where did we get the bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrianH said:
qui est ce;2892276:
You did not answer, maybe you should be saying the Coptic church gave us the Bible…
Click to expand...
To the extent that Coptics and other Eastern Othodox Churches were all one with the Church in Rome under Damasus I, before the Schism, yes, they were part of the Church that gave us the original Latin Vulate. I don’t know much else about them, sorry. There were a lot of unapproved Bibles floating around, some containing more or less Scriputes than the Vulgate. I don’t believe all were heretical. The teachings of the Church were One, until a heresy came along and a teaching had to be “codified” via Church Council.
Click to expand...
 
Odell said:
I have been told it is the Catholic Church. And that is what I believe. But if it is true waht do protestants have to say or do they believe the bible came about any different.

anyway I would like to know both sides so I can determine for my self who really knows what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
The canon was settled in the 4th century CE, but there had been lists of approved books for some time before that. Trouble was not all agreed on what list. That was settled by Nicae. There is substantial evidence that what is known today as the Catholic Church was a Church in some sense within the 1st century CE. Some of this is supportable from the bible itself, some is supportable by early letters and epistles from the Apostolic Fathers. So that one can reasonably conclude that there was A Catholic Church exercising control through a loosely organized but still heirarchical church from well before the Canon was coalesed formally. Thus in a purely rational sense, one can say that the “Catholic Church” gave the world the bible.
allischalmers said:
The New Testament was written by Jews Christains who were Baptist.
Click to expand...
say what?
 
qui_est_ce said:
BrianH;2892306:
To the extent that Coptics and other Eastern Othodox Churches were all one with the Church in Rome under Damasus I, before the Schism, yes, they were part of the Church that gave us the original Latin Vulate. I don’t know much else about them, sorry. There were a lot of unapproved Bibles floating around, some containing more or less Scriputes than the Vulgate. I don’t believe all were heretical. The teachings of the Church were One, until a heresy came along and a teaching had to be “codified” via Church Council.
Click to expand...
There is so much pure propaganda in your reply, it would take me awhile to unpack it. The church was one? Well…having read a little history in my life I can tell you there were a lot of areas people disagreed about. But the bottom line for me is the statement that the entire church was under Damasus. I am here to tell you that the other churches that claim apostolic succession like the EO and the OO would have quite a bit to say about that! IF I were persuaded by the arguments of those claiming apostolic succession, I would have to give more merit to the EO and even the OO over the RC.
I understand you will not agree but this just strikes me the same as when I read anyones “official” history.
Click to expand...
 
BrianH said:
qui est ce;2892383:
There is so much pure propaganda in your reply, it would take me awhile to unpack it. The church was one? Well…having read a little history in my life I can tell you there were a lot of areas people disagreed about. But the bottom line for me is the statement that the entire church was under Damasus. I am here to tell you that the other churches that claim apostolic succession like the EO and the OO would have quite a bit to say about that! IF I were persuaded by the arguments of those claiming apostolic succession, I would have to give more merit to the EO and even the OO over the RC.
I understand you will not agree but this just strikes me the same as when I read anyones “official” history.
Click to expand...
first of all who are the EO and OO and do they still excist?
If not then they could not possibly be the Church Christ founded. Because Christ said it would never fall
Click to expand...
 
BrianH said:
There is so much pure propaganda in your reply, it would take me awhile to unpack it.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Pope, Catholic Theologians, priests, etc. are full of propoganda and are not truthful?
BrianH said:
The church was one? But the bottom line for me is the statement that the entire church was under Damasus. I am here to tell you that the other churches that claim apostolic succession like the EO and the OO would have quite a bit to say about that! IF I were persuaded by the arguments of those claiming apostolic succession, I would have to give more merit to the EO and even the OO over the RC.
Click to expand...
Until the Schism of 1054, EO and Rome were one Church. There were many squabbles along the way. But the EO and and Rome were the ones that formed the Councils that gave us the Bible.

I don’t know who the OO are. I’m not sure about all the current teachings of EO are, but in the beginning we were One.
BrianH said:
I understand you will not agree but this just strikes me the same as when I read anyones “official” history.
Click to expand...
What is your official history, then? I would be very interested in your belief of where the Bible came from…
 
BrianH said:
qui est ce;2892383:
There is so much pure propaganda in your reply, it would take me awhile to unpack it. The church was one? Well…having read a little history in my life I can tell you there were a lot of areas people disagreed about. But the bottom line for me is the statement that the entire church was under Damasus. I am here to tell you that the other churches that claim apostolic succession like the EO and the OO would have quite a bit to say about that! IF I were persuaded by the arguments of those claiming apostolic succession, I would have to give more merit to the EO and even the OO over the RC.
I understand you will not agree but this just strikes me the same as when I read anyones “official” history.
Click to expand...
The Early Church Fathers speaks for themselves. The Orthodox agree that before the Schism, the Church was One. Anyone else to claim something different is deceiving himself. They also believed that the before the Great Schism, the Church of Christ was, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
 
Odell said:
BrianH;2892446:
first of all who are the EO and OO and do they still excist?
If not then they could not possibly be the Church Christ founded. Because Christ said it would never fall
Click to expand...
I apologize for using the abbreviations. Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox and of course they do.
Click to expand...
 
qui_est_ce said:
Are you saying the Pope, Catholic Theologians, priests, etc. are full of propoganda and are not truthful?

Until the Schism of 1054, EO and Rome were one Church. There were many squabbles along the way. But the EO and and Rome were the ones that formed the Councils that gave us the Bible.

I don’t know who the OO are. I’m not sure about all the current teachings of EO are, but in the beginning we were One.

What is your official history, then? I would be very interested in your belief of where the Bible came from…
Click to expand...
ccel.org/fathers.html

This should keep you busy for…a couple of years.
 
I would say that God gave us the bible.
He used human authors to write it, who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote what God wanted, and only what God wanted.
God used his Church which His son Jesus established, to sift through all the competing documents claiming to be inspired, to infallibly recognize which of these books were indeed inspired by God.
 
I would say that God gave us the bible.
He used human authors to write it, who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote what God wanted, and only what God wanted.
God used his Church which His son Jesus established, to sift through all the competing documents claiming to be inspired, to infallibly recognize which of these books were indeed inspired by God.
Click to expand...
You summed it all up. God through his prophets, and Apostles wrote the Bible.
 

“None of the above” - no account is taken by the poll of the part played by the OT Church; though St.Paul writing in Romans includes “the lively oracles of God” among the privileges bestowed on the Jews. God is the true Author, or Auctor, of the Bible.​

 
Mannyfit75 said:
BrianH;2892446:
The Early Church Fathers speaks for themselves. The Orthodox agree that before the Schism, the Church was One. Anyone else to claim something different is deceiving himself. They also believed that the before the Great Schism, the Church of Christ was, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
Mannyfit75
BrianH said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by qui est ce
There is so much pure propaganda in your reply, it would take me awhile to unpack it. The church was one? Well…having read a little history in my life I can tell you there were a lot of areas people disagreed about. But the bottom line for me is the statement that the entire church was under Damasus. I am here to tell you that the other churches that claim apostolic succession like the EO and the OO would have quite a bit to say about that! IF I were persuaded by the arguments of those claiming apostolic succession, I would have to give more merit to the EO and even the OO over the RC.
I understand you will not agree but this just strikes me the same as when I read anyones “official” history.

The Early Church Fathers speaks for themselves. The Orthodox agree that before the Schism, the Church was One. Anyone else to claim something different is deceiving himself. They also believed that the before the Great Schism, the Church of Christ was, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
Manny, somehow, your reply mixed me up with Gary H To set the record straight, the above is NOT my quote, but rather me quoting Gary to put my reply into context.

God bless you.
Click to expand...
 
Gah! No! Can’t… help myself… must… vote… for “fell from the sky!”

I’m sorry!:rotfl: :rotfl:
 
**
qui est ce;289340** Mannyfit75 Manny said:
Gary and Brian…yeah…they look A LOT alike…
Listen I don’t mess up your …French…I think… name…so don’t mess up mine:mad: :mad:
:D**
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BrianH:
Gary and Brian…yeah…they look A LOT alike…
Listen I don’t mess up your …French…I think… name…so don’t mess up mine:mad: :mad:

😃
Click to expand...
Sometimes the quoting system on this forum has a bug. It has the tendency to not work all the time. So excuse me for mixing up the posts. Second, why do you have to be mad or angry at me?

Remember Jesus said, “He who is angry with his brother is liable to judgement.”
 
I had to choose none of the above because of “where” and “who”. The answer to “where” is absolutely the Catholic Church, and the answer to “Who” is God. The general answer based on the question is The Catholic Church.

It’s so heart wrenching when protestants don’t acknowledge that we got the Bible from the Catholic Church. I was told vehemently by a moderator on a rapture forum (a few years ago) that it wasn’t true. But it is true. We did get the Bible from the Catholic Church, as given to the Catholic Church by God.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Sometimes the quoting system on this forum has a bug. It has the tendency to not work all the time. So excuse me for mixing up the posts. Second, why do you have to be mad or angry at me?

Remember Jesus said, “He who is angry with his brother is liable to judgement.”
Click to expand...
I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to the French guy.
I put the 😃 after my:mad:
Dont make me explain my jokes or I WILL be :mad:
That was a joke too, just so you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top