which church brought us the Bible

[DOXA]

Your question is biased. You ask which Church…etc siginfying that you believe it was one of the Churches you have included in the list.

The formation of the Bible was a very complex process and took a long time to complete. Bishops of the Church of Christ, a group of orthodox bishops (orthodox meaning non-heretical and not heterodox) compiled the Bible out of Holy Scripture composed of Gospels and Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. These were all collected throughout the period of persecution and after the formation of a Christian Roman Empire with the capital being in the old city called Byzantium. Councils were held in the East to settle on the Bible Canon which we follow today. There were even manuscripts which were forgeries, composed by both Pagans Gnostics and Jews to confuse the even the elect. But the truth prevailed.

The orthodox catholic and apostolic Church was definitely the birthgiver of the Bible, neither the Western Roman Catholic Church nor the Eastern orthodox Churches of Christ can claim sole “editorship” to the birth of the BIBLE.

But if one to consider the fact that the Bible was never called Bible in the East but always, HAGIA GRAPHI (Holy Scripture) I guess the Bible is a Protestant invention since Holy Scripture does not only belong to ONE book. In the Church there is the 4 GOSPELS (Mathew Mark Luke and John), read by the deacon, priest or Bishop and the APOSTOLOS, read out by the reader or anagnost. Then there is the Psalter read out by the chanters and or the Reader and the Prophets, again a separate book. Then there is the rest of OT Scripture which may be divided into separate books or one whole book. The Deuterocanonical books which are also Holy Scripture but are included much later into the Church.

So the Bible is quite foreign to the early Church of Christ because it was quite dangerous having just one single book called the Holy Bible at that time. People would start worshiping the Book rather than seeing Holy Scripture as something which is a group of authentic teachings and lessons and stories, used as pedagogical tools requiring spiritual exegisis (just as it was used in the Synagogues) rather than a complete instruction manual we can take home and read, thinking that we have fulfiled our duty, just by reading it and believing it.

Jesus most likely never had a “Bible”, he used Holy Scripture which was found in the Synagogues.

 

[DOXA]

Don’t get me wrong, having a Bible at home is great but we should also be aware that this has caused a great deal of heresies to be born since people start making their own interpretations.

 

[dennisknapp]

Contarini:

Vatican II (Dei Verbum 6.22) said: “Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. . . . the word of God should be accessible at all times.”

Do you agree with this statement or not? If you do, then you must agree that the Church made a serious mistake in the past by failing to uphold this principle.

The Church’s attempt to limit lay access to the Scriptures was an understandable reaction, but it was horribly wrong. Would you think it was OK for parents to keep their children from learning to read so that they wouldn’t run the risk of reading a bad book? Christians who don’t know the Bible are stunted Christians. The Holy Scriptures are the patrimony of all believers. When the leaders of the Church move from guiding the faithful in their interpretation of Scripture (which is their solemn duty) to keeping the Scriptures away from the laity, they have ceased to act as loving parents and have become jealous step-parents, attempting to cheat the faithful out of their rightful heritage.

I’m quite aware that the leaders of the Church did not do this consistently or totally. But they did do this at times and to some extent, and that’s bad enough.

Edwin

Yes, but hindsight is 20/20. We tend to look at historical events through our 21st century lense. I’m no relativist, but we need to understand a given situation from the point of view of those who experienced it and hold off on our own judgements.

When I look at the thousands of different “churches” I cringe as I listen to them misinterpret and misapply the Scriptures. They have taken something holy and made it into a common thing. Go into any Christian bookstore and you’ll see what I mean.

This is what the Church tried to avoid. The Scriptures may be our patrimony, but why cast pearls before swine.

Peace

 

[Contarini]

dennisknapp:

Yes, but hindsight is 20/20.

Sure, I’m not interested in judging the people involved, only in saying that they were wrong!

And this applies to everyone, not just the Catholics. I have a lot of sympathy for the Protestant Reformers’ conclusion that the Papacy had hopelessly abandoned the Gospel and was no longer authentically Christian (I hasten to add that they did not necessarily apply this to every particular church in communion with Rome, let alone every individual who remained loyal to the Apostolic See). But I think they were horribly, disastrously wrong. At the time, there were lots of things that made it look that way. But now I can look back and see that God had not abandoned the See of Rome.

Nonetheless, given hindsight, I have to admit that those like Gasparo Contarini who chose to remain loyal to Rome (in spite of recognizing the abuses and corruptions that were going on) were right, and the Protestants were wrong, on this point. And that has serious consequences for how I look at my Protestant heritage.

Similarly, in light of Vatican II it’s clear that the Lollards and the Protestants and the Jansenists were right about the free availability of Holy Scripture (though not necessarily in all their interpretations) and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was wrong. And this has consequences for how you look at the authority of the Church, just as my recognition of the errors of the Reformers has consequences.

This is what the Church tried to avoid. The Scriptures may be our patrimony, but why cast pearls before swine.

Because baptized Christians are not swine (unless they have clearly proved themselves to be so by their actions).

This is the fundamental issue: are baptized laity fully Christian or not? The Catholic Church has always said yes, but Protestants would argue that your actions have often said otherwise. The restriction of lay access to the Scriptures is one of the most glaring instances of this.

Edwin

 

[mhansen]

dennisknapp:

When I look at the thousands of different “churches” I cringe as I listen to them misinterpret and misapply the Scriptures. They have taken something holy and made it into a common thing. Go into any Christian bookstore and you’ll see what I mean.

This is what the Church tried to avoid. The Scriptures may be our patrimony, but why cast pearls before swine.

Peace

What makes me cringe is to see someone who professes to be from the “one, true Church” make such a pompous statement as the one you’ve made in this post. If you are representative of the whole of this “church”, I can see why there are those who choose not to be a part of it. It is this type of behavior that takes something holy and makes it common, not the misinterpretation of Scripture.

Mike

 

[Contarini]

mhansen:

If you are representative of the whole of this “church”, I can see why there are those who choose not to be a part of it.

Mike

He isn’t. Read Vatican II’s constitution Dei Verbum, for a more representative look at modern Catholic teaching on Scripture.

Edwin

 

[mhansen]

Contarini:

He isn’t. Read Vatican II’s constitution Dei Verbum, for a more representative look at modern Catholic teaching on Scripture.

Edwin

It wasn’t his opinion (or the Church’s) regarding Scripture that concerned me. It was his apparent lack of love, or at least lack of respect, toward those whose faith differs from his, as evidenced by his “why cast pearls before swine?” question.

All of the scholastic theology in the world wouldn’t get me into a church that lacked love.

Mike

 

[Ignatius]

I noticed that a couple of JWs’ called authorship. Just curious, could you trace that through existent citations of some writers back through ages to show us whom in your Church was in attendance when the Canon was defined?

 

[Contarini]

mhansen:

It wasn’t his opinion (or the Church’s) regarding Scripture that concerned me. It was his apparent lack of love, or at least lack of respect, toward those whose faith differs from his, as evidenced by his “why cast pearls before swine?” question.

All of the scholastic theology in the world wouldn’t get me into a church that lacked love.

Mike

And you surely know that such attitudes can be found in all churches. And perhaps to some extent in all Christians, or at least in most. I know I’ve been guilty of a lack of love many times myself.

Edwin

 

[dennisknapp]

mhansen:

What makes me cringe is to see someone who professes to be from the “one, true Church” make such a pompous statement as the one you’ve made in this post. If you are representative of the whole of this “church”, I can see why there are those who choose not to be a part of it. It is this type of behavior that takes something holy and makes it common, not the misinterpretation of Scripture.

Mike

I know what I said was pretty harsh, but given the historical context I feel it was justified. I’m not saying the Catholic Church is blamless here, far from it. What I am saying is given the history of the Church in the last 400 years, and what has resulted from the layperson having the Scriptures, I feel we are worse off as a culture.

I am not calling you a swine, just those who invented new interpretations of Scripture. If you are one of their heirs you are not responsible for all that has happened since then, but they are.

Peace

 

[Contarini]

But Dennis,

Aren’t you willing to consider the possibility that the Catholic Church’s policies to some extent helped create what they were trying to prevent? By responding to potential heresy through invoking the secular arm and trying to limit lay access to the Scriptures, the hierarchy made it appear that they were against Scripture and against freedom of conscience. It’s a vicious circle, and the only way to end it is for both sides to admit the ways in which we have contributed to it. The Catholic Church as a whole is doing this. Unfortunately, not everyone on this board is. Many folks here seem locked into the same vicious circle, with the adversaries in this case being modern American fundamentalists (and to a lesser extent evangelicals and mainliners/liberals).

Edwin

 

[dennisknapp]

Contarini:

But Dennis,

Aren’t you willing to consider the possibility that the Catholic Church’s policies to some extent helped create what they were trying to prevent? By responding to potential heresy through invoking the secular arm and trying to limit lay access to the Scriptures, the hierarchy made it appear that they were against Scripture and against freedom of conscience. It’s a vicious circle, and the only way to end it is for both sides to admit the ways in which we have contributed to it. The Catholic Church as a whole is doing this. Unfortunately, not everyone on this board is. Many folks here seem locked into the same vicious circle, with the adversaries in this case being modern American fundamentalists (and to a lesser extent evangelicals and mainliners/liberals).

Edwin

Do you honestly think we are better off now than then?

When you look at the landscape of theology do you see what Christ desires?

What I am standing against is error, not freedom of conscience. If you were in their place, and it was your sworn duty before God to defend and carry on the deposit of Faith, what would you do?

Peace

 

[santaro75]

DOXA:

Your question is biased. You ask which Church…etc siginfying that you believe it was one of the Churches you have included in the list.

The formation of the Bible was a very complex process and took a long time to complete. Bishops of the Church of Christ, a group of orthodox bishops (orthodox meaning non-heretical and not heterodox) compiled the Bible out of Holy Scripture composed of Gospels and Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. These were all collected throughout the period of persecution and after the formation of a Christian Roman Empire with the capital being in the old city called Byzantium. Councils were held in the East to settle on the Bible Canon which we follow today. There were even manuscripts which were forgeries, composed by both Pagans Gnostics and Jews to confuse the even the elect. But the truth prevailed.

The orthodox catholic and apostolic Church was definitely the birthgiver of the Bible, neither the Western Roman Catholic Church nor the Eastern orthodox Churches of Christ can claim sole “editorship” to the birth of the BIBLE.

But if one to consider the fact that the Bible was never called Bible in the East but always, HAGIA GRAPHI (Holy Scripture) I guess the Bible is a Protestant invention since Holy Scripture does not only belong to ONE book. In the Church there is the 4 GOSPELS (Mathew Mark Luke and John), read by the deacon, priest or Bishop and the APOSTOLOS, read out by the reader or anagnost. Then there is the Psalter read out by the chanters and or the Reader and the Prophets, again a separate book. Then there is the rest of OT Scripture which may be divided into separate books or one whole book. The Deuterocanonical books which are also Holy Scripture but are included much later into the Church.

So the Bible is quite foreign to the early Church of Christ because it was quite dangerous having just one single book called the Holy Bible at that time. People would start worshiping the Book rather than seeing Holy Scripture as something which is a group of authentic teachings and lessons and stories, used as pedagogical tools requiring spiritual exegisis (just as it was used in the Synagogues) rather than a complete instruction manual we can take home and read, thinking that we have fulfiled our duty, just by reading it and believing it.

Jesus most likely never had a “Bible”, he used Holy Scripture which was found in the Synagogues.

well, unified bishops and other were options

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

MrS:

We do not have to prove the positive. I would suggest that perhaps some one here, who might be an Episcopalian for instance, would attempt to prove that his choice of church affiliation is traced to the Apostolic era.

We do have to, because it is by no means obvious that the CC today is in real continuity with the Church of 400 - it’s perfectly possible that the the CC today is guilty of all manner of doctrinal and othet innovations which would have been fiercely rejected by Christians of the year 400.​

That the CC has done precisely these things, is part of the Anglican case againt her.

I can’t see the Catholics of 400 having much time for the universal role of inspection and discipline in the Church claimed for the Pope in 1870, for example. ##

 

[Contarini]

dennisknapp:

Do you honestly think we are better off now than then?

I have no way to make such a comparison. I’m not sure it’s a meaningful question. I think we are worse off than we would have been if everyone had made better choices. That’s about as specific a statement as I’m willing to make

Let me make one thing clear–and I should probably say this more often on this board–I think that the attitude Luther and Calvin and company took (with regard to the Pope and the hierarchy and Catholic tradition) was horrendously, disastrously wrong. Luther’s case is tricky because there was an escalation of condemnations on both sides and because Luther never set up or (as far as I know) encouraged the setting up of a dissenting church in opposition to the existing local expression of the Church. But Calvin is more clear-cut. Calvin made a conscious choice to leave Catholicism for an already existing, organized Protestantism. He did this–if Institutes 4 is any guide–because he believed that Catholicism had radically distorted the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments. He believed that Protestants could not in good conscience participate in Catholic worship, and thus he encouraged the formation of underground Protestant churches in schism from the local churches already in existence.

In all of this he was horribly wrong. If I had lived in the 16th century, I probably would have aroused the suspicions of the Catholic hierarchy, but I would certainly not have rebelled against the Church. What I would have done if I had lived in a place where the established Church became Protestant I don’t know.

Sorry for the digression, but I need to make my position clear since I’m usually arguing against Catholicism in this forum.

What I am standing against is error, not freedom of conscience.

But people in the 16th century found that distinction very hard to make. Catholics have become able to make it largely because of the existence of Protestantism for 500 years! (And Protestants came to make it more quickly largely because of their own precarious standing and then because of their hopeless divisions from each other.) Think of us as the ancient Assyrians! When you have learned from us what God has to teach you, we (as organized, separate communities) will fade away like dew before the summer sun. At least I hope to God that we will.

[QUOTEIf you were in their place, and it was your sworn duty before God to defend and carry on the deposit of Faith, what would you do?

[/QUOTE]

If, anachronistically, I were in their place with the views I hold now, I would defend the Faith by teaching and persuasion and the encouragement of godly living among the orthodox rather than by the forcible repression of error.

Edwin

 

[Coder]

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.

If the name has different translations then the actual letters and sounds that are used are not important? Then what is important about the name if the sounds and letters used by different languages can be different?