The Origin of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Except Jerome remained obedient and later recanted his dissent. Jerome remained united, and denied himself for the greater good of Christian unity.
The earlier councils were not binding to the church universal so there was no disabedience involved nor was there an issue with Christian unity on this matter before Trent. Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the OT canon.

BTW, I don’t think Jerome ever changed his mind on the matter of the deuterocanonicals not being fully canonical.
 
The earlier councils were not binding to the church universal so there was no disabedience involved nor was there an issue with Christian unity on this matter before Trent. Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the OT canon.

BTW, I don’t think Jerome ever changed his mind on the matter of the deuterocanonicals not being fully canonical.
Forgive me for being skepical, but are you going to provide sources for any of this? Where is your evidence that early councils were not binding? Jus curious.
 
I don’t know of a lot of the folks on Krew07’s list, but here a some things I am acquainted with:

Irenaeus was one of the Church fathers. He wrote a book called Against Heresies. In it he advocated that there ought to be four gospels because there were four corners of the Earth, four winds, and four seasons. The final decision about which of the many books and gospels circulating until then were to be officially in the Bible was made in the fourth century by a group of largely illiterate and ignorant churchmen. They voted as to which were ti be included and designated them as “inspired.” That is similarly the case with other bibles.
Justin Martyr pooh-poohed the similarities of christianism to paganism and called them forshadowings. He said that what was correct among the pagans was “now the property of the Christians.” In addressing his pagan critics, Martyr pointed out that in “declaring the Logos, the first begotten Lord, our master Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin mother, without any human mixture,and to be crucified, and dead, and to be risen again and ascended into heaven, we say no more than what you say of those whom you style the sons of Jove.”
Origen said “It’s allowed by all who have knowledge of the scritptures that everything there is conveyed enigmatically, ie, esoterically.” Once the literalists of the Church took over, Origen’s books were declared heretical and burned.
Origen confessed that in his history of the Church he omitted all those things which would discredit her leaders, and magnified those things that would exalt her.

Those are a few and minuscule notes on the matter. There is much more, if one cares to look behind the veil. There is an entire library of work whose work points inexorably to the fact that a working, practical, and mostly secret teaching was usurped by the early christianists and made into an exoteric, dogmatized, canon castrated of its actual and age old meanings. in order to ensure this new cannon’s public face, everything from book burnings to murders were committed. Therein is the origin of the Bible as we know it today. Jesus, Jeheshoua, Iesu, whatever one might name Him, would freak. But similarly to other situations, the church has too much invested and at stake to tip its hand.

Don’t believe me; go do the research. At least you will have some material to think with. You might actually discover something of meaning beyond belief.
 
I don’t know of a lot of the folks on Krew07’s list, but here a some things I am acquainted with:

Irenaeus was one of the Church fathers. He wrote a book called Against Heresies. In it he advocated that there ought to be four gospels because there were four corners of the Earth, four winds, and four seasons. The final decision about which of the many books and gospels circulating until then were to be officially in the Bible was made in the fourth century by a group of largely illiterate and ignorant churchmen. They voted as to which were ti be included and designated them as “inspired.” That is similarly the case with other bibles.
Justin Martyr pooh-poohed the similarities of christianism to paganism and called them forshadowings. He said that what was correct among the pagans was “now the property of the Christians.” In addressing his pagan critics, Martyr pointed out that in “declaring the Logos, the first begotten Lord, our master Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin mother, without any human mixture,and to be crucified, and dead, and to be risen again and ascended into heaven, we say no more than what you say of those whom you style the sons of Jove.”
Origen said “It’s allowed by all who have knowledge of the scritptures that everything there is conveyed enigmatically, ie, esoterically.” Once the literalists of the Church took over, Origen’s books were declared heretical and burned.
Origen confessed that in his history of the Church he omitted all those things which would discredit her leaders, and magnified those things that would exalt her.

Those are a few and minuscule notes on the matter. There is much more, if one cares to look behind the veil. There is an entire library of work whose work points inexorably to the fact that a working, practical, and mostly secret teaching was usurped by the early christianists and made into an exoteric, dogmatized, canon castrated of its actual and age old meanings. in order to ensure this new cannon’s public face, everything from book burnings to murders were committed. Therein is the origin of the Bible as we know it today. Jesus, Jeheshoua, Iesu, whatever one might name Him, would freak. But similarly to other situations, the church has too much invested and at stake to tip its hand.

Don’t believe me; go do the research. At least you will have some material to think with. You might actually discover something of meaning beyond belief.
I thank you very much for this amateur attempt at debunking the Bible, but the fact of the matter is every “Tom D*ck and Harry” has been trying to render Sacred scripture as false and yet it’s still around. So I’ll stick to the 2000 year old church that birthed it rather than listen to the ramblings of pseudo-scholars.
 
It doesn’t take a scholar to recognize that the Jesus story was around 3000 years before He was. And that doesn’t make it wrong, it just means it means something else. What could that be?
 
It doesn’t take a scholar to recognize that the Jesus story was around 3000 years before He was. And that doesn’t make it wrong, it just means it means something else. What could that be?
The Jews were around way before that.
 
Forgive me for being skepical, but are you going to provide sources for any of this? Where is your evidence that early councils were not binding? Jus curious.
CWBetts,

Nothing to forgive.

Go to www.newadvent.org and read the article on the canon of the OT.

Hippo and Carthage were provincial councels and apparently not dogmatic in nature. I can provide more on this but the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia should be sufficient.
 
The earlier councils were not binding to the church universal so there was no disabedience involved nor was there an issue with Christian unity on this matter before Trent. Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the OT canon.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Why have a council at all, then? This is the view of history while wearing Protestant goggles. The Church was intended by Christ to be united, and the fight to preserve unity began in the first days. Is there something wrong with denial of self, the taking up of one’s cross and remaining obedient? Is there something wrong with unity?

Please do not make the mistake that the OT canon was somehow settled at Trent. That is the Protestant’s number one peeve, it seems. Councils were called to answer heresy relating to the ancient and consistent teaching of the Church. Do not get hung up on dates, or obsess over the word “Trent”. Nothing was invented at Trent, or at any of the councils. Definitions were formulated to define Church practice, as the Church was under attack. Councils are defensive moves.
BTW, I don’t think Jerome ever changed his mind on the matter of the deuterocanonicals not being fully canonical.
Well, Jerome was only a part of the larger Church, and had no authority to declare them either way. His personal opinion did not alter the truth. Name a Pope or council who declared them non-canonical and you’ll have something. But again, you appear to favor the church of the individual, which scripture says is clearly not how Christ founded it.
 
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Why have a council at all, then? This is the view of history while wearing Protestant goggles.
It’s a fact. Were Carthage and Hippo ecumenical councils? No they weren’t. Were the provincial? Yes they were. Are provincial councils capable of making dogmatic statements? No they aren’t.

Go to www.newadvent.org and read what they have to say. You will find that Trent was the first dogmatic statement on the canon of the OT binding upon the church.

My view is based on fact. Do some research.
The Church was intended by Christ to be united, and the fight to preserve unity began in the first days. Is there something wrong with denial of self, the taking up of one’s cross and remaining obedient? Is there something wrong with unity?
This has nothing to do with the fact that Trent was the first dogmatic statement of the OT canon by the RCC, nothing at all.
Please do not make the mistake that the OT canon was somehow settled at Trent.
I guess we could argue over semantics but anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the issue of the OT canon would not claim that it was settled before Trent. The evidence weighs heavily against your view.
Nothing was invented at Trent…
Not sure why you introduce this into the discussion since I never even insinuated that Trent invented anything.
But again, you appear to favor the church of the individual, which scripture says is clearly not how Christ founded it.
Ad hominem from someone with no grasp of the subject at hand.
 
It’s a fact. Were Carthage and Hippo ecumenical councils? No they weren’t. Were the provincial? Yes they were. Are provincial councils capable of making dogmatic statements? No they aren’t.

Go to www.newadvent.org and read what they have to say. You will find that Trent was the first dogmatic statement on the canon of the OT binding upon the church.

My view is based on fact. Do some research.

This has nothing to do with the fact that Trent was the first dogmatic statement of the OT canon by the RCC, nothing at all.

I guess we could argue over semantics but anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the issue of the OT canon would not claim that it was settled before Trent. The evidence weighs heavily against your view.

Not sure why you introduce this into the discussion since I never even insinuated that Trent invented anything.

Ad hominem from someone with no grasp of the subject at hand.
Hi Semperreformada, is there a Bible before the reformation with 66 books in it?
 
Hi Semperreformada, is there a Bible before the reformation with 66 books in it?
Hi Josie,

I don’t know of one but do you know of a bible or major scripture commentary before Trent that included the deuterocanonicals w/out negative commentary as to their canonocity?

For example, the Vulgate included Jerome’s prologues to the dc’s which clearly identified the dc’s as less than fully canonical. The glossa ordinaire (major scripture commentary of the middle ages) also rejected the dc’s canonocity.
 
Hi Josie,

I don’t know of one but do you know of a bible or major scripture commentary before Trent that included the deuterocanonicals w/out negative commentary as to their canonocity?

For example, the Vulgate included Jerome’s prologues to the dc’s which clearly identified the dc’s as less than fully canonical. The glossa ordinaire (major scripture commentary of the middle ages) also rejected the dc’s canonocity.
Neither St. Jerome speaking on his own nor commentaries had infallible teaching authority. The fact remains that prior to the reformation all Bibles were complete. It was dogmatically reaffirmed at Trent that the deuterocanoinicals were indeed canon. Ecumenical councils do have infallible teaching authority. This declaration of the deuterocanonicals did not contradict any point of established Sacred Tradition, but settled an issue that had been loong understood as settled, but reinvigorated by the Martin Luther and other reformers. Such is the nature of declaration of Dogma. MAny times it is not infallibly declared until it becomes a point of contention. Ergo, the Bible legitimitely has 73 books, and was compliled by the Catholic Church.
 
Neither St. Jerome speaking on his own nor commentaries had infallible teaching authority.
Agree
The fact remains that prior to the reformation all Bibles were complete.
As best I know they did include the dc’s but also included statements saying that the dc’s aren’t part of the canon.
It was dogmatically reaffirmed at Trent that the deuterocanoinicals were indeed canon. Ecumenical councils do have infallible teaching authority. This declaration of the deuterocanonicals did not contradict any point of established Sacred Tradition, but settled an issue that had been loong understood as settled, but **reinvigorated by the Martin Luther **and other reformers.
I somewhat disagree. The fact is the OT canon wasn’t settled nor was it understood as being settled before Trent. Luther was certainly not the only one who rejected the canonocity of the dc’s. Many very loyal Catholics such as Cajetan who interviewed Luther at the Diet of Worms rejected their canonocity. Even Augustine who accepted the dc’s realized that the councils of Carthage and Hippo were only provinicial and had no authority to dogmatically settle the issue.
 
Agree

As best I know they did include the dc’s but also included statements saying that the dc’s aren’t part of the canon.

I somewhat disagree. The fact is the OT canon wasn’t settled nor was it understood as being settled before Trent. Luther was certainly not the only one who rejected the canonocity of the dc’s. Many very loyal Catholics such as Cajetan who interviewed Luther at the Diet of Worms rejected their canonocity. Even Augustine who accepted the dc’s realized that the councils of Carthage and Hippo were only provinicial and had no authority to dogmatically settle the issue.
It is absolutely irrelevant if individual faithful Catholics disagreed. YOu misunderstand tie infallible Council of Trent Settled the issue to resolve any confusion.
 
It is absolutely irrelevant if individual faithful Catholics disagreed. YOu misunderstand tie infallible Council of Trent Settled the issue to resolve any confusion.
You are correct that Trent settled the issue for Catholics.
Before Trent the issue was not settled nor the cannon closed for Catholics.
 
You are correct that Trent settled the issue for Catholics.
Before Trent the issue was not settled nor the cannon closed for Catholics.
The problem is that the confusion was introduced by the reformers. Now who is it that is the author of confusion?
 
The problem is that the confusion was introduced by the reformers. Now who is it that is the author of confusion?
There was no confusion except in Catholic circles.
So the question that needs to be addressed. Why did Catholics add seven books to the bible?
 
There was no confusion except in Catholic circles.
So the question that needs to be addressed. Why did Catholics add seven books to the bible?
Your premise is faulty. The Church accepted the Old Testament Alexandrian canon which was in existence before the birth of Christ.
 
There was no confusion except in Catholic circles.
So the question that needs to be addressed. Why did Catholics add seven books to the bible?
They werent added, as has been shown repeated times. They were removed bt the Protestant Pope, Martin Luther
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top