Which is older

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Catholic Church or the Bible

How old is each?

On your mark,
get set,
GO!

And I am not talking about the Eastern or the Western Rites.

And not the “Roman” church.

Stated in this form, this is the the wrong question. And there is more to importance & value than priority in time; the earlier is not necessarily the more valuable.​

Even if both the Church & the Bible were utterly flawless materially, that would be perfectly compatible with their both being worthless religiously. Religious value, like every other, is from Christ - not from the Church, not from the Bible, not from man, not from any created thing whatever. Give any creature the priority - & it becomes an idolatrous object. Christ has not redeemed us from sin & death so that we should idolise the Church, or the Bible, or any other thing in all creation.

That is why Scripture is not, & cannot be, supreme; that is why the Church is not, & cannot be, supreme; why no creature can be supreme, but Christ & He alone. Bible, Church, doctrines,dogmas - they mean nothing and are nothing & matter nothing without Christ. Unless one is to think of them as self-sufficient: but what created thing can be that ?

So to set these things against each other is meaningless

 

[Montalban]

Stated in this form, this is the the wrong question. And there is more to importance & value than priority in time; the earlier is not necessarily the more valuable.​

Even if both the Church & the Bible were utterly flawless materially, that would be perfectly compatible with their both being worthless religiously. Religious value, like every other, is from Christ - not from the Church, not from the Bible, not from man, not from any created thing whatever. Give any creature the priority - & it becomes an idolatrous object. Christ has not redeemed us from sin & death so that we should idolise the Church, or the Bible, or any other thing in all creation.

That is why Scripture is not, & cannot be, supreme; that is why the Church is not, & cannot be, supreme; why no creature can be supreme, but Christ & He alone. Bible, Church, doctrines,dogmas - they mean nothing and are nothing & matter nothing without Christ. Unless one is to think of them as self-sufficient: but what created thing can be that ?

So to set these things against each other is meaningless

But how do you know Christ if not through his church, and/or Scripture? Did Jesus come to you personally and reveal himself?

 

[fellowChristian]

Jesus is the** Word **that became Flesh.

Jesus is the church.

The reason I ask this question is I know alot of people who give it no thought.

Where did we get the Bible (NT) ?Who decided which books should go in it? How many churches did Jesus build?When did the Reformers start protesting? And who were they protesting against?

I mean I know the answers. But someone who is reading these forums may not.

If you don’t know the question how will you get the answer?

 

[po18guy]

Oh please, not this nonsense again.Edwin

Hear! Hear!

p.s. Edwin, we don’t want you looking in through the widows!

 

[Montalban]

Jesus is the** Word **that became Flesh.

Jesus is the church.

The reason I ask this question is I know alot of people who give it no thought.

Where did we get the Bible (NT) ?Who decided which books should go in it? How many churches did Jesus build?When did the Reformers start protesting? And who were they protesting against?

I mean I know the answers. But someone who is reading these forums may not.

If you don’t know the question how will you get the answer?

And the church is the Body of Christ

 

[Dameedna]

The stories of Jesus are older than the church, and were probably originally shared in places of Jewish worship.

Once they were written down, around 60-100 AD, the teachings were moved away from Jewish worship centres and spread throughout the land of the gentiles

Many may disagree, and that’s totally fine, but I believe that Christ was talked about within the community in which he lived, before any formalization of a religion surrounding him.

 

[Marc1152]

It’s important to remember that it was THE Church
( the undivided Church which is today both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church)
complied the Bible.

How come the bible has four Gospels and not six or ten or just one? There were many scriptures floating around, it was THE Church that decided which ones would be included.

It’s funny how Protestants have such a low view of the Church and such a high view of the Bible even thought it was the Church that produced the Bible in the form they accept today.

 

[Contarini]

Wasn’t the NT Church set in motion so to speak at Pentacost?

Exactly. And the books of the NT were written at least a couple of decades later, and in some cases perhaps close to a century later. I did not say that the NT Church was “a few decades or a century out”; I said that the NT Scriptures were written a few decades (at least) or a century (at most) after the Church. And if you are going by canonization, the century figure still applies, since II Peter was written no more than a century after Pentecost (if it was by Peter it was written much earlier), and in II Peter the letters of Paul are already treated as canonical.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, they could refer to the ‘books of Christianity’ but there was not a ‘bible’ which is a special collection *of some *of those books

Exactly what is required in your view for there to be a “Bible.” Do all the books have to be found in one physical volume? Does all doubt concerning the limits of the canon have to be resolved? If all that is needed is for some books to be recognized as Scripture, then we have a New Testament at least from the date of II Peter, since II Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture.

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

The Catholic Church or the Bible

‘The Bible’, as a single book compilation of OT & NT scriptures came after the Catholic Church. But the scripture components themselves came before the Catholic Church (the cc as we know it- with its uniquely defining features).

 

[Montalban]

Exactly what is required in your view for there to be a “Bible.” Do all the books have to be found in one physical volume?

Marcion put together a collection that’s not all that we have. It was a ‘bible’ then.

All a Bible is is ‘a’ collection.

Any collection then could be called a Bible.

But the collection can’t exist before it exists - which is the illogic proposal in the question which came first, the books in the bible, or the bible.

 

[Contarini]

Marcion put together a collection that’s not all that we have. It was a ‘bible’ then.

All a Bible is is ‘a’ collection.

Any collection then could be called a Bible.

But the collection can’t exist before it exists - which is the illogic proposal in the question which came first, the books in the bible, or the bible.

So there have to be two books, mentioned together? Does the fact that Peter (or whoever wrote 2 Peter) talks about Paul’s letters in the plural indicate that there was a “collection”? I think this argument breaks down when you try to apply it strictly. “The Bible” is as you note simply a collective name for books inspired by God. For purposes of talking about the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of the Church (a bad dichotomy but one we’re stuck with since the Reformation) I don’t see the significance of whether there is a “Bible” in your sense or one inspired book. As soon as there is one inspired book, there is Christian writing inspired by God. That’s the key point. The Bible is Apostolic Tradition (i.e., divine revelation gien to the apostles) in written form. As soon as there is some Apostolic Tradition in written form, there is a “Bible” for the purposes of this discussion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

‘The Bible’, as a single book compilation of OT & NT scriptures came after the Catholic Church. But the scripture components themselves came before the Catholic Church (the cc as we know it- with its uniquely defining features).

What are those “uniquely defining features”? The CC as we know it is continually changing, like every other religious community. I don’t think this is a useful category.

Edwin

 

[Montalban]

So there have to be two books, mentioned together? Does the fact that Peter (or whoever wrote 2 Peter) talks about Paul’s letters in the plural indicate that there was a “collection”?

If you want to call the collection of Peter’s letters a ‘bible’ so be it, but that Bible couldn’t have existed before the letters. You simply miss this major point of logic.

The letters had to have existed first. Someone may have compiled them into a collection and called it a Bible. That collection could not have existed before they were collected. The books didn’t have to be collected to exist

I’m truly amazed that you’d still be arguing over this really simple piece of logic.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… the church is older, being founded after the resurrection and before Jesus’ assumption…

Yes, the church was founded at Pentecost!..

Just to keep things interesting…

The Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27,32) and was founded on the Cross. The blood and water that founded the Church spilled from His side when He was speared (Ac 20:28, Jn 19:34), just like the way Eve was born from Adam. Christ is the New Adam (Lk 3:38, Ro 5:19, 1 Co 15:22, 1 Co 15:45). And the Church is the New Eve.

But I do agree, that at Pentecost the Church recieved it’s directions and instructions.

 

[Montalban]

Just to keep things interesting…

The Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27,32) and was founded on Cross. The blood and water that founded the Church spilled from His side when He was speared (Ac 20:28, Jn 19:34), just like the way Eve was born from Adam. Christ is the New Adam (Lk 3:38, Ro 5:19, 1 Co 15:22, 1 Co 15:45). And the Church is the New Eve.

No the church was founded at Pentecost because the Apostles still didn’t fully understand Christ - they didn’t recognise him when he came to them.

Certainly our ‘salvation’ was founded at the Cross

 

[Contarini]

If you want to call the collection of Peter’s letters a ‘bible’ so be it, but that Bible couldn’t have existed before the letters. You simply miss this major point of logic.

I don’t miss it. I don’t see why it is relevant.

The letters had to have existed first. Someone may have compiled them into a collection and called it a Bible. That collection could not have existed before they were collected. The books didn’t have to be collected to exist

I’m truly amazed that you’d still be arguing over this really simple piece of logic.

I’m not. I have no idea why you are saying this or what you think you are proving!

Edwin