Where the Bible came from???

[Roman_Catholic_1]

My Bible came from Amazon… via the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church

God bless

 

[fermat]

My Bible came from Amazon… via the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church

God bless

You made my day.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Catholic bishops determined the canon of Sacred Scripture through a series of councils (Hippo, Rome, Carthage and Trent). It wasn’t determined based upon what was worthy, but rather what was inspired by the Holy Spirit. As has already been stated, there were many writings circulating at the time, some heretical, but many just as beautiful and meaningful as the books included in the canon. Google Clement’s letter to the Corinthians and then decide why this should not have been included. I can’t, but the bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit did. The New Testament was written by Catholics and therefore is truly a Catholic document. The bottom line is this: All who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God had better hope that the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in determining its canon because there was no other authority that made that determination. If you cannot rely on the authority of the Catholic Church then you can not rely on the inspiration of the Bible. One thing is for certain. It didn’t fall out of heaven.

This is a good explanation of how the Roman Catholic Church came up with their particular biblical canon, but doesn’t explain how the rest of Christendom at the time came to differing decisions.

 

[SteveVH]

The Orthodox Church.

Sorry, the Orthodox Church did not exist apart from the Catholic Church for about 600 years after the canon was determined.

 

[SteveVH]

This is a good explanation of how the Roman Catholic Church came up with their particular biblical canon, but doesn’t explain how the rest of Christendom at the time came to differing decisions.

Please explain what you mean by the “rest of Christendom at the time”. Please name the other Christian churches in existence in 392 A.D. Also please explain the differing decisions at which they arrived and the result of those decisions.

By the way, there was no “Roman Catholic Church”, only the Catholic Church. That was a name ascribed to us by the Protestant churches some 1100 years later and was meant as a derogatory term at the time.

Thanks.

 

[beeliner]

Catholic bishops determined the canon of Sacred Scripture through a series of councils…

That is true; however, no contributor to this thread has noted (or if they did I missed it) that all of the OT writings deemed canonical by the RCC were included in the LXX.

With regard to the NT, most Biblical scholars, Catholic and mainline Protestant, now regard several letters, notably 2 Thessalonians and 2 Peter, as being of dubious origin. That does not mean, though, that there is anything in them that is objectionable, only that, if the cut were made today, they would probably not be included.

 

[1LtMatya]

I cannot help u completely about it.

Bible is the term from the Latin word biblia meaning a collection of books. Note that both Old and New Test are composed of different books. Right? In the Old, I do not know if there is a strong reported authors of it who wrote it. And as for the New, it is reported to be written by Jesus disciples and early Christians with the presence of the said Holy Spirit.

It is also erroneous to say the integrity(?) of the Book, because some of its verse clearly contradicts the teaching of the Church like:

**Jeremiah 31:30
**
New International Version (NIV)

" Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge. "

It opposes the teaching that Jesus die for mankind’s sin.

— I hope u will respond about it. TY.

 

[Bluegoat]

Please explain what you mean by the “rest of Christendom at the time”. Please name the other Christian churches in existence in 392 A.D. Also please explain the differing decisions at which they arrived and the result of those decisions.

By the way, there was no “Roman Catholic Church”, only the Catholic Church. That was a name ascribed to us by the Protestant churches some 1100 years later and was meant as a derogatory term at the time.

Thanks.

The early Church was united, but existed in different places, so there is the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Antioch, the Church of Rome, and so on. All of these groups were united in faith but had their own leadership.

The decisions about the canon in the early Church were local decisions of local counsels based on local tradition, and were not the same throughout the Christian world. The West and the East have different canons, and the Ethiopians I believe have the largest canon of all.

The Church did not have what might be described as a modern, Protestant notion of canon, but rather accepted that the Tradition did not have to be precisely the same everywhere. In fact I would say that understanding that goes some way to explaining why the Protestant Reformers preferred a very strict definition of the canon rather than the looser understanding of the early Church.

 

[SteveVH]

The early Church was united, but existed in different places, so there is the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Antioch, the Church of Rome, and so on. All of these groups were united in faith but had their own leadership.

The decisions about the canon in the early Church were local decisions of local counsels based on local tradition, and were not the same throughout the Christian world. The West and the East have different canons, and the Ethiopians I believe have the largest canon of all.

The Church did not have what might be described as a modern, Protestant notion of canon, but rather accepted that the Tradition did not have to be precisely the same everywhere. In fact I would say that understanding that goes some way to explaining why the Protestant Reformers preferred a very strict definition of the canon rather than the looser understanding of the early Church.

This is no different then saying that we have a bishop of each diocese. That doesn’t make each diocese a different Church. There was still only one Church, one faith, one set of doctrines and the canon of the Bible was initially put forth for consideration by the Pope, the leader of that one Church, and then carefully considered and decided upon by the various councils, ending with the Council of Carthage and much later affirmed at Trent in light of the changes made by the Reformation. The point is, there were not different Churches doing their own thing, which seemed to be implied by Dave Noonan.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Comments:

• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim credit for accomplishments of individuals. That generally is not done in real life…and if done really seems tacky.
• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim exclusive credit for the accomplishment of individuals when more than one organization is logically descended from the parent organization.
• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim (exclusive) credit for the positive accomplishments of individuals while at the same time refusing blame for the negative accomplishments of individuals,

Note: I made the last point a few months ago and received the response than my church was a “harlot” by a Catholic.

 

[Tony888]

Comments:

• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim credit for accomplishments of individuals. That generally is not done in real life…and if done really seems tacky.
• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim exclusive credit for the accomplishment of individuals when more than one organization is logically descended from the parent organization.
• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim (exclusive) credit for the positive accomplishments of individuals while at the same time refusing blame for the negative accomplishments of individuals,

Note: I made the last point a few months ago and received the response than my church was a “harlot” by a Catholic.

Yes, I agree there is an over-reach in taking credit for the deeds of our common physical and theological ancenstors

• the Holy Spirit was the Muse
• the Apostles and a few others were the Authors (if they didn’t write it down, they spoke the words that were preserved.
• the Catholic church was the Publisher. They copied and protected the material, eventually pulling it together into a published work.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The early Church was united, but existed in different places, so there is the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Antioch, the Church of Rome, and so on. All of these groups were united in faith but had their own leadership.

The decisions about the canon in the early Church were local decisions of local counsels based on local tradition, and were not the same throughout the Christian world. The West and the East have different canons, and the Ethiopians I believe have the largest canon of all.

The Church did not have what might be described as a modern, Protestant notion of canon, but rather accepted that the Tradition did not have to be precisely the same everywhere. In fact I would say that understanding that goes some way to explaining why the Protestant Reformers preferred a very strict definition of the canon rather than the looser understanding of the early Church.

This is no different then saying that we have a bishop of each diocese. That doesn’t make each diocese a different Church. There was still only one Church, one faith, one set of doctrines and the canon of the Bible was initially put forth for consideration by the Pope, the leader of that one Church, and then carefully considered and decided upon by the various councils, ending with the Council of Carthage and much later affirmed at Trent in light of the changes made by the Reformation. The point is, there were not different Churches doing their own thing, which seemed to be implied by Dave Noonan.

Hi Steve,
Good to bump into you again.

I tend to agree with Bluegoat on this particular issue, because there were different letters/writings circulating among Christians, in different areas, in the early Church. Obviously, they didn’t have the instant communication we enjoy today.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says the idea of a clear cut canon of the N.T. existing from Apostolic times has no foundation in history.

See this article at newadvent.org:

Link: newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Canon of the New Testament
The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)

**“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. **The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.”

That does not mean that we are not indebted to the Catholic Church for assembling a Biblical Canon. I say ***a ***Biblical Cannon, because it is different from the Orthodox Canon, and the Protestant Canon–though I think the Deuterocanonical books should not have been discarded as they were from Protestant Bibles. The why behind their removal was not always theologically driven. I’ve read accounts of companies printing the KJV without the Apocrypha, because it was cheaper and they didn’t think Christians would notice—and for a long time, they didn’t.

Even with a fixed Canon, different Bible versions use different manuscripts; and often Biblical texts are manipulated using tactics such as placement of variants in the main body of text instead of the footnotes and vice versa.

Some of the important variants are mentioned in the same Catholic Encyclopedia article (noted above.)

“The formerly disputed passages are three: the closing section of St. Mark’s Gospel, xvi, 9-20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection; the verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus (22:43-44); the Pericope Adulteræ, or narrative of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages.”

Catholics are not allowed to question the inspiration of these passages.

However, there are some Catholic Editions of the Bible that address some of these variants. Luke 22:43-44 is a good example:

Catholic Comparative New Testament-New American Bible
Luke 22:43-44 has a footnote that says, These verses, though very ancient, were probably not part of the original text of Lk. They are absent from the oldest papyrus manuscripts of Lk and from manuscripts of wide geographical distribution.

Catholic Comparative New Testament-Good News Translation
Luke 22:43-44 has a footnote that says, Some manuscripts do not have verses 43-44.

Catholic Comparative New Testament-New Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Anglicized)
Luke 22:43-44 has a footnote that says, Other ancient manuscripts lack verses 43 and 44.

Catholic Comparative New Testament-Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible
Luke 22:43-44 are absent from the main body of text.
The footnotes says, Other ancient manuscripts add verses 43 and 44: 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

The Bible is a complicated issue.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Bluegoat]

This is no different then saying that we have a bishop of each diocese. That doesn’t make each diocese a different Church. There was still only one Church, one faith, one set of doctrines and the canon of the Bible was initially put forth for consideration by the Pope, the leader of that one Church, and then carefully considered and decided upon by the various councils, ending with the Council of Carthage and much later affirmed at Trent in light of the changes made by the Reformation. The point is, there were not different Churches doing their own thing, which seemed to be implied by Dave Noonan.

1. Even the modern Catholic Church is made up of many Churches, 23 or some similar number I believe. You don’t need to insist that the idea that there are many Churches within the universal Church is crazy.

No, that isn’t what happened at all. This is the point, you are assuming the Pope was understood to be the universal head of the Churches. That simply isn’t so. I don’t know where you got the idea that these local councils submitted something to the Pope for review, but it is simply incorrect. Trent, which was much later, is different - by that point the structure of the Church was understood quite differently by the Catholics. But the early, local decisions on the canon didn’t work the same way at all.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Please explain what you mean by the “rest of Christendom at the time”. Please name the other Christian churches in existence in 392 A.D. Also please explain the differing decisions at which they arrived and the result of those decisions.

By the way, there was no “Roman Catholic Church”, only the Catholic Church. That was a name ascribed to us by the Protestant churches some 1100 years later and was meant as a derogatory term at the time.

Thanks.

I think you need to review your church history a bit. You can see the various churches along with their varying biblical canons at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon (scroll down).

Fr. Benedict Groeschel often uses the term “the ancient churches” which I think may be useful/meaningful to Catholics.

 

[SteveVH]

Ok, folks. I did not intend my statements to evolve into an exhaustive debate on the nuances of various manuscripts used in the development of the canon of Scripture. I am quite aware that the separate works that comprise even just the New Testament were not bound together in one volume but were circulating individually throughout different parts of the world for centuries. The development of the canon was discussed, disputed and argued for quite some time which is why it took several councils to finally arrive at an authoritative canon. The Epistles, by their very nature, were directed to and held by their target audiences in those Churches in those particular places. My point is that the Christian Church(es) existing at the time that the canon was settled (Council of Carthage - 397 AD) were Catholic. Of course, logistics alone would have prevented all of the individual Churches from using the same manuscripts all at the same time for the first three centuries and even then for sometime after. I am also aware that there are some variations between East and West, and that modern biblical scholars may debate as to whether or not a sentance or two was part of an original manuscript.

The very point I was trying to make, in fact, is that that were many writings circulating throughout the first three centuries so how does one know what was inspired and what was not? Who could determine that? Well, the authoritative canon, prior to the Reformation, was settled by the Catholic Church and if it was some other Church then I wish someone would please state the name of that Church.

 

[SteveVH]

Comments:

• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim credit for accomplishments of individuals. That generally is not done in real life…and if done really seems tacky.

The Church that Christ founded began at Pentecost, therefore the authors of the New Testament belonged to this Church. This was the Catholic Church.

• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim exclusive credit for the accomplishment of individuals when more than one organization is logically descended from the parent organization.

No one is claiming credit for the accomplishment of individuals. It has nothing to do with the accomplishment of individuals, but has everything to do with the Holy Spirit. The Church simply determined, form the writings circulating at the time, what was inspired and what was not. The books comprising the New Testament that you use today were finally and authoritatively determined by a group of Catholic bishops. It is not just a claim. It is a fact of history.

• It seems kind of strange for an organization to claim (exclusive) credit for the positive accomplishments of individuals while at the same time refusing blame for the negative accomplishments of individuals

Sounds like you have an axe to grind. I’m not sure what a *“negative accomplishment”*is but I don’t know of any honest Catholic who does not acknowledge that we have had many individuals with in our Church over the centuries that have done many negative things. Our Church is a divine institution made up of sinners. It is Christ that makes our Church holy, not individuals by their own actions. It is not about our goodness, but rather the goodness of God.

Note: I made the last point a few months ago and received the response than my church was a “harlot” by a Catholic.

Well that is unfortunate but I’m not sure what it has to do with the question at hand.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, I agree there is an over-reach in taking credit for the deeds of our common physical and theological ancenstors

• the Holy Spirit was the Muse
• the Apostles and a few others were the Authors (if they didn’t write it down, they spoke the words that were preserved.
• the Catholic church was the Publisher. They copied and protected the material, eventually pulling it together into a published work.

I’m not sure I would disagree with anything you said here except that no one just placed a bunch of writings on the table for the Church to publish. The Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in determining what was to be included and what was not, so it was more than just a publisher.

 

[AmateurPianist]

The Church that Christ founded began at Pentecost, therefore the authors of the New Testament belonged to this Church. This was the Catholic Church.

No one is claiming credit for the accomplishment of individuals. It has nothing to do with the accomplishment of individuals, but has everything to do with the Holy Spirit. The Church simply determined, form the writings circulating at the time, what was inspired and what was not. The books comprising the New Testament that you use today were finally and authoritatively determined by a group of Catholic bishops. It is not just a claim. It is a fact of history.

Sounds like you have an axe to grind. I’m not sure what a *“negative accomplishment”*is but I don’t know of any honest Catholic who does not acknowledge that we have had many individuals with in our Church over the centuries that have done many negative things. Our Church is a divine institution made up of sinners. It is Christ that makes our Church holy, not individuals by their own actions. It is not about our goodness, but rather the goodness of God.

Well that is unfortunate but I’m not sure what it has to do with the question at hand.

Well there are two issues here:
(1) What are the precise facts of the case.

I will let others discuss this as I am not an expert on this subject area.

(2) Even if the facts of the case are as you stated, is it appropriate for your organization to take exclusive credit. My points again…and these apply to any organization…so just take “the Catholic Church” out of the equation for a minute.

• In principle I am not comfortable with an organization claiming credit for the accomplishments of individuals.
• Even if it is appropriate I am definitely not comfortable with an organization claiming exclusive credit for the accomplishments of individuals when many organizations can be logical descendents of these individuals. Example: if the United Methodist church claiming exclusive credit for the accomplishments of John Wesley when the Free Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and others are also logical descendents of the Methodist Church which John Wesley belonged to.
• It seems inconsistent to me for an organization to take credit for the positive accomplishments of individuals while refusing to take blame for the negative accomplishments of same individuals.

No I do not

have an axe to grind.

,

Notice please that I have removed “The Catholic Church” from any of this. My observations apply to any organization…Christian, religious, secular.

 

[SteveVH]

Well there are two issues here:
(1) What are the precise facts of the case.

I will let others discuss this as I am not an expert on this subject area.

(2) Even if the facts of the case are as you stated, is it appropriate for your organization to take exclusive credit. My points again…and these apply to any organization…so just take “the Catholic Church” out of the equation for a minute.

As I have already stated it is just a matter of history. When someone asks where we got the Bible there are probably many ways to answer that. First and foremost it is an action of God acting through the Holy Spirit who guided the authors of the particular books. So lets give the first credit to God. But the reality of the situation is that someone had to determine, out of all the writings circulating, which of those were truly inspired and which were not. This was done through a series of Councils by the Catholic Church, the final determination being accomplished at the Council of Carthage. That was the canon of Scripture that you and I use today, although I am quite certain that you probably use the Old Testament version which came out of the Reformation. So taking credit, even Luther admitted that if it weren’t for the Catholic Church, that the world would not have the Bible as we know it.

• In principle I am not comfortable with an organization claiming credit for the accomplishments of individuals.

Already answered.

• Even if it is appropriate I am definitely not comfortable with an organization claiming exclusive credit for the accomplishments of individuals when many organizations can be logical descendents of these individuals. Example: if the United Methodist church claiming exclusive credit for the accomplishments of John Wesley when the Free Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and others are also logical descendents of the Methodist Church which John Wesley belonged to.

Well, all I would say is that if we are going back to the source (where did it originate) the answer is the Catholic Church, not the Assemblies of God, or the Methodists or the Baptists, etc. The fact that others have no doubt benefited from the use of the Bible does not give them claim to having determined its canon. By the way, this is not a matter of one upmanship, it is just how it developed. Can Americans take credit for our constitution? And if another country decides to use our constitution for their benefit can they take credit for its origination? They may well be able to take credit for having the wisdom to use it, but they certainly cannot take credit for its creation.

• It seems inconsistent to me for an organization to take credit for the positive accomplishments of individuals while refusing to take blame for the negative accomplishments of same individuals.

You already said this and I have already answered. As I said, no honest Catholic will pretend that we have not had negative indiviudals and negative acts committed by these individuals. Did you not read what I said? Let me state it plainly. We have had individuals who have committed autrocities, shameful acts, that have caused great scandal to our Church over the centuries and even today. But show me a non-Catholic church today who can throw the first stone. What does this have to do with “Where we got the Bible”?

By the way, the individual who referred to your Church as a harlot did so on his own. This is certainly not something taught or promoted by the Catholic Church. I hear all kinds of things from non-Catholics about our Church and chalk it up to ignorance. I would say the same about this individual regarding yours.

God bless.

 

[AmateurPianist]

As I have already stated it is just a matter of history. When someone asks where we got the Bible there are probably many ways to answer that. First and foremost it is an action of God acting through the Holy Spirit who guided the authors of the particular books. So lets give the first credit to God. But the reality of the situation is that someone had to determine, out of all the writings circulating, which of those were truly inspired and which were not. This was done through a series of Councils by the Catholic Church, the final determination being accomplished at the Council of Carthage. That was the canon of Scripture that you and I use today, although I am quite certain that you probably use the Old Testament version which came out of the Reformation. So taking credit, even Luther admitted that if it weren’t for the Catholic Church, that the world would not have the Bible as we know it.

For the moment I will accept this knowing that others who are more expert in this subject area may choose to debate the facts of the case.

Already answered.

Well I still question this statement

The Church simply determined, from the writings circulating at the time, what was inspired and what was not.

But if it were changed to

Councils convened by the Catholic Church simply determined, from the writings circulating at the time, what was inspired and what was not.

I could accept (given for the moment I am accepting your version of the historical record and letting others debate the facts of the case). Maybe this distinction is nitpicking.

Well, all I would say is that if we are going back to the source (where did it originate) the answer is the Catholic Church, not the Assemblies of God, or the Methodists or the Baptists, etc. The fact that others have no doubt benefited from the use of the Bible does not give them claim to having determined its canon. By the way, this is not a matter of one upmanship, it is just how it developed. Can Americans take credit for our constitution? And if another country decides to use our constitution for their benefit can they take credit for its origination? They may well be able to take credit for having the wisdom to use it, but they certainly cannot take credit for its creation.

But here you misunderstand my point. My point is best illustrated by an example. This would be like the United Methodist church taking exclusive credit for John Wesley when the facts of the case are that many organizations today are logical descendents of the Methodist church at the time of Wesley.

This btw is sort of my biggest objection.

You already said this and I have already answered. As I said, no honest Catholic will pretend that we have not had negative indiviudals and negative acts committed by these individuals. Did you not read what I said? Let me state it plainly. We have had individuals who have committed autrocities, shameful acts, that have caused great scandal to our Church over the centuries and even today. But show me a non-Catholic church today who can throw the first stone. What does this have to do with “Where we got the Bible”?

By the way, the individual who referred to your Church as a harlot did so on his own. This is certainly not something taught or promoted by the Catholic Church. I hear all kinds of things from non-Catholics about our Church and chalk it up to ignorance. I would say the same about this individual regarding yours.

I am not throwing stones. My organization ordained and supported Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker.

But it still seems to be an inconsistency to me. But in the big scheme of things not a biggie. Certainly not worth the reaction I have gotten when I have pointed this out. Just something that leaves me scratching my head a little.