Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

[Isa_Almisry]

I do not deny history. Why would you deny the Jews their rightfull place in securing the oracles of God. Scripture even confirms this.
BTW the present day Roman Catolic Church does not resemble the 1st century church so you sir again deny history.

Let’s switch that to the Orthodox Church, the 1st century Church in the 21st Century. She resembles the 1st century Church the same way I resemble my baby picture.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I have read many discussions on the evolution of the Bible by many learned folks on this forum and have come to a conclusion that I’m sure will shock them all as I’m positive it is not what anyone intended. However, the more I learn about the origen of the Bible - the many writing that aren’t included, the long period of oral repititon, the fact that we don’t really even know who wrote most of the books in the NT, the arguments and (church) politics behind the selection of books to be included, the building of an earthly hierarchy and power structure by those very people (IOW, their agenda and their motivations), the more I doubt the authenticity and the interpretation of much of the NT.

Then I would suggest avoiding forums to learn information about the development and character of scripture and spend more time reading good, scholarly work. I would suggest books such as the Canon of Scripture, by F.F. Bruce. You not believing in the divine authorship of the sacred writings is far more serious than can be expressed in a forum.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Isa and Triune Iespecially): As a (Roman) Catholic I may disagree with certain interpretations you have (though there are really only a handful of areas where we disagree). . .however, I am hoping that my fellow (Roman) Catholics will ‘put aside’ any possible differences (none of which is germane to this thread anyway) in order to publically thank both of you for your unerring and absolutely correct responses to Hisalone’s particular concerns.

After all, we have to consider that from your points of view, “we” are the ones with the ‘problematic’ areas, yet throughout this thread (and others) you have been shining examples of Christian behavior which we would do well to emulate. If all of our ‘fellows’ (Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic) would be able to discuss and to defend the faith ‘together’ the way that we have done on the majority of this thread, for example, I would judge that reunification of the Christian world would not be far behind.

God bless you.

Wow, that was unexpected coyote. Thank you. Sincerely.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I have read many discussions on the evolution of the Bible by many learned folks on this forum and have come to a conclusion that I’m sure will shock them all as I’m positive it is not what anyone intended. However, the more I learn about the origen of the Bible - the many writing that aren’t included, the long period of oral repititon, the fact that we don’t really even know who wrote most of the books in the NT, the arguments and (church) politics behind the selection of books to be included, the building of an earthly hierarchy and power structure by those very people (IOW, their agenda and their motivations), the more I doubt the authenticity and the interpretation of much of the NT.

Doubting God’s Word which is written in Scripture is very dangerous. Since God himself told his Apostles that he will sent the Holy Spirit to lead us to all Truths. If the Church did not canonized the Scripture like it did in the Fourth Century, and it was based on false agenda as you assumed, then you can might as well call Jesus a liar.

That contracts Scripture since Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. There is only One Truth, Jesus Christ. There is only one liar, Satan. Jesus is not Satan. To doubt leads to serious sin.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So what do you do. is your congregation a resemblance of the first century church?

are you still hiding from persecution? do you guys meet in houses because you are afraid of being killed?
do your wear the same type of clothing with veils on your heads?

do you do the break of the bread every day? do you even meet everyday?

do you say the Creed. I believe in One Holy Catholic…?

I’d focus on where are their bishops appointed by the Apostles.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Did Cardinal Cajetan intend to protest Rome when he disagreed with the canonicity of the DC? To say Luther did it simply because of separation from Rome is to oversimplify the case.

yes, I have to say that I am somewhat distressed when apologetics try to read much into Luther’s pyschology and just dismiss it as a rebellion to authority. Luther, no matter whether you agree with him or not, was a principled man, and acted out of principle on all he did.

 

[Swan]

Then I would suggest avoiding forums to learn information about the development and character of scripture and spend more time reading good, scholarly work. I would suggest books such as the Canon of Scripture, by F.F. Bruce. You not believing in the divine authorship of the sacred writings is far more serious than can be expressed in a forum.

What I’ve done is to sort of take the big picture - the overall idea - from Jesus. The golden rule, for example. I leave the bickering over the other stuff to folks who are interested in doing so. I’m not one of them and I find it hinders my faith and my spirituality (relationship with God) to do so.

 

[nsper7]

Isa and Triune Iespecially): As a (Roman) Catholic I may disagree with certain interpretations you have (though there are really only a handful of areas where we disagree). . .however, I am hoping that my fellow (Roman) Catholics will ‘put aside’ any possible differences (none of which is germane to this thread anyway) in order to publically thank both of you for your unerring and absolutely correct responses to Hisalone’s particular concerns.

After all, we have to consider that from your points of view, “we” are the ones with the ‘problematic’ areas, yet throughout this thread (and others) you have been shining examples of Christian behavior which we would do well to emulate. If all of our ‘fellows’ (Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic) would be able to discuss and to defend the faith ‘together’ the way that we have done on the majority of this thread, for example, I would judge that reunification of the Christian world would not be far behind.

God bless you.

As I always say, when the Pope fully recognizes Anglican Holy Orders, Apostolic Succession, foundational doctrine (XXXIX Articles, Anglican Catechism, Lambeth Quadrilateral, etc.) and the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury as seated upon the Chair of St. Augustine…well, that will be the unification of the first and third largest “denomination” right there.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have read many discussions on the evolution of the Bible by many learned folks on this forum and have come to a conclusion that I’m sure will shock them all as I’m positive it is not what anyone intended. However, the more I learn about the origen of the Bible - the many writing that aren’t included, the long period of oral repititon, the fact that we don’t really even know who wrote most of the books in the NT, the arguments and (church) politics behind the selection of books to be included, the building of an earthly hierarchy and power structure by those very people (IOW, their agenda and their motivations), the more I doubt the authenticity and the interpretation of much of the NT.

Ma, he’s thrown the baby out.

Have you read the history of the development of the constitution? Going to drop that too?

Have you ANY idea of the nastiness that goes on between scientists (I went to a research school, the one with the most Nobel prizes. You’d be shocked)? Are you going to not avail yourself of the marvels of modern medicine and technology?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Then I would suggest avoiding forums to learn information about the development and character of scripture and spend more time reading good, scholarly work. I would suggest books such as the Canon of Scripture, by F.F. Bruce. You not believing in the divine authorship of the sacred writings is far more serious than can be expressed in a forum.

Amen. Lord have mercy.

Isa and Triune Iespecially): As a (Roman) Catholic I may disagree with certain interpretations you have (though there are really only a handful of areas where we disagree). . .however, I am hoping that my fellow (Roman) Catholics will ‘put aside’ any possible differences (none of which is germane to this thread anyway) in order to publically thank both of you for your unerring and absolutely correct responses to Hisalone’s particular concerns.

After all, we have to consider that from your points of view, “we” are the ones with the ‘problematic’ areas, yet throughout this thread (and others) you have been shining examples of Christian behavior which we would do well to emulate. If all of our ‘fellows’ (Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic) would be able to discuss and to defend the faith ‘together’ the way that we have done on the majority of this thread, for example, I would judge that reunification of the Christian world would not be far behind.

God bless you.

Thanks,

Honest, frank discussion, with a strong commitment to One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, and we will be in One Church in the full sense of the Word.

 

[TriuneUnity]

What I’ve done is to sort of take the big picture - the overall idea - from Jesus. The golden rule, for example. I leave the bickering over the other stuff to folks who are interested in doing so. I’m not one of them and I find it hinders my faith and my spirituality (relationship with God) to do so.

Jesus affirmed the authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. He promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into the truth, thus, they received revelation directly from the Spirit. They wrote down these teachings and revelations to us in the form of the New Testament documents.

If the Scriptures are not accurate, authoritative, and infallible, then Jesus is a liar… in which case, His statement about the golden rule would be utterly meaningless. Just something to consider.

 

[jmcrae]

I have read many discussions on the evolution of the Bible by many learned folks on this forum and have come to a conclusion that I’m sure will shock them all as I’m positive it is not what anyone intended. However, the more I learn about the origen of the Bible - the many writing that aren’t included, the long period of oral repititon, the fact that we don’t really even know who wrote most of the books in the NT, the arguments and (church) politics behind the selection of books to be included, the building of an earthly hierarchy and power structure by those very people (IOW, their agenda and their motivations), the more I doubt the authenticity and the interpretation of much of the NT.

If you proceed on the untested assumption that the Catholic Church could not possibly have possessed the authority from God to give the Church its Bible, then that is, in fact, the only possible conclusion you could reach.

On the other hand, if you were to place your devotion to the Bible and the God of which it speaks above your opinion of the authority of the Church, your only possible conclusion would be to accept the authority of the Catholic Church (and then at some point become a Catholic, of course).

It is certainly a dividing sword, separating the believers from the unbelievers, either way you look at it, isn’t it? There is no half-way point where you could have the Bible, but not the authority that gave it to you, once you understand its history. :knight2:

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Jesus affirmed the authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. He promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into the truth, thus, they received revelation directly from the Spirit. They wrote down these teachings and revelations to us in the form of the New Testament documents.

If the Scriptures are not accurate, authoritative, and infallible, then Jesus is a liar… in which case, His statement about the golden rule would be utterly meaningless. Just something to consider.

yes. Christ went around claiming to be God’s Son. Either He is, or He’s crazy. No middle ground.

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

So you’re saying that the Bible is a Jewish text, that God ‘willed’ it to Christians later and that you’re going to ignore the fact that at the time the Holy Spirit led humanity into canonizing the books, that those whom He led were all Catholic Christians, and that for some 600 plus years all who read and heard it were Catholic Christians, for another 600 years they were all Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians, and that only some 500 years ago or so, certain people protesting that Catholic and Orthodox Christian faith took out a few books and have spent the last 500 years claiming not only that their personal and non-authoritative interpretations are the ‘real ones’ but that each of their hundreds of churches is the ‘real church’, the real ‘bible-believing Christians’–and all this time, the book that they claim is the ‘only’ authority isn’t even a Christian book???

Wow. Talk about fudgin’ it all up.

 

[anthony022071]

Cyril of Jerusalem –
“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

Pope Damasus –
“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393) –
“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’d focus on where are their bishops appointed by the Apostles.

yes. good idea. do they have bishops? well, maybe i guess they can make themselves whatever they desire to be.

 

[SIA]

He remove the from the Old testament the 7 Deuterocanonical and move them to a section all by them self. he tried to have the epistle for James and the book of the Revelation for St John removed. and he added the word alone after faith.

This is not true.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Using your analogy it is as if Jehovahs Witness’ claimed that the book of Mormon was a Jehovah Witness book.

How do you figure? The folks who wrote the NT were born Jews, and died Catholics.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Did Cardinal Cajetan intend to protest Rome when he disagreed with the canonicity of the DC? To say Luther did it simply because of separation from Rome is to oversimplify the case.

Cardinal Cajetan said that these books are canonical,but ( in his opinion) on a different level has the other books of the Old Testament. He was entitled to have that opinion, he never from what I have found went against the teaching of the Church on there being were they are. What I was intending to say is that it was just another of his many things he did in his separation and protest of Rome.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

This is not true.

Sorry to inform you of this, but it is true.