Who gave the world the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am very glad to hear you all say that. I hear that all the time…or maybe I misunderstood what some of the Catholics were saying. But I hear all the time that the Catholic Church is the one and only church ect…its like if you are not catholic Jesus is not coming back for you. Not that you guys stated that…but many come across in this way. 🙂 I am sorry if I misunderstood 😛
The CC is the one and only Church founded by Jesus. The other Christians churches have either broken away from it, or from a denomination that broke away, or one that broke away from a broken away denomination, and so on.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that only Christians will go to Heaven.

It’s easy to misunderstand what Catholics believe. And some Catholics do come across as if they think that non-Catholic Christians aren’t going to Heaven. I think it’s zeal for the Church that drives them to speak like that, and they don’t realize that they are being easily misunderstood and so are misrepresenting their own faith.

The Catholics, or course, believe that all Christians are brothers. 👍
 
Basically, all baptized people in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are baptized Christians.
Amazing how there is always a stipulation placed on the truth.
 
Amazing how there is always a stipulation placed on the truth.
What stipulation? The Bible itself says that. “Go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”

There is no stipulation! That is God’s true words!
 
The Bible itself claims to have come from the most High, from God Himself (2 Timothy 3:16).

While there were approximately forty men who physically put the text onto the pages, Scripture claims the true author of the Bible is God. In almost every book of the Bible, the human authors assert that their words are the words of God.

The biblical authors all believed themselves to be instruments for His teachings and the spreading of His gospel. These men were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit to spread the message of God and Jesus Christ.

God specifically chose each one of them to tell a unique part of His tale. We have the Bible today because God uses people who desire His will above their own to deliver His message. The Bible came to us from believers who were called to tell of His great love, as well as those things that are pleasing and displeasing to Him.
 
The Bible we have today has everything contained in it that God’s wants in it. If God wanted other books to be included He would have had us add them. Obvivously this is not the case.

The deviations are not from the Roman Catholic Church…they are deviations from Jesus’ teachings. Jesus saved 1000’s of people through His Words…these people heard His Words, believed then were baptized and were saved. No church membership is required nor did Jesus ever say it was necessary. The churches came later…If I believe that Christ died for me, and I ask Him to forgive me of my sins and ask Him to come into my life and believe God raised Him from the dead I will be saved…it does not matter what church I go to…
 
The Catholic Church tries to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.

The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no “church” of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God’s word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.

The time between about 400 BC and about 5 BC is usually called the Years of Prophetic Silence. This is because God created a process that lasted 400 years to create a world climate ready for the coming of the promised Messiah. There was no “church” at this time, either. But there was the new creation of the “synagogue,” since the Jewish people needed to worship God and did not have the Temple when they were in exile. When many came back 400-500 BC, they already had functional synagogues; and even though the Temple was being rebuilt by those returning from exile, the synagogue idea remained and more were built. This was the beginning of the “congregation” or “church” as we have it today.

But there was no Scripture being written during this period. That was yet to come after one came “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:17).

It is likely that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector and later disciple of Jesus took notes of what happened during Jesus’ ministry. However, it is also true that were God in the flesh living among you, His words would burn into your soul. I am sure, as the apostles clearly recollected as they wrote the New Testament (2 Peter 1:16-21; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14), they could not escape the image and words of Jesus Christ, God the Son and Son of God, when He spoke into their hearts (Luke 9:44; 24:32).

But it wasn’t a “church” that made them write.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not “inspire” anything.

When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian’s life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by “the church.” But they were produced FOR the church.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

But no one else shared that place. There is an “epistle of Barnabas” (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called “epistle of Barnabas.”

There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians. Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures–they were not Scripture themselves. Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were “Lutherans” today, learning of God’s word only what they find in Martin Luther’s writings. Interesting writing, at times “inspirational” writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where “the disciples were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call “Apocrypha” to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the “teachers” and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians’ minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God’s word in their students.

The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God’s Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction. Now, 120 years after the switch from God’s Word to devil’s lies (the King James abandoned for the Alexandrian texts), while pretending to “improve” our copies of God’s words, they really set up the abandonment of God’s words. Now almost every Bible in the English-speaking world (and most other languages) is just another re-translation of the Alexandrian polluted stream.

Another way to view it is that the Scriptures as we find them preserved in the King James is like God’s fountain …

Jeremiah 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

Bible Version Center jesus-is-savior.com
 
Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.

Please notice the following from Catholic sources:
"If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.
"If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
“The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church.” (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
“It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible.” (The Question Box, p. 46)
“It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament…If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is.” (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).
The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. “All scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16). “…Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet. 1:21). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35). “The grass withered, and the flower has fallen–but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn’t that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their “circle reasoning.” They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible (“has ever grounded her doctrines upon it”). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament. bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm
 
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?

Liturgical usage, in part ?​

Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

There is a mismatch here: a conclusion about who has authority to interpret the books is based on a false premise as who provided the books. The two questions are separate.​

No Christian body provided the OT - the Jews did. Not Catholics, nor the Orthodox, but the Jews as a whole: as St. Paul says. Theologically: no men did, but God only.

Another weakness in the usual RC case is this: the history of the Bible is made to stop with the canonisation of its contents by a Western local council (Hippo, in Africa) & a Western bishop or two (Damasus of Rome, Innocent of Rome). As though the East had no part in the process; this Rome-centred, Pope-centred, West-biased approach is disgracefully bad history, which a history of the canon could correct in ten seconds.

And no attention is paid to **the development of the text of the **OT, which had not even received vowel points by the end of the fourth Christian century; yet it is an extremely important development, which affects the meaning of the text. Unfortunately, Catholic apologetic about the OT has usually not taken account of this - perhaps because such a development as vocalisation is not necessary if one is using the Roman or Greek alphabets.

To stop the history of the Bible with its canonisation, gives a wholly misleading picture of it, & is a very poor preparation (none, in fact) for such things as textual variation. If the RCC doesn’t educate its laity, they are going to be ignorant, which is a great disservice to them, & to the Church’s mission. It’s inexusable 😦
 
Roman Catholics often say that it was their church that gave us the Bible. They sometimes claim this when defending their “sacred tradition” so that they might support extra biblical teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship. They often say the only way the Christian church knew what books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture was because it was revealed by word-of-mouth in the early church; that is, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, this argument implies that tradition is superior in Scripture. Of course, we are not saying that the Roman Catholic church teaches that tradition is above Scripture. But when sacred tradition is claimed to be the thing by which Scripture is given, then tradition is inadvertently the thing that gives blessing and approval to the Bible. Heb. 7:7 says, “But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.” The unfortunate psychological effect of saying that Roman Catholic tradition is what gave us the Bible, is that it elevates their tradition to a level far greater than what is permitted in Scripture. In fact, it is contradicted by scripture:

“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other,” (1 Cor. 4:6).

The Bible tells us to obey the word of God, to not go beyond the written word, so that we might not make mistakes in what is true. Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of it’s non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God’s word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, he discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture that Christ and the apostles appealed to. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn’t, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.

Fifth, the Scripture says, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

Conclusion
The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27). The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. This is very important, the Christian Church recognizes what God has ordained through his sovereign inspiration to be the word of God. When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God. It needs to repent.

Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
 

Liturgical usage, in part ?​

There is a mismatch here: a conclusion about who has authority to interpret the books is based on a false premise as who provided the books. The two questions are separate.​

No Christian body provided the OT - the Jews did. Not Catholics, nor the Orthodox, but the Jews as a whole: as St. Paul says. Theologically: no men did, but God only.

Another weakness in the usual RC case is this: the history of the Bible is made to stop with the canonisation of its contents by a Western local council (Hippo, in Africa) & a Western bishop or two (Damasus of Rome, Innocent of Rome). As though the East had no part in the process; this Rome-centred, Pope-centred, West-biased approach is disgracefully bad history, which a history of the canon could correct in ten seconds.

And no attention is paid to **the development of the text of the **OT, which had not even received vowel points by the end of the fourth Christian century; yet it is an extremely important development, which affects the meaning of the text. Unfortunately, Catholic apologetic about the OT has usually not taken account of this - perhaps because such a development as vocalisation is not necessary if one is using the Roman or Greek alphabets.

To stop the history of the Bible with its canonisation, gives a wholly misleading picture of it, & is a very poor preparation (none, in fact) for such things as textual variation. If the RCC doesn’t educate its laity, they are going to be ignorant, which is a great disservice to them, & to the Church’s mission. It’s inexusable 😦
Thank you Michael for your (name removed by moderator)ut and most importantly for this statement
no men did, but God only
 
Christalone,

Your post is funny. :rotfl:

Cerainly, The Old Testiment was writen by Jewish people such as prophets, seers, scholars, etc. Then you talk about prophetic silence for 400 years. Which I find interesting. Since, most protestants I’ve encountered no little to nothing during this period. We have this sudden jump from Malachi to Matthew. Its clear that during this time Alexander the Great took over the known “world” at that time and Hellinized it forcing a common tongue to be used by most people. The Jewish people had to fight to maintain their national identity and requirements of the Law. Many Jews had been dispursed throughout the known world and the majority outside of Palistine spoke only Greek. In Alexandria certain scholars took on the task to translate (first the Torah and later the rest) OT scriptures into Greek so that among the dispursion there would be Jews who would have the law and the Prophets and the Histories. You leave this aspect of Scripture out. Yet it was this very period of time that establishes Judaism as it is in Jesus day. The NT writers began their writing of the events occuring in Jesus life in Greek 20 years after his death and ressurection and note. They quote from the Greek OT texts. The qumran find (and very likely John the baptist may have been a member) has Hebrew text that up till that find was only in the Greek translations of the OT. The Essenes were focused on following the Law yet they have books that the Jews rejected when they established their Tanakh 250 years after Christ! Why do you think that is? Well the Greek translation of Isaiah says the messiah would be born of a virgin but that relates too well to Christ so they apted for “young woman” off their Hebrew text. The Greek text was too messianic for them and you see them working hard at getting rid of christ refferences when the Massorites conduct their translations showing their boarder notes. They were afraid of Christianity! Can’t show the OT being too Christian. Then we get down to Luther who was afraid the Greek translation was too “Catholic” and put the non Tanakh books as an appendix. But note even though protestant Christians’ OT books are the same as those in the Tanakh they are ordered and titled by the Greek Translations method! How disingenous is that!

As far as the NT not all the Christian churches in the 1st Century and most of the 2nd had all the books we now have as NT. In fact there were other books (scrolls) that were being passed around that were viewed authoritatively by certain churches that did not make cononization such as the Shepard of Hermas. Because of some of this disconnect leaders from the Churches had to decide which books should be canon. And we have our first list by Athenasus that resembles the 27 books we have now. Remember Luther wanted to get rid of the Book of James! So, I find it strange that protestants both hold to the Trinitarian Doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches (not the Orthodox) and maintain the same NT books the Early Church Canonized! Its clear evidence that Protestants are born out of Catholicism and not individually lead by the Holy Spirit. If they differed from the same NT books the Catholics do I might think your argument a little more valid.
 
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?
Is not your question completely rhetorical, since you haver rejected both?
 
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?
An excellent book on the subject is “Where We Got The Bible”
Our Debt to the Catholic Church
By Henry G. Graham
Jeanne
 
Servant of Christ,

You may need to read your bible more through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I mean no insult by this statement. Many times I intellectualize, rather than spiritualize. It is at most a suggestion.

The Church that was established by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is introduced in Chapter 16 of Matthew Verses13-20. The one true church of Christ where Christ is the capstone is established by Him as He told Simon that your name is now Peter (Petros-in Greek meaning rock:Keifas (maybe mispelled) in Aramaic meaning great rock).

Jesus says:" Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah. For flesh and blood (meaning fellow humans) has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter (ROCK), and upon this ROCK I will build my church., and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to my kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Translation from the Greek slightly confuses some by choice or lack of understanding. The Church is the Catholic (Universal) Church where Peter (Simon) went to Rome to become the first Bishop of Rome, which means pope or papa. Jesus said this, not the Church.

Please appreciate that Jesus left us the Church (his Body) to keep us true to him. Yes, many walk away, but many return too.

Timothy3:15 states that one should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The word church is a place, not an attitude or belief system. The word temple referred to a place and our personal bodies. Please try to understand that I am not trying to be confrontational, just informational with regard to the one truth and the one Church. Christ said: “Upon this rock I will build my Church”. There is nothing in there about churches, just church. May the Holy Spirit bless and guide you and all of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top