which church brought us the Bible

[tommy4321]

Desert Father:

You mean YHWH of course. From your studies of Hebrew, you will recall that “Jehova” is a delibret mispointing of the tetragamanon, to prevent the inadvertent reading aloud of the forbiden name of God. It is a gibberish word with no meaning, that the translaters of the King James neglected to correct. As to Holy writ: the bible is a written account of a small, but critical part of the revelation given to the Apostles under Peter and passed down by the laying on of hands to his successors. In their hands only it is infalable. In any other hands, inturpretations are subject to grave error, as we see in the seperated breatheren and indeed with the precistant coining of “Jehova”. The Bible is a creature of the Roman Catholic Church which brought it forth from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, to which it belongs, and which alone has the ability to inturpret and teach it as part of and in light of the greater revelation. The Church is not a creature of the Bible. That was Luther’s error: he reversed the proper order in a search for safe assurance without the need for cooperation with Grace, which he felt himself incapable of. I should know. Before I swam the Tiber (impelled by my studies), I was a Luther Scholar, and still lecture at the University level on both Scripture and Luther.

Jehovah is simpy the English translation of the Hebrew name YHWH with no vowels AKA Yahweh. In also translates into 36 different languages and God has no language barrier. Both Jehovah and Yahweh are strong names. In the Kings James Bible as you stated, Ex 6:3 has Moses quoting the name Jehovah. The King James Bible is a Catholic Bible and are you saying this Catholic Bible is made up and not authentic or should have been written differently? It amazes me that so many refuse to recognize the Divine name. It is spelled Jehovah.

 

[Contarini]

The King James Bible is not a Catholic Bible (not in the sense of “Roman Catholic”). It was put together by Anglicans.

Edwin

 

[tommy4321]

Contarini:

The King James Bible is not a Catholic Bible (not in the sense of “Roman Catholic”). It was put together by Anglicans.

Edwin

It doesn’t mean that we should reject Jehovah’s name. Read Psalms chapter 94 throught chapter 104 it says to praise God’s “name”. Matthew Chapter 6 says to sanctify His name, not a title of Father". blessing tommy

 

[davemcher5]

I think there is some confusion. God inspired the Bible and its authors, but he did not bring it to us in the litteral sense. In fact, the “Holy Scriptures” was around at the time of Jesus Christ.

We are not here to debate who has the better Bible. And there are so many different ones out there!

The “Old” Testament and its books are of Jewish/Hebrew origin, which we Christians inherited from them. The “New” Testament books came after Jesus and are Christian. Later in the 4th century (as stated by others) these books were brought together
to what is known as the Bible today. This was the early Christian Church bishops who did this. The Catholic & Orthodox churches split in 1054 A.D. The Catholic Church has continued the form of the Bible from the early church fathers. (I cannot comment on the Orthodox Church, but they can claim the same.) So I would say the form/order/accepted books were born from the early Christian Church as well as the Catholic Church.

The subsequent editing of the Bible by non-Catholic (& non-Orthodox) Christians, for whatever reason that books, chapters, verses, etc. were discarded, can be viewed as a definte error and block to Christian unity. This would be due to the aforementioned fact that the Bible was born under a united Christian Church.

I also think we Catholics need to have one true version of Our Bible, without the study notes, activities, … We, and I’m sure our other Christian friends have seen the same, have Bibles for Teens, Women, Indepth study of, … We worry to much about words as they are translated, and at time lack the understanding of what the original contexts and audiences were of the different books.

Not that I am the perfect scripture “scholar,” but that’s my thoughts - Davemcher5

 

[tommy4321]

davemcher5:

I think there is some confusion. God inspired the Bible and its authors, but he did not bring it to us in the litteral sense. In fact, the “Holy Scriptures” was around at the time of Jesus Christ.

We are not here to debate who has the better Bible. And there are so many different ones out there!

The “Old” Testament and its books are of Jewish/Hebrew origin, which we Christians inherited from them. The “New” Testament books came after Jesus and are Christian. Later in the 4th century (as stated by others) these books were brought together
to what is known as the Bible today. This was the early Christian Church bishops who did this. The Catholic & Orthodox churches split in 1054 A.D. The Catholic Church has continued the form of the Bible from the early church fathers. (I cannot comment on the Orthodox Church, but they can claim the same.) So I would say the form/order/accepted books were born from the early Christian Church as well as the Catholic Church.

The subsequent editing of the Bible by non-Catholic (& non-Orthodox) Christians, for whatever reason that books, chapters, verses, etc. were discarded, can be viewed as a definte error and block to Christian unity. This would be due to the aforementioned fact that the Bible was born under a united Christian Church.

I also think we Catholics need to have one true version of Our Bible, without the study notes, activities, … We, and I’m sure our other Christian friends have seen the same, have Bibles for Teens, Women, Indepth study of, … We worry to much about words as they are translated, and at time lack the understanding of what the original contexts and audiences were of the different books.

Not that I am the perfect scripture “scholar,” but that’s my thoughts - Davemcher5

Dave, great post. I think you are a scholar as you write well. If we see beyond what is in black and white he did bring us the Bible. I’m posting here kind of a lot because my wife went on an overnighter to the beach with my son and her friend and am watching all this horrible stuff on the New Orleans tragedy. It is kind of scarey the events that have taken place over the last four years and I hope and pray so hard for better times that we will have some day with our King, Jesus. I know that is off the subject but I feel pretty blessed for living here near San Francisco and am feeling real bad right now about the suffering going on in what I am seeing on the news. I hope and pray for all of them. take care, your a real nice guy, Tom

 

[But_for_Grace]

tommy4321:

Jehovah is simpy the English translation of the Hebrew name YHWH with no vowels AKA Yahweh. In also translates into 36 different languages and God has no language barrier. Both Jehovah and Yahweh are strong names. In the Kings James Bible as you stated, Ex 6:3 has Moses quoting the name Jehovah. The King James Bible is a Catholic Bible and are you saying this Catholic Bible is made up and not authentic or should have been written differently? It amazes me that so many refuse to recognize the Divine name. It is spelled Jehovah.

Ummmm, No

The Hebrew has four letter, Yod Heh Vau Heh, with jots and tittles denoting the vowels for adonai. This was because the Jews do not say the name of God and therefore they remind themselves to say Adonai instead.

YHVH is still unpronounceable as Jehova and Yahweh both try to use the vowels from Adonai which are not the vowels to pronounce YHVH properly.

Most comentaries will provide you with this information

 

[santaro75]

tommy4321:

Praise should only be given only to the Lord our God in a religious sense… It is OK to respect and give non religious praise that does not belong to God to children and so forth. Praise to the pope or a man hurts our jealous God who is deserving of this praise as our Creator.

I have never seen anyone give praise to the pope that God deserves. We respect and honor him, but when it is all said and done, he is a man just like me, well maybe a little smarter and more devout. BUT remember many popes didn’t become saints and most saints were not popes.

 

[tommy4321]

santaro75:

I have never seen anyone give praise to the pope that God deserves. We respect and honor him, but when it is all said and done, he is a man just like me, well maybe a little smarter and more devout. BUT remember many popes didn’t become saints and most saints were not popes.

I agree, respect and homor is good. Praise goes to the Father. Won’t argue here other than an observation. These little signatures you see on the bottom of ones thread often do praise a man, like a pope and say some quote from a man. Wouldn’t it be great to see a signature on the bottom saying something like “Love and praise Jehovah, our God with all your heart” or “it is right to give God all praise and honor” as oppsed to something created from man who’s seed is imperfect and comes from an imperfect sorurce, Adam". Just my thoughts and an observation, tommy

 

[santaro75]

tommy4321:

I agree, respect and homor is good. Praise goes to the Father. Won’t argue here other than an observation. These little signatures you see on the bottom of ones thread often do praise a man, like a pope and say some quote from a man. Wouldn’t it be great to see a signature on the bottom saying something like “Love and praise Jehovah, our God with all your heart” or “it is right to give God all praise and honor” as oppsed to something created from man who’s seed is imperfect and comes from an imperfect sorurce, Adam". Just my thoughts and an observation, tommy

Yeah, that would be great. But i am not sure quoting a saying that inspired you is necessarily praise or worship of that person. I guess i don’t see the gravity of it.

 

[Mt19_26]

The only possible answer is the Catholic Church. None of the other churches existed until a few hundred years ago.

 

[John_Mazar]

The Catholic Bible was the first Bible that was printed on the printing press after the printing press was invented and the Catholic Bible was translated from the original languages just like the King James Bible was and thus the Catholic Bible and the King James Bible are equally acceptable to read.

 

[Bishopite]

I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate heirs.” Surely history teaches and the early Church fathers teach who were the succcessors of the apostles. Indeed, that’s not difficult at all to prove from the early Church fathers.

The question is who broke from the whom? In 1054 AD the Eastern Church broke off from the Catholic Church, in the great schism. On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther started what became the Protestant reformation where many Catholics broke from the true Catholic Church and in 1529 King Henry VIII again started his own rebellion against the Catholic Church after being denied a divorce decree from his wife.

As far as having to prove the ligitimacy of what the early Catholic Church believed, well I’ll give you 2 doctrines that the Catholic Church today has faithfully held on to and juxtapose them with Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

1)Contraception (means against life) a doctrine forbiden in the early Church now all Protestant Churches and Eastern Orothodox accept it. Sadly even some Protestant Churches actually teach that Abortion is acceptable in some circumstances.

2)The Bishop or Rome being the successor of Peter, the head of the Church was always accepted in the early Church; though the East had its tendency to rebel against the West and was consistantly being rescued by the papacy its Bishops were still under the authority of the Bishop of Rome until 1054.

Pretty clear!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

rc

 

[Bishopite]

History is very clear, there was only ONE Church for at least 1000 years, surely it was one Church during the formulation of the canon in the 4th century when today’s canon was cited for the first time during the council of Rome under Pope Damasus. This was done through Tradition oral and written 2 Thes 2:15,3:6 and 1 Cor 11:2 and the guidance of the Holy Spirit who allowed the Bishops of the Catholic Church (Magisterium) in union with the Bishop of Rome to recognize which books were infallible and God breathed and which ones weren’t. They were placed in 3 catagories.

1. Spurious and without any tie to an Apostle, e.g. Gospel of Phillip, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary.
2. Accepted books e.g. the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.
3. Disputed books e.g., 2, 3 John, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation.

The only Church to recognize which books were authentic was the Roman Catholic Church because it was the only Church at the time. The councils were the Bishops of the Catholic Church. It was the Holy Spirit guiding them to authoritatively recognize which books were the infallible books that God had written.

rc

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

But we are all descended from that “Catholic Church.” What you have to prove is that the churches in communion with Rome today are the only legitimate heirs of the early Catholic Church. I suggest that you start with the Orthodox. Convince them of your claims and many of us (I can speak for myself anyway) will fall in line happily.

Edwin

I don’t understand what you mean by legitimate heirs. There was only one Catholic Church then and there is only one now. Anybody who split from HER couldn’t be considered catholic. Although though the Orthodox church would say otherwise, the truth still remains. They split from the Catholic church in 1054 hence they cannot be called the Catholic Church. As was said in a different thread, if you ask where the orthodox church is nobody would point you to a Catholic Church. They would point you to the Orthodox Church. Although the continuity of the succession is still there they still can’t claim that they are the one true Catholic Church.

 

[gryskull]

NonDenom:

Hi Cats
This is a real no brainer. It was GOD of course.
Thanks

I don’t know if you’re serious or not. Yes, I agree that it was through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we got the Bible. But it was the Church through God’s(Holy Spirit) inspiration that the canon of the Bible came about. The bible didn’t fall from heaven as others would like to think. It was the Catholic Church that gave us the New Testament Canon.

The Catholic Church does not oppose when you say that all glory be to God. We all can agree with that. We don’t worship the Bible but we do reverence it to a certain degree since it is God’s living word.

 

[TobyLue]

I don’t understand what you mean by legitimate heirs. There was only one Catholic Church then and there is only one now. Anybody who split from HER couldn’t be considered catholic. Although though the Orthodox church would say otherwise, the truth still remains. They split from the Catholic church in 1054 hence they cannot be called the Catholic Church.

I find something strange and not to change the subject but on this Orthodox website there is a timeline on the Orthodox Church and it started with “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”. Then in the year 1045 the Great Schism occurred. They have the Catholic splitting and going a different direction, but they named it “The Roman Catholic Church”. There was no such church in 1095. My CCC reads “The Cathechism of The Catholic Church”. The title of my Church is “The Catholic Church”. If the Orthodox claim they are the true church, why do they have on this timeline a change to “The Orthodox Church?” Why didnt they insists on beling called “The Catholic Church” or “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”? Just a thought…

 

[gryskull]

TobyLue:

I find something strange and not to change the subject but on this Orthodox website there is a timeline on the Orthodox Church and it started with “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”. Then in the year 1045 the Great Schism occurred. They have the Catholic splitting and going a different direction, but they named it “The Roman Catholic Church”. There was no such church in 1095. My CCC reads “The Cathechism of The Catholic Church”. The title of my Church is “The Catholic Church”. If the Orthodox claim they are the true church, why do they have on this timeline a change to “The Orthodox Church?” Why didnt they insists on beling called “The Catholic Church” or “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”? Just a thought…

Nice thought. I’ve been to that thread and I was really skeptical about that chart. But your question is valid. Why change the name from Catholic to Orthodox if the one true Church had the name Catholic for more than one thousand years.

 

[gryskull]

davemcher5:

I think there is some confusion. God inspired the Bible and its authors, but he did not bring it to us in the litteral sense. In fact, the “Holy Scriptures” was around at the time of Jesus Christ.

Dave, the Holy Scriptures wasn’t around at Jesus’ time. But I think that’s was you meant. I just had to make that correction so as not to confuse anybody.

The subsequent editing of the Bible by non-Catholic (& non-Orthodox) Christians, for whatever reason that books, chapters, verses, etc. were discarded, can be viewed as a definte error and block to Christian unity. This would be due to the aforementioned fact that the Bible was born under a united Christian Church.

The chapter and verses of the bible was also done by the Catholic Church. It was done by HER child by the name of Card. Stephen Langton of Canterbury who divided it into chapters–he died 1228-- and was subsequently divided into verses by Robert Stephen

 

[Contarini]

Mt19:26:

The only possible answer is the Catholic Church. None of the other churches existed until a few hundred years ago.

But neither did you, in many of your features. You judge that these features are inessential or are legitimate developments. Others may disagree. It is certainly not a no-brainer. No church (not even the Orthodox who come closest) has remained unchanging throughout the centuries.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Bishopite:

Surely history teaches and the early Church fathers teach who were the succcessors of the apostles.

But that is hardly relevant for Catholic-Protestant issues, is it? We all claim descent from the patristic Church.

Bishopite:

The question is who broke from the whom?

Not really. In most cases it isn’t a very relevant or meaningful question, because pretty much all splits involve two sides.

Bishopite:

In 1054 AD the Eastern Church broke off from the Catholic Church, in the great schism.

They would say it’s the other way round. How are you going to prove them wrong? On what basis would you even debate it? If you really must think in these terms, then bear in mind that the West took the initiative in 1054 (as opposed, say, to the Photian schism earlier, whose issues were taken up by the Orthodox after the West’s precipitate action). If Cardinal Humbert was wrong in excommunicating Constantinople (and I think most Catholic theologians and church leaders today would agree that he was), then it’s hard to argue that they split away simply because they did not submit to an unjust excommunication.

Bishopite:

On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther started what became the Protestant reformation where many Catholics broke from the true Catholic Church

It’s not that simple. Luther was excommunicated as a heretic. If he was not a heretic, then the excommunication was unjust, and again it’s highly unfair to say that he was “splitting away” because he didn’t recant teachings that were not heretical. Your view of things depends on Luther’s teachings up to the Diet of Worms in 1521 being heretical. And of course Worms wasn’t the end of the story–there were continued negotiations. At Augsburg in 1530 the Protestants presented their confession of faith, which was judged to be heretical. Was it? If it wasn’t, then again the guilt for “splitting away” is not all on the Protestant side.

In other words, you can’t simply show that we are not heirs of the early Church because we “split away.” You must first show that the doctrines for which we were condemned were incompatible with those of the historic Church (as opposed to simply being developments of those teachings, as yours are). Otherwise the split was between heirs of the patristic Church, which is my contention.

Bishopite:

and in 1529 King Henry VIII again started his own rebellion against the Catholic Church after being denied a divorce decree from his wife.

No, he was denied an annulment. And that was hardly the final moment with regard to the Church of England. The C of E was reunited to Rome under Henry’s daughter Mary, and not officially in schism (some at least would argue) until 1572, when Pope Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth. Again, the question is whether this excommunication was just.