Why was the bible written?

[zurbupar]

I know that this is a very basic question, but I find it to be a VERY important one that people overlook. I know that the bible was written for the mass (if anyone has documents from the early church proving this, that would be great) but what else was it written for? Was it meant to be a book used in evangelization, “proving” doctrines to other people, and a resource to understand doctrine, or just to be read to people at the mass so that they could understand the mentality of the apostles and learn the story of Jesus in the apostles own exact words? Why were the books compiled together if none of them said they should be? So what is the RCC’s teaching on these matters, if there are any at all?

If I could get a Protestant perspective on this question, that would be great too.

Thank You So Much!

 

[TimothyH]

The Bible was written for the sake of salvation. All other reasons are secondary.

*…since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

• Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, DEI VERBUM, November 18, 1965*

Everything God did from the beginning of time, to the point where the Second Person of the Trinity became man and died on the cross was for the sake of salvation. Every act, every word, every breath of Christ was done for the sake of salvation.

The entirety of all truth which God revealed to us was revealed so that we might be saved. God inspired the sacred authors to write what they wrote so that we might be saved.

-Tim-

 

[pablope]

I know that this is a very basic question, but I find it to be a VERY important one that people overlook. I know that the bible was written for the mass (if anyone has documents from the early church proving this, that would be great) but what else was it written for? Was it meant to be a book used in evangelization, “proving” doctrines to other people, and a resource to understand doctrine, or just to be read to people at the mass so that they could understand the mentality of the apostles and learn the story of Jesus in the apostles own exact words? Why were the books compiled together if none of them said they should be? So what is the RCC’s teaching on these matters, if there are any at all?

If I could get a Protestant perspective on this question, that would be great too.

Thank You So Much!

Do you mean compiled? The various books were written for various reasons…like Paul’s epistles were written because of issues/problems with the churches he established.

This should contain what you are looking for…catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

 

[Entangled]

During the earliest times, Christians had many writings. They had the Judiac Bible and assorted Gospels and letters and stuff. When Emporer Constantine of Rome, if my history serves me correctly, created Christianity as the the faith of the Roman people, he gathered all the Bishops at the time to create a CHRISTIAN Bible.

Something new!

There was no Christian Bible! So, should we or should we not make one. Should the Judiac Bible be included? what writings should be put in?

There were many different view points on what Christianity actually was. That is the reason a Bible needed to be created. A unique Bible. A Christian Bible. If all this sects were doing different things then, Christianity could desolve into cults and no longer be a central Faith.

So, a Bible needed to be created for the Good of all the Faithful. That meant everyone needed to beleive in the same thing. So, everyone got together, oured over the different writing to come to an agreement to create a Bible.

Everyone needed to agree on exactly what should be part of the faith and not part of it! So, long and maticulous research was done, looking for validity of the works and areas that could be agreed upon. The stuff included was the Christian Bible, the others called the apocrypha. The apocrypha were books that basicall were written AFTER THE FACT. They were never written by who created them, because they were written “post diction.” How could the author write them if it was written 200 years later? So, they were excluded. Also others were left out becasue they went against the whole norm of what Christianity was about. You can get writings that don’t follow the actually theme of what the Christian teachings were all about.

So, the first Bible was created as a way to help all the different sects of Christiantiy to come together and agree on something. THIS IS THE TEACHINGS THAT REFLECT CHRISTIAN FAITH. Later it was again, refined to create the axact number of books you see in the Catholic Bible.

The Bible was created so that all Christians throughout the world could be doing the correct teachings that encompasses Christian faith. By using this Christian Bible, we all have a central way of understanding, learning, demonstrating and teaching what it is like to be Christian and help others understand why our faith is so important. Without a Bible we could be going on tangents and actually degrade the fundementals of what Christianity is all about and why it is so important for others to see just how beautiful it is to be Christian and the eternal life that can be achieved.

 

[centurionguard]

I know that this is a very basic question, but I find it to be a VERY important one that people overlook. I know that the bible was written for the mass (if anyone has documents from the early church proving this, that would be great) but what else was it written for? Was it meant to be a book used in evangelization, “proving” doctrines to other people, and a resource to understand doctrine, or just to be read to people at the mass so that they could understand the mentality of the apostles and learn the story of Jesus in the apostles own exact words? Why were the books compiled together if none of them said they should be? So what is the RCC’s teaching on these matters, if there are any at all?

If I could get a Protestant perspective on this question, that would be great too.

Thank You So Much!

Here’s some additional information that may be of help.

The Old Testament newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm
Canon of the Old Testament newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
The New Testament newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm
Canon of the Old Testament newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[centurionguard]

During the earliest times, Christians had many writings. They had the Judiac Bible and assorted Gospels and letters and stuff. When Emporer Constantine of Rome, if my history serves me correctly, created Christianity as the the faith.

Just to clairify respectfully; it was Jesus Christ our Savior alone Who created Christianity as a Religion or as a Faith as you put it. His succesors were spiritually endowed to carry on the mission Jesus started with their collection of holy writings transcribed in books we know as the Old and New Testaments.

 

[Entangled]

Just to clairify respectfully; it was Jesus Christ our Savior alone Who created Christianity as a Religion or as a Faith as you put it. His succesors were spiritually endowed to carry on the mission Jesus started with their collection of holy writings transcribed in books we know as the Old and New Testaments.

 

[zurbupar]

During the earliest times, Christians had many writings. They had the Judiac Bible and assorted Gospels and letters and stuff. When Emperor Constantine of Rome, if my history serves me correctly, created Christianity as the the faith of the Roman people, he gathered all the Bishops at the time to create a CHRISTIAN Bible.

I would also like to make a respectful correction: Emperor Constantine did NOT create Christianity as the faith of the roman people. He just legalized it. Christianity was becoming a largely accepted faith at the time of Constantine, and he just wanted to stop the persecutions against Christians. He did us a great favor,allowing the Catholic Church to eventually set up headquarters (the Vatican) in Rome and be able to grow exponentially more than it already had! While Constantine did eventually convert to Christianity, he didn’t create it as the faith of the roman people, he legalized it so the killings and persecutions of Christians would stop, and Rome could be a little more peaceful.

 

[fhansen]

Regarding the NT (and this applies to the OT in the main as well): Men, inspired by God and the revelation he gave to this world, chose to write down many of the most important aspects, teachings, deeds and miracles of Jesus Christ, for posterity, so that the world would have a record of those things God wants man to know for the purpose of his salvation-in addition to those things that went unwritten and are known by the Church as Tradition, that continuous knowledge, teachings, and practices she also received at the beginning. Later the Church, also inspired by God, compiled the writings that she deemed to be in line with His will. The following is from the Catechism, You can read more on Scripture beginning here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#81

**II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74
**

 

[bmonk]

During the earliest times, Christians had many writings. They had the Judiac Bible and assorted Gospels and letters and stuff. When Emporer Constantine of Rome, if my history serves me correctly, created Christianity as the the faith of the Roman people, he gathered all the Bishops at the time to create a CHRISTIAN Bible.

Something new!

There was no Christian Bible! So, should we or should we not make one. Should the Judiac Bible be included? what writings should be put in?
. . .

On the other hand, while a few books were on the edge between being accepted and rejected (particularly the Revelation of John, and some of the Apostolic Fathers), the Bible already substantially existed before Constantine came along. The process seems to have started in earnest in response to Marcion, about the 150s, because he had his own list of acceptable texts–some of the letters of Paul, and a heavily edited Gospel based on Luke. In response, the Church began to ask what the Canon should include. Origen, who died in 232, already had the major works–the four Gospels, the thirteen letters of Paul, the books of Acts and Revelations. Only Hebrews and some of the Catholic Epistles were excluded. Other early lists were similar.

As for the Old Testament, I don’t recall that there was any great objection to the Septuagint anywhere. It was simply “The Old Testament” for Christians.

Constantine may have pushed the Church to make a final, definitive decision–but he was hardly responsible for deciding what was in or out, or even for the process as a whole.

 

[bmonk]

I would also like to make a respectful correction: Emperor Constantine did NOT create Christianity as the faith of the roman people. He just legalized it. Christianity was becoming a largely accepted faith at the time of Constantine, and he just wanted to stop the persecutions against Christians. He did us a great favor,allowing the Catholic Church to eventually set up headquarters (the Vatican) in Rome and be able to grow exponentially more than it already had! While Constantine did eventually convert to Christianity, he didn’t create it as the faith of the roman people, he legalized it so the killings and persecutions of Christians would stop, and Rome could be a little more peaceful.

Yes–the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, compared with later writers, shows that there was no real change in the faith, and certainly not in its fundamentals, under Constantine.

 

[cap76]

If I could get a Protestant perspective on this question, that would be great too.

Thank You So Much!

Here’s the old ‘sola scriptura’ approach; straight from the mouth of God, 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

 

[TimothyH]

Here’s the old ‘sola scriptura’ approach; straight from the mouth of God, 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

And all of that is so that we can spend eternity in heaven.

-Tim-

 

[bmonk]

Here’s the old ‘sola scriptura’ approach; straight from the mouth of God, 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Of course, even given that all Scripture is breathed out for this purpose, this truth says nothing about other forms of teaching and guiding by God that may also be profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

 

[mcrow]

This is sort of complicated.

The books of the bible were originally used as part of Mass, but IIRC not everyone was using the same ones which is what lead to the compliation of the bible. As most people that lived durning the time when the bible was compiled were not able to read it really wasn’t something meant for everday people but more for the priests to use for teaching and preaching. So, in a round about way even later on it’s primary use was in mass and for teaching by priests. Of course now that most people in non-third world countries can read, the bible is not just the tool of clergy.

Of coruse the over reaching purpose of the bible is for teaching the word of God, be it via clergy, Mass or the individual.

 

[ProVobis]

I know that this is a very basic question, but I find it to be a VERY important one that people overlook. I know that the bible was written for the mass (if anyone has documents from the early church proving this, that would be great) but what else was it written for?

I’m not sure I would have worded it that way.

The Mass was said before the Bible was compiled as we know it today. Actually one can say the Mass was a continuation of the old sacrifice as performed by the high priests (Melchizadech et al), so whatever Hebrew books were available at that time served as the basis for the “Mass.”

 

[Yahudi]

God gave us His Torah so we could know Him and chose to engage with Him through the Covenant. The words of God consist of the Torah, Prophets, Psalms, and the Words of Yahowsha (in so far as they have been preserved - which isn’t very well . . . ) Nothing else is God’s word, just commentary.

 

[bmonk]

From what I understand, when Constantine wanted to unify the empire together into one religion, he wanted to consolidate the beliefs of that religion into one book and called the bishops together to do so. Also, it was meant as a vehicle to convert people to this religion. But it did take several decades, even centuries, to decide exactly what would be included in this canon.
It’s disputable whether Constantine was ever actually a follower of Jesus of N. It is said that he had a deathbed conversion, but many say this didn’t really happen.It’s true, it doesn’t make sense that he would wait that long to convert.

Actually, waiting that long does make sense–in his circumstances.

An Emperor was required to do things not allowed to a Christian. In particular, he had to authorize the killing of condemned criminals. I believe he was also required to participate in certain state cult rituals and sacrifices–which were pagan. (That last may be in error.)

At the time of Constantine, Reconciliation was still under the Public Penitentiary rules–including the limit that you could only take part in it once after you were baptized. Murder would certainly demand the use of the Penitentiary to be forgiven–which means that Constantine, if baptized, would almost immediately be in a state of mortal sin, which he would then only have one chance to be forgiven.

In those days, many “Christians” put off being baptized until they were gravely ill or dying, because of this. That way, even if you recovered, you would have one more chance to be forgiven if you did slip up and sin mortally. This was not what the Gospel was about, and the situation would lead (eventually) to the reform of reconciliation that gave us Confession.

 

[bmonk]

God gave us His Torah so we could know Him and chose to engage with Him through the Covenant. The words of God consist of the Torah, Prophets, Psalms, and the Words of Yahowsha (in so far as they have been preserved - which isn’t very well . . . ) Nothing else is God’s word, just commentary.

There is the theory that all that Moses actually heard of the Torah was the first Aleph–a soundless glottal stop. All after that was his commentary.

But this goes too far. Paul is certainly not afraid to interpret and apply God’s word–and even to distinguish what God intends from what Paul thinks, as in 1 Cor 7:1-16–note especially vs. 10 and 12! And yet, the whole letter is considered by the Church to be inspired, as Dei Verbum 11 says:

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles, holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, translated from the Greek text). (emphasis added)

In other words: We believe that God inspired all of the Scriptures, whether it is designated as God’s words or not. It is cast in the author’s words, using all their human gifts–but is still inspired and shaped as the Holy Spirit intended.

And the purpose, as noted, is to express “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

 

[Publisher]

I know that this is a very basic question, but I find it to be a VERY important one that people overlook. I know that the bible was written for the mass (if anyone has documents from the early church proving this, that would be great) but what else was it written for? Was it meant to be a book used in evangelization, “proving” doctrines to other people, and a resource to understand doctrine, or just to be read to people at the mass so that they could understand the mentality of the apostles and learn the story of Jesus in the apostles own exact words? Why were the books compiled together if none of them said they should be? So what is the RCC’s teaching on these matters, if there are any at all?

If I could get a Protestant perspective on this question, that would be great too.

Thank You So Much!

The Bible as a whole was compiled after centuries. There were different reasons why each separate book of the Bible was written.

Genesis was compiled in the 6th century BCE after the return of Exile. Many different traditions were put together to form the story of the people of Israel. I read, can’t remember where, that the first couple chapters were written in the way they were to contrast the God of Israel from the gods of the Bablylonian myths.

Ruth and Jonah were written around the time of Ezra. As the God of Israel moved away from being a “tribal deity” to a Universal Creator God after the Return, and the “ethnic cleansing” that took place by the returned Jews is stark contrast to what was occuring as the prophetic teachings moved away from a whole people being punished for their collective sin, to the burden placed upon the individual for personal sin. Ruth showed that the Moabitess was as much a child of God as a “true Israelite”, even Israel’s greatest king David was decended from her. Jonah to show the mercy of God even extended to Nineveh…and because God showed mercy to the “heathens”, Jonah was angry.

Daniel is part of the apocyliptic literature that was circulating toward the first century BCE as the idea of a messiah was catching hold of oppressed Israel.

The gospels as liturgical literature to be read along with the Torah in those synagouges where Paul taught Jesus was Christ among the Dispora.

Paul’s letters are self explanatory as to their reasons…every church community he established had issues.

On and on…various reasons why the individual books were written.