Who gave the world the Bible?

[Christalone]

Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

 

[phoenix3212]

Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

Look at history. Who split off from who? Did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox? No. The reverse occurred. Therefore, the original group (the Catholic Church) stands correct in its claim.

 

[Christalone]

Look at history. Who split off from who? Did the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox? No. The reverse occurred. Therefore, the original group (the Catholic Church) stands correct in its claim.

Evidently not or there would have been no break away.

 

[phoenix3212]

Evidently not or there would have been no break away.

What do you mean? Heretics break off all the time. That doesn’t diminish the validity of the Catholic Church’s theological and historic claims to apostolic succession and to having been founded by Jesus.

 

[Christalone]

What do you mean? Heretics break off all the time. That doesn’t diminish the validity of the Catholic Church’s theological and historic claims to apostolic succession and to having been founded by Jesus.

What one claims to be the truth is not always the truth, and more specificly just because one claims it to be.

 

[phoenix3212]

What one claims to be the truth is not always the truth, and more specificly just because one claims it to be.

But when you can back up your claims with historic evidence, your claim ends up being pretty good. The Catholic Church’s history has spanned nearly 2000 years. No other Church has such a solid claim to having been founded by Jesus.

 

[Christalone]

But when you can back up your claims with historic evidence, your claim ends up being pretty good. The Catholic Church’s history has spanned nearly 2000 years. No other Church has such a solid claim to having been founded by Jesus.

It is only a claim, and that does not make it the truth.

 

[phoenix3212]

It is only a claim, and that does not make it the truth.

My friend, I’m praying for you.

Anyway, taking the Gospels as historical documents that attest to events accurately, it is clear that Jesus Christ founded a Church and promised the powers of death would never prevail against it. The Catholic Church is the only one that’s been around for that long. Therefore, it must be the true church. If it isn’t, then Christianity as a whole is false, because Jesus would have broken his promise to His church, which would accordingly disprove his claims to divinity.

 

[Christalone]

My friend, I’m praying for you.

As am I for your brother.

Anyway, taking the Gospels as historical documents that attest to events accurately, it is clear that Jesus Christ founded a Church and promised the powers of death would never prevail against it. The Catholic Church is the only one that’s been around for that long. Therefore, it must be the true church. If it isn’t,then Christianity as a whole is false, because Jesus would have broken his promise to His church, which would accordingly disprove his claims to divinity.

Jesus most definitely founded a church, but nowhere in God’s Word does it say the the catholic church is the true church. That claim is nothing more than a convulated assumption.

The catholic church is not Christianity in any manner shape or form. Christianity is the following of Christ by those who have excepted Him as their Lord and Savior. Those who follow in His steps and not the steps of man telling you what he wants you to believe.

 

[puppypatrol]

It is only a claim, and that does not make it the truth.

It isn’t a “claim” it is historical fact. The split between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church occured because of a dispute over where the Chair of St. Peter would be. The Orthodox church still claims to be decended from St. Peter, to St. Linus, etc… until Constantine allowed the Orthodox church to establish their Holy See in Constantinople while the Roman Church remained in Rome and then Vatican City. The separation was not over what books were included in the Bible. The separation started well after the canon of the Bible was established and historically wasn’t a complete separation until 1052 AD with the canon of the Eastern Orthodox Bible being finalized in 1672 with the addition of the following:

Orthodox: Prayer of Manasseh · 1 Esdras · 2 Esdras · Orthodox: 3 Maccabees · 4 Maccabees · Odes · Psalm 151 · Syriac Peshitta only: 2 Baruch · Psalms 152–155 · Ethiopian Orthodox only: 4 Baruch · Enoch · Jubilees · 1-3 Meqabyan

The Protestant canon was established in the mid 1500’s which removed 5 books of the Old Testament and almost removed Revelation and several of the Epistles.

This is historical fact.

 

[puppypatrol]

As am I for your brother.

Christianity is the following of Christ by those who have excepted Him as their Lord and Savior. Those who follow in His steps and not the steps of man telling you what he wants you to believe.

Where is that in the Bible? The Catholic Church doesn’t have anyone but Christ, through his apostles, priests, bishops, etc… telling us what he wants us to believe. We believe what we do because there is biblical and traditional proof for what we believe.

We believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because of what he said in John chapter 6 and at the Last Supper…

We believe that we are not justified by faith alone because in James 2:24 it says "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. "

Actually, I could go on and on but I think you get the point. If you really want to know what Christianity is, include the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the people who knew and were taught by the Apostles, in your reading schedule.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

First off you have to realize that Both The Catholic Church ( Roman/ Latin is just one part of the whole Church) and Orthodox ( The Greek is just one part of the Orthodox Churches) are both what is stated in the Nicean Creed as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is sadly to say 1000 ( give or take a year or so) year old family feud.

Next you have to look at what part of the Bible are you talking about. The Old Testament would come from the Jewish people and Faith. the New Testament would come from the The Apostles and their students.

Now if you are Addressing on who’s Authority gives us the Cannon of the Bible. It is he One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Tradition of the Western Church give us the Cannon of Books followed By what today is the Catholic Church( I believe that those Eastern Catholic follow it as well) . The Traditions of the Orthodox Churches have canonized Additional books that were found by the Council to be how shall I say it good reading yet left room as to their validity.

Then In the mid 1500’s Luther and others disputed some books of both the Old and New testaments and moved the Old testament ones to a separate area by themselves there were also New testament book that they wanted to do this to as well. St Johns Revelation, Hebrews, Peter 1 &2 and Jude. there may have been 1 or 2 more I do think the Gospel of Luke was in there are at least portion were.

then sometime in the 1800’s those old testament books disappeared form those Bible used by the Protestants all together.

The easy answer is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church gave us the Bible.

 

[kalt]

As am I for your brother.

Jesus most definitely founded a church, but nowhere in God’s Word does it say the the catholic church is the true church. That claim is nothing more than a convulated assumption.

The catholic church is not Christianity in any manner shape or form. Christianity is the following of Christ by those who have excepted Him as their Lord and Savior. Those who follow in His steps and not the steps of man telling you what he wants you to believe.

 

[kalt]

What one claims to be the truth is not always the truth, and more specificly just because one claims it to be.

Are you going to provide proof for the claim you’re making here. As you said, claims the the truth are not always truth, just because one makes the claim.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

Interesting question. The facts are that there were several competing sects of Christianity or Jesus followers that argued about the canon for a couple of hundred years. When the canon was finalized at Nicea, the Roman church had suppressed all the other sects. It thus declared the canon. Other groups were declared by definition as heretical. But it is well known historically that for decades if not hundreds of years afterward, some books were ignored and others added into the canon of various churches. I’m thinking of the Syrian church for sure, and there were others. Actually, some of the Eubonites and various Gnostic groups were the majority groups in some places.

Archaelogy confirms that the groups declared heretical were much larger and more widespread than previously known. Eusebius of course wrote the history of the winners of the internicine wars of early Christendom. That is why we find more and more of this “heretical” material today. It was suppressed by the orthodox and thus hidden away for safe keeping. It is now coming to light in various digs in Egypt and the region.

There are extant dozens of apocraphyal books, some written by Peter, and so on. There are dozens of gospels, and dozens of other epistles. Most were adjudged “heretical” because they did not conform to the group that was judging them, because they had a different theology. That in essence is the definition of heretical—the winner becomes orthodox and the loser becomes heretical. Some of course were adjudged as not “apostolic” having clearly been written in the 2-4 centuries CE. But even one or two of them crept into the canon as I understand. Especially those denoted as Timothy Titus, Peter and such were almost certainly not written by any apostle but were constructed sometimes long after their deaths.

So it’s pretty hard to determine witch of the two Catholic churches is the “compiler” of the resulting canon it seems to me. Both claim to be the “true” church, and both it seems have equally good arguments. There is no “superiority” in that one remained in Rome, the fallen center of Roma as apposed to Constantinople the "new Capital.

 

[Eleve]

It seems quite logical to me to say that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches were one and the same prior to the second millennium, and that the canon of the Bible was approved by both of them.

 

[Stouts989]

First off you have to realize that Both The Catholic Church ( Roman/ Latin is just one part of the whole Church) and Orthodox ( The Greek is just one part of the Orthodox Churches) are both what is stated in the Nicean Creed as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is sadly to say 1000 ( give or take a year or so) year old family feud.

Next you have to look at what part of the Bible are you talking about. The Old Testament would come from the Jewish people and Faith. the New Testament would come from the The Apostles and their students.

Now if you are Addressing on who’s Authority gives us the Cannon of the Bible. It is he One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Tradition of the Western Church give us the Cannon of Books followed By what today is the Catholic Church( I believe that those Eastern Catholic follow it as well) . The Traditions of the Orthodox Churches have canonized Additional books that were found by the Council to be how shall I say it good reading yet left room as to their validity.

Then In the mid 1500’s Luther and others disputed some books of both the Old and New testaments and moved the Old testament ones to a separate area by themselves there were also New testament book that they wanted to do this to as well. St Johns Revelation, Hebrews, Peter 1 &2 and Jude. there may have been 1 or 2 more I do think the Gospel of Luke was in there are at least portion were.

then sometime in the 1800’s those old testament books disappeared form those Bible used by the Protestants all together.

The easy answer is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church gave us the Bible.

Question:

In Luke 11 Jesus tells us what OT is credited as the Word of God. Another reference is made in Luke 24:44

Luke 11:49-51 (with emphases).

“For this reason also** the wisdom of God** said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God, yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.”

Jesus says, “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.”

Now, there’s a problem with this statement…Zechariah isn’t the last martyr in the OT, if we refer to what both Catholics and Protestants refer to as the OT testament in its current order. Historically Jeremiah is the last martyr in the OT…not Zechariah!

So why would Jesus say from Abel to Zechariah when referring to “the wisdom of God” or the Word of God, OT?

Jesus wasn’t crediting the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT, which the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are based on) as the written Word of God…what He says as the Wisdom of God. Jesus is referring to the Tanach as the written Word of God in this passage.

In the Tanach the last book is Chronicles…or for us would be 2 Chronicles (it is one book in the Tanach). In 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 is the record of Zechariah’s death, the last record of a martyr in the Tanach!

So when Jesus said, “From Abel to Zechariah”, He wasn’t referring to a historical timeline, but a canonical timeline. The closed canon of the TaNaCH! Cool!

So my question…

Why did the RCC when verifying which books should make up the Bible we use today over looked this passage in the Gospels as Jesus accredits the closed canon of the TNCH as the written word of God?

The TNCH doesn’t contain the later writings after Malachi…so why should our OT?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Evidently not or there would have been no break away.

If you check it out they did not break away over the Bible, Christalone your answer make NO reason…Please check it out and get back to us and then we both will know why

 

[geometer]

Every book of the bible was written by jew. Jesus came from jews, and stayed with them his entire life. Bibles and christs come from jews…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Question:

In Luke 11 Jesus tells us what OT is credited as the Word of God. Another reference is made in Luke 24:44

Luke 11:49-51 (with emphases).

“For this reason also** the wisdom of God** said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God, yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.”

Jesus says, “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.”

Now, there’s a problem with this statement…Zechariah isn’t the last martyr in the OT, if we refer to what both Catholics and Protestants refer to as the OT testament in its current order. Historically Jeremiah is the last martyr in the OT…not Zechariah!

So why would Jesus say from Abel to Zechariah when referring to “the wisdom of God” or the Word of God, OT?

Jesus wasn’t crediting the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT, which the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are based on) as the written Word of God…what He says as the Wisdom of God. Jesus is referring to the Tanach as the written Word of God in this passage.

In the Tanach the last book is Chronicles…or for us would be 2 Chronicles (it is one book in the Tanach). In 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 is the record of Zechariah’s death, the last record of a martyr in the Tanach!

So when Jesus said, “From Abel to Zechariah”, He wasn’t referring to a historical timeline, but a canonical timeline. The closed canon of the TaNaCH! Cool!

So my question…

Why did the RCC when verifying which books should make up the Bible we use today over looked this passage in the Gospels as Jesus accredits the closed canon of the TNCH as the written word of God?

The TNCH doesn’t contain the later writings after Malachi…so why should our OT?

Or when Jesus said, “From Abel to Zechariah” could he have been saying " A to Z" meaning all? Also there were many many cannons in use at the time of Jesus by the Jews. they were not at all in agreement. But form New testament writings is can bee determined that the Septuagint was the one used by Jesus and th Apostles as they make referrance to books found in it and not in other.