Where the Bible came from???

[Bluegoat]

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.

The point is, what you are talking about is the unified Christian Church. That group has since splintered, and a number of organizations claim desent in one way or another from that body. The Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, to name the major groups. All claim to be a continuation of those early Christians, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. All recognize the authority to name Scriptures, explicate doctrine and so on as residing in the Church itself.

And even if you think one group - say the OO - actually comprises that Church while the others are outside of it, there is no doubt that the others spring from the same root of the early Church.

You can try to argue that the Catholic Church comprises the True Church and has the authority to declare doctrine, while all these other groups have put themselves outside the Church. But you actually have to make that argument, it can’t just be seen in history when all of those groups have splintered out of one unified group.

 

[pablope]

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.

Just some clarification…not different churches but different rites…based on their traditional liturgical rite…but all have the same beliefs and theology, not unlike the different protestant denominations. But if you want to talk about numbers, it is still considerably less than the 33000 denoms.

But all are in communion and under the leadership of the Pope.

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.

 

[AmateurPianist]

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.

And I see that Mr BlueGoat is saying the same thing I was only better. So since this is not all that important to me anyway…

 

[SteveVH]

The point is, what you are talking about is the unified Christian Church. That group has since splintered, and a number of organizations claim desent in one way or another from that body. The Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, to name the major groups. All claim to be a continuation of those early Christians, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. All recognize the authority to name Scriptures, explicate doctrine and so on as residing in the Church itself.

And even if you think one group - say the OO - actually comprises that Church while the others are outside of it, there is no doubt that the others spring from the same root of the early Church.

You can try to argue that the Catholic Church comprises the True Church and has the authority to declare doctrine, while all these other groups have put themselves outside the Church. But you actually have to make that argument, it can’t just be seen in history when all of those groups have splintered out of one unified group.

Are we not discussing where the canon of Scripture in use to day originated? The Protestant Churches were not in existence at that time, nor had the schism between East and West yet occurred. Are you trying to tell me that it was some other Church than the Catholic Church who convened the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.? I guess I’m just missing your point.

What I understand from what you are saying would be likened to my family benefiting from a gold mine discovered by my great, great Grandfather (wish that was true). We enjoy the benefits today but if we go back through our family tree it originated with my great, great Grandfather so I cannot take credit for the initial discovery even though I am a member of the family.

It seems as if everyone wants to believe in some vague, early Church to which any Christian alive today can lay claim. History speaks otherwise and the Catholic Church is the only church that can show legitimate succession. The Anglican Church certainly has closer ties than most, nevertheless, it certainly wasn’t the Anglican Church that convened the Councils and determined the canon because it did not exist at the time. This is getting a little ridiculous at this point.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

Steve,
I think I misunderstood what you were saying.

Peace,
Anna

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
I think I misunderstood what you were saying.

Peace,
Anna

No problem Anna, I don’t think I expressed my point very well and everyone had legitimate points to make, including you.

 

[Anna_Scott]

No problem Anna, I don’t think I expressed my point very well and everyone had legitimate points to make, including you.

Steve,
I always appreciate your kindness and good nature.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[BILL_PICK53]

Hi, I am a Southern Baptist…looking forward to convert I have had different answers about it and I want them settled today. As a Baptist, I hard heard these: 1.) It came from Heaven 2.) The Disciples guided by God wrote it. Now, as an exploring Baptist I have heard these remarks from the Catholic Church: 1.) The Catholic Church wrote it. 2.) The Disciples guided by God wrote it. 3.) The Disciples guided by God wrote it and the Catholic Church publicized and put it together. 4.) It came from Heaven. …These are all fascinating beliefs on which the Bible was made… If I had to choose…I would think Catholic #3…It just seems like it would make more sense. But I want your opinion please…Thanks

From the Cathloic Church in about 4 ad

 

[Defender1]

Hi, I am a Southern Baptist…looking forward to convert I have had different answers about it and I want them settled today. As a Baptist, I hard heard these: 1.) It came from Heaven 2.) The Disciples guided by God wrote it. Now, as an exploring Baptist I have heard these remarks from the Catholic Church: 1.) The Catholic Church wrote it. 2.) The Disciples guided by God wrote it. 3.) The Disciples guided by God wrote it and the Catholic Church publicized and put it together. 4.) It came from Heaven. …These are all fascinating beliefs on which the Bible was made… If I had to choose…I would think Catholic #3…It just seems like it would make more sense. But I want your opinion please…Thanks

The New Testament was written the disciples but inspired by God . The OT was written by several people but still inspired by God .In 393 AD( the council of Hippo) the Bible was put together by the Church leaders (under guidance of the holy spirit)The catholic church of course was the church that did so .

 

[Bluegoat]

Are we not discussing where the canon of Scripture in use to day originated? The Protestant Churches were not in existence at that time, nor had the schism between East and West yet occurred. Are you trying to tell me that it was some other Church than the Catholic Church who convened the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.? I guess I’m just missing your point.

What I understand from what you are saying would be likened to my family benefiting from a gold mine discovered by my great, great Grandfather (wish that was true). We enjoy the benefits today but if we go back through our family tree it originated with my great, great Grandfather so I cannot take credit for the initial discovery even though I am a member of the family.

It seems as if everyone wants to believe in some vague, early Church to which any Christian alive today can lay claim. History speaks otherwise and the Catholic Church is the only church that can show legitimate succession. The Anglican Church certainly has closer ties than most, nevertheless, it certainly wasn’t the Anglican Church that convened the Councils and determined the canon because it did not exist at the time. This is getting a little ridiculous at this point.

Your analogy is a good one, but not in the way you think. You, your siblings, cousins, and parents are all descendants of your great-great-Grandfather. You all legitimately are inheritors of the Gold-mine.

None of you are your great-great grandfather though, and if one of you claims to be, someone is going to ask for a DNA test.

To say the Catholic Church is the only one with legitimate succession is a big assumption. It is fine that you believe that, (well, except the CC also says the Orthodox Church as legitimate succession,) it is an arguable position. But there are other positions that are also arguable. That doesn’t mean all are correct, just that it is not obvious, and people are not fools to think otherwise. Many very good theologians and historians would say that it is not obvious that the modern Catholic Church is the same as the early Church. At the least there is a very good argument that the E.Orthodox, or even the O.Orthodox Church are the “real” Church, and the modern Catholic Church is schismatic.

In the case of Anglicanism there is no doubt they can claim historic succession. Whether their claim is “valid” or not depends on some rather technical theological arguments that even Catholic theologians don’t agree on - the CC of course believes they are correct, but it is hardly an obvious point.

And the claim by Lutherans and some others to have succession is also not some far out argument - many intelligent theologians subscribe to their view.

I find it really odd that one could look at the various intelligent, well-educated, pious people in all of these groups, and conclude that it must be “obvious” that the Catholic Church is identical to the early Church.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Are we not discussing where the canon of Scripture in use to day originated? The Protestant Churches were not in existence at that time, nor had the schism between East and West yet occurred. Are you trying to tell me that it was some other Church than the Catholic Church who convened the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.? I guess I’m just missing your point.

The Council of Carthage was not an ecumenical council, but rather primarily a synod of Western (Latinate) bishops. Obviously their decisions seemed to have been followed and were considered somehow binding by the Latin church, but the other apostolic churches came up with their own ideas about the biblical canon–which differed in no small part from the canon in the Latin church–and which is evidenced by the fact that their biblical canons differ from the Latin church and from each other until this very day.

The basic historical problem is that your analysis ignores huge chunks of Christianity that existed already in the fourth century outside the Roman Empire (For example, Armenia was already officially Christian by 301 with its own patriarch and, incidentally, its own biblical canon that is not the same as the Latinate biblical canon.) Some historians (e.g., see Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity) would argue that there were more Christians outside of the Roman Empire than within it at this time, and certainly this was the case by the time of the Arab Conquest.

 

[SteveVH]

Your analogy is a good one, but not in the way you think. You, your siblings, cousins, and parents are all descendants of your great-great-Grandfather. You all legitimately are inheritors of the Gold-mine.

My point exactly. All Christians have inherited the wealth found in Sacred Scripture, that being Jesus Christ, first and foremost.

None of you are your great-great grandfather though, and if one of you claims to be, someone is going to ask for a DNA test.

But our Church is and that is the context of this discussion.

To say the Catholic Church is the only one with legitimate succession is a big assumption. It is fine that you believe that, (well, except the CC also says the Orthodox Church as legitimate succession,) it is an arguable position. But there are other positions that are also arguable. That doesn’t mean all are correct, just that it is not obvious, and people are not fools to think otherwise. Many very good theologians and historians would say that it is not obvious that the modern Catholic Church is the same as the early Church. At the least there is a very good argument that the E.Orthodox, or even the O.Orthodox Church are the “real” Church, and the modern Catholic Church is schismatic.

What you are missing, or what I have failed to communicate, is that I am speaking of the Church in 397 A.D. and before when the canon was settled, in fact up to 1056 (or so) when the schism took place.

In the case of Anglicanism there is no doubt they can claim historic succession. Whether their claim is “valid” or not depends on some rather technical theological arguments that even Catholic theologians don’t agree on - the CC of course believes they are correct, but it is hardly an obvious point.

We’ll have to save that topic for another thread. It was not an issue when there was only one Church.

And the claim by Lutherans and some others to have succession is also not some far out argument - many intelligent theologians subscribe to their view.

I find it really odd that one could look at the various intelligent, well-educated, pious people in all of these groups, and conclude that it must be “obvious” that the Catholic Church is identical to the early Church.

You are trying to make this a debate about the legitimacy of non-Catholic churches and their various claims to succession. That is another topic all together. Which Church was in existence in 397 A.D. and who settled the canon? It was the Catholic Church with a Pope and everything. Someone made the point that the council, because it was not a general council of the whole Catholic Church, was not binding. It was, however, binding if confirmed and approved by the Pope. There was a second council of Carthage in 419 A.D. Augustine presided over the council which renewed the first council’s decree which was then sent to Pope Boniface for the purpose of confirming it. Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

 

[BILL_PICK53]

The point is, what you are talking about is the unified Christian Church. That group has since splintered, and a number of organizations claim desent in one way or another from that body. The Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, to name the major groups. All claim to be a continuation of those early Christians, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. All recognize the authority to name Scriptures, explicate doctrine and so on as residing in the Church itself.

And even if you think one group - say the OO - actually comprises that Church while the others are outside of it, there is no doubt that the others spring from the same root of the early Church.

You can try to argue that the Catholic Church comprises the True Church and has the authority to declare doctrine, while all these other groups have put themselves outside the Church. But you actually have to make that argument, it can’t just be seen in history when all of those groups have splintered out of one unified group.

Lets see the Cathloic Church was started in 33Ad and the prostan come in what the 1500 The CC has been here for 2000 years and the Non-Cathloic Church for what 500 çase closed

 

[Bluegoat]

My point exactly. All Christians have inherited the wealth found in Sacred Scripture, that being Jesus Christ, first and foremost.

But our Church is and that is the context of this discussion.

What you are missing, or what I have failed to communicate, is that I am speaking of the Church in 397 A.D. and before when the canon was settled, in fact up to 1056 (or so) when the schism took place.

We’ll have to save that topic for another thread. It was not an issue when there was only one Church.

You are trying to make this a debate about the legitimacy of non-Catholic churches and their various claims to succession. That is another topic all together. Which Church was in existence in 397 A.D. and who settled the canon? It was the Catholic Church with a Pope and everything. Someone made the point that the council, because it was not a general council of the whole Catholic Church, was not binding. It was, however, binding if confirmed and approved by the Pope. There was a second council of Carthage in 419 A.D. Augustine presided over the council which renewed the first council’s decree which was then sent to Pope Boniface for the purpose of confirming it. Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

You are missing the point that a few people have tried to make. Let me put it another way: What makes you think that the modern Catholic Church is the same as the unified Church that existed in the beginning of the Christian era? The Oriental Orthodox Church makes the same claim, and says the CC is a schismatic group that broke away from them, the real, universal, unified Church.

Using the name “Catholic Church” doesn’t prove much. THe EO call themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church. Does that mean they are the same body as the original Church?

You are assuming the Catholic view on who is really the Church is true. Obviously non-Catholics think the Catholic Church is mistaken.

You have tried to tie it to apostolic succession, but that is not going to work, as non-Catholics also have apostolic succession. The Church in the 4th century did not understand the role of the papacy in the way the modern Catholic Church does, that is a change. You are understanding what happened totally anachronistically. You are imposing a 21st century Catholic understanding of the governance of the Church on a period that had no such understanding.

 

[SteveVH]

The Council of Carthage was not an ecumenical council, but rather primarily a synod of Western (Latinate) bishops. Obviously their decisions seemed to have been followed and were considered somehow binding by the Latin church, but the other apostolic churches came up with their own ideas about the biblical canon–which differed in no small part from the canon in the Latin church–and which is evidenced by the fact that their biblical canons differ from the Latin church and from each other until this very day.

The basic historical problem is that your analysis ignores huge chunks of Christianity that existed already in the fourth century outside the Roman Empire (For example, Armenia was already officially Christian by 301 with its own patriarch and, incidentally, its own biblical canon that is not the same as the Latinate biblical canon.) Some historians (e.g., see Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity) would argue that there were more Christians outside of the Roman Empire than within it at this time, and certainly this was the case by the time of the Arab Conquest.

Dave, I am aware that there are variations in different canons. The first canon proposed was by Marcion who was later deemed a heretic.
Many followed from that point and varied greatly depending upon which manuscripts they possessed. But the OP was asking where we got the Bible and I am assuming that the OP lives somewhere in the western world. I doubt she is using the Armenian canon.

 

[Defender1]

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.

FActs are facts the church is the reason
why you or any other protestant have their bible to begin with .

 

[SteveVH]

You are missing the point that a few people have tried to make. Let me put it another way: What makes you think that the modern Catholic Church is the same as the unified Church that existed in the beginning of the Christian era? The Oriental Orthodox Church makes the same claim, and says the CC is a schismatic group that broke away from them, the real, universal, unified Church.

Using the name “Catholic Church” doesn’t prove much. THe EO call themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church. Does that mean they are the same body as the original Church?

You are assuming the Catholic view on who is really the Church is true. Obviously non-Catholics think the Catholic Church is mistaken.

You have tried to tie it to apostolic succession, but that is not going to work, as non-Catholics also have apostolic succession. The Church in the 4th century did not understand the role of the papacy in the way the modern Catholic Church does, that is a change. You are understanding what happened totally anachronistically. You are imposing a 21st century Catholic understanding of the governance of the Church on a period that had no such understanding.

It seems that you are trying to make the case that the Catholic Church of 397 A.D. has somehow faded into obscurity and is now comprised of the multitude of divisions and beliefs know as Protestantism, the Catholic Church being just one more. If this is, indeed, the point you are trying to make then I think you should open another thread to discuss it. The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church, period, and it is the same Church today regardless of the level of understanding that its members may have had at various points in its history. In any event, if the Catholic Church does not have a legitimate claim to apostolic succession then the Anglican Church is completely out of luck as to its claim as its only ties to succession are its ties to the Catholic Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

It seems that you are trying to make the case that the Catholic Church of 397 A.D. has somehow faded into obscurity and is now comprised of the multitude of divisions and beliefs know as Protestantism, the Catholic Church being just one more. If this is, indeed, the point you are trying to make then I think you should open another thread to discuss it. The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church, period, and it is the same Church today regardless of the level of understanding that its members may have had at various points in its history. In any event, if the Catholic Church does not have a legitimate claim to apostolic succession then the Anglican Church is completely out of luck as to its claim as its only ties to succession are its ties to the Catholic Church.

You seem to be trying to shift the argument my friend. And noone has suggested that Catholic orders are invalid, though really I am not worried if they are. You are asserting something as fact that only Catholics believe in the way you mean it. What that should tell you is that you are interpreting. That’s fair - we are all interpreting history, but there is no use in pretending you are not.

To say that the CC gave us the Bible only makes sense if one thinks the Church of the 4th century is the modern Catholic Church. Catholics think that, non-Catholics don’t, or understand it in a different way. There are substantial differences between the modern Catholic Church and the 4th century Church; enough so that there seems to be real confusion in this thread about how the 4th century Church understood authority, including the authority to canonize.

That is why it has been discussed here.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I believe that the bible compiled itself out of self-replicating molecules.

(Edit: that was a joke, by the way, not a commentary on evolution)