anti-Catholic Anti-Catholic

Please play in kindergarten where you belong this is an adult place

 

[JonNC]

The OT was accepted long before the Catholic Church got involved. There are others that have explained things well

Seewe don’t make the false claims that the RCC does and I don’t use the King James Version, which did not come from the RCC it was translated from the Textus Receptius.I usethe ESV which was taken from the CR. None of these have much anything to do with the RCC, The RCC wants to take credit for way to much. Scripture wasn’t for one intistution to take charge of.

Your eight posts prior to this one were not related to the topic, which others here are trying to discuss. If you wish to talk about why, in your opinion, the Catholic Church is not part of the body of Christ rolleyes, by all means start a new thread. Otherwise, please be on topic, and if possible, charitable.

Jon

 

[Stouts989]

The Origin of the Bible
Did Jesus Christ ever write a bible

Yes, if you believe Jesus is God in flesh. John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”. and 2 Peter 1:21 “for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

So technically Jesus wrote the entire Bible. John 1:1,14 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Was with God, and the Word as God…and the Word became flesh…”

Did Jesus Christ ever command anyone to write a book?

No, but Jesus liked to use the phrase…“It is written” a lot!

Is the Bible which you use, the mother of the Church, or the daughter?

Neither, it is the written Words of God. (2 Timothy 3:16 & 2 Peter 1:21)

Does the Bible contain a list of inspired books to be included in it?

Yes, and No. We don’t have a list of names of books, but we have verses in scripture where Jesus and the Apostles gives the authority of writings as being the inspired Words of God.

In Luke 11:49-51 and Luke 24:44, Jesus tells us which Old Testament is the authoritative written Words of God. Both passages are direct references to the Tanak (TNK) which consist of the same 39 Old Testament book (though in a different order) that make up the Bible we use by reformed churches today.

Jesus promises the Apostles the Holy Spirit as they would continue to teach and record the events and teachings of Christ (John 14:26). Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:15-16 that Paul is writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There’s your Bible for ya…

If not, Who decided which books should be included as inspired?

I know this question is an attack on Sola Scriptura. I also know that nothing I have written here will make you think or change some of your views of the authority of scripture, because I know you believe that the RCC has authority over the Bible, because you believe that the RCC gave us the Bible.

But I want to leave you with one last thing…

If the scripture we have that is organized into what we refer to as the Bible really is the written Word of God…then it is the written Word of God. If it is the written Word of God, then everything else is subjected to it.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I don’t, the RCC is not any part of the Body of Christ

If the measure of charity of someone belonging to the body of Christ is you then I have no option but to take this as a compliment.

Thank you and God bless you

 

[JonNC]

If the measure of charity of someone belonging to the body of Christ is you then I have no option but to take this as a compliment.

Thank you and God bless you

Think I could latch on here as an evangelical Catholic, R_C?