Formation of the Bible

RayneBeau

Well-known member
Didn't it just drop out of heaven fully complete? Didn't God bestow upon the Apostles the King James Version?

That is a bit of a misunderstanding and caricature of the Catholic position.

The Catholic position is more accurately stated thusly: The Christian Faith existed first. From this Faith, God inspired the Bible. The way the Church recognized what books were Theopneustos is by comparing the books with the Faith the Church professed. The Church recognized in that which is Theopneustos her Faith. When necessary, the Church formally, officially and infallibly testified to the books she recognizes as Theopneustos.

Note: the above is one way of stating the Catholic position but not the only way.

Not when the Faith of the RCC is caricatured by fundamentalists.
If one were to search through Scripture to seek the model of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be entirely in vain, for it's simply not there. The 'church'' Jesus came to build bears no resemblance to the definition of the church given by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. While they are claiming infallibility, the Bible says that only Scripture is infallible, not the church. And, furthermore the church revealed in the Bible continuously receives gifts from the Lord in the form of evangelists, pastors, and teachers to instruct the church in what God has revealed in His infallible Word.
A correct understanding of the church Jesus came to build can be seen only by returning to the Word of God and taking our definition from there. Roman Catholics need to look at the ministry of Jesus to see what they can learn.
 

mica

Well-known member
Yes, it's centuries old, but who ran around saying "I'm Born Again", or asking the question "Are you born again", or "I'm saved, I'm saved" before it became popular in the 1970's? Not many that I am aware of.
why would you be as a catholic? the rcc doesn't teach about.

or did you slip out and attend some Spirit filled church groups?
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
[[
Bob Carabbio said:
And when you CONFESS YOUR SIN, HE is faithful and just to forgive our SIN and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
And to whom did Jesus say to confess your sin?
Malachi 4:4
Remember ye the law of Moses my servant,
which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,
with the statutes and judgments.


------------The Sermon on the Mount---------------
Matt.5:18​
For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass,
[not] one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
but whosoever shall do and teach them,
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you,​
That except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time,
Thou shalt not kill;
and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:​
22 But I say unto you,​
That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:
and whosoever shall say to his brother,
Raca, shall be in danger of the council:
but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar,
and there rememberest that thy brother
hath ought against thee;
------------------The Law -------------​
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way;
first be reconciled to thy brother,​
and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly,
whiles thou art in the way with him;
------------------The Judgement--------------​
lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge,
and the judge deliver thee to the officer,
and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee,
Thou shalt by no means come out thence,
till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar,
and there rememberest that thy brother

hath ought against thee;

------------------The Law -------------

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar,
and go thy way;
first
be reconciled to thy brother,
and then come and offer thy gift.

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly,
whiles thou art in the way with him;


Now that is hard to do;
go personally and confess the wrong you have done to him / her
and make it right

so Rome has taught them
"just come on in to the confessional closets
confess to dem-dar holy fathers
10 hail Marys, a few candles
and don't forget the $$$$ on the way out

peters words
with feigned words
they shall make merchandise out of you


Ahh yes; Dem Dar "confessional closets'
that you were told; were in secret / confidential
Lk.12:3​
----At the time appointed-----​
For there is nothing covered,
that shall not be revealed;
neither hid,
that shall not be known.
3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness
shall be heard in the light;
and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets
shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

Yes; the Preist of Babylon had Dem-Dar Closets also
Babylon the Great
 

A new day

Well-known member
The 39 books of the OT was declared canon and closed, by the Jews , long, long before the birth of Jesus and certainly long before the Roman catholic church came into existence. The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles to write as they did. Their writings were well thought of in their lifetimes, and were considered as God breathed, that is, that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write as they did. The 66 books were considers centuries past as the closed canon, and still the closed canon today.

Being a member of the Roman catholic church itself, has NO advantage over anyone else. The bible says

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

No amount of Roman catholic church tradition will change this.
 

Misfit

Well-known member
The 39 books of the OT was declared canon and closed, by the Jews , long, long before the birth of Jesus and certainly long before the Roman catholic church came into existence. The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles to write as they did. Their writings were well thought of in their lifetimes, and were considered as God breathed, that is, that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write as they did. The 66 books were considers centuries past as the closed canon, and still the closed canon today.

Being a member of the Roman catholic church itself, has NO advantage over anyone else. The bible says

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

No amount of Roman catholic church tradition will change this.

Something to ponder.

The Jews before the 2nd century A.D. did not appear to have a rigidly defined OT canon. In the words of James King West, a Protestant Bible scholar: "The Scriptures of Judaism were not, therefore, a precisely defined body of literature absolutely set apart from all other literature, but a central body of material, the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deut.), which from the time of Ezra had remained fixed as... the Scriptures par excellence, surrounded by other interpretive material of varying degrees of importance and authority." [S&W, p. OT 432]

Furthermore: "By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue."

"Before the 2nd century, most Palestian Jews preferred a canon loosely similar to the Protestant OT; however, the Greek-speaking Jews preferred the larger canon found in the Greek Septuagint Bible - a 2nd-century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture. It was the "Bible" for the Greek-speaking Jews. When the Apostles began to evangelize the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, they used the already established Septuagint as their Bible. Using the Hebrew Scripture would have been as effective as using a Russian Bible to evangelize Americans. The Septuagint served to bridge the culture gap. Quickly the Greek-speaking converts outnumbered the Hebrew Christians. Scholars also recognize that the NT writers quoted extensively from the Septuagint, e.g. Matt. 1:23. The Septuagint became the OT of the early Church." [S&W, p. OT 433]


"In conclusion the Catholic Church did not add to the OT. The Catholic OT Canon (also the numbering of the Psalms) came from the ancient Greek Septuagint Bible. Protestants, following the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews, accept the shorter Hebrew Canon, even though the Jews also reject the NT Books. The main problem is that the Bible does not define itself. No where in the Sacred Writings are the divinely inspired Books listed completely".

All taken from an article appearing today in the CNA website called "The Apocrypha".
 
Last edited:

Misfit

Well-known member
The 'church'' Jesus came to build bears no resemblance to the definition of the church given by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
As it bears no resemblance to the non-Catholic Churches of today either. Back then there was one, today there are thousands of "churches" on your side.
And, furthermore the church revealed in the Bible continuously receives gifts from the Lord in the form of evangelists, pastors, and teachers to instruct the church in what God has revealed in His infallible Word.
And then what do these people do? Simply interpret God's Infallible Word according themselves, achieving what they want the scriptures to say, not what the scriptures actually say.
A correct understanding of the church Jesus came to build can be seen only by returning to the Word of God and taking our definition from there.
To suit your own theological notions. We see this, why can't you?
 

A new day

Well-known member
Just because the apocrypha books were read during the silent years, doesn't mean they were accepted by everybody. The apocrypha books have been rejected as Scripture by the Jews long before NT timeline. The major reason being is that they are full of theological errors and contradictions. As well as contradicting the inspired word of God. I'm sure they are interesting reads, but above all else, they are NOT the inspired word of God.

I'm pretty sure most evangelicals / protestants disregard apocrypha writings. I read just enough of enoch,1 and ended up discarding what I read. To me, it was just junk. From what I have heard from others, the other apocrypha books are pretty messed up. Which is why most of us, do not quote from them. Yes, I'm aware that there was debate about them centuries ago. And the final decision was to exclude them from the accepted and closed canon.

As far as I'm concerned, those books can join Dan Browns book in the waste bin.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
If one were to search through Scripture to seek the model of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be entirely in vain, for it's simply not there. The 'church'' Jesus came to build bears no resemblance to the definition of the church given by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
Here's one of the passages that spotlights how far afield the RCC has gone from Christ's own description.

"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father."

Note that at this point, the reader is under the impression that worship must necessarily be in some certain place, but that it could change within the hour...

"22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

Here's the first clue that the RCC is completely off the rails as all Jewish references have been obliterated from their worship.

"23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."


Note that this was not something that occurred later when the Catholic church was forming and deciding who, what, where, how, and why to worship, nor is his reference to some physical, objective place, but within spirit and truth. The true worshipper began worshipping at that very moment, not later at baptism, or after the resurrection, or at Pentecost, or when bishops began referring to themselves as Catholic.
 

Misfit

Well-known member
The apocrypha books have been rejected as Scripture by the Jews long before NT timeline.
By some Jews. As I reported: "From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture".

There is also this from the same article which I didn't post. "Only after the destruction of the Temple and debates with Christians, the Pharisees at Jamnia finally limited the Hebrew Canon in the 2nd century A.D. - a century after the Resurrection of Christ. They restricted the Hebrew Canon to Books written before 400 B.C. in Hebrew. They also rejected the Septuagint claiming it to be corrupted by the Christians." [S&W, p. OT 433]

There will always be differing opinions on these things. We Christians argue incessantly about spiritual matters just as our big brothers the Jews do. What we have in the Christian world however is during the "Reformation era", the unprecedented actions of one man singlehandedly wanting to remove some books from the NT canon entirely to suit his own theological ideas.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
WELCOME TO Catholic Responses 101

8:- Attack Martin Luther Technique

This can be used as a companion apologetic to the
Attack Sola Scriptura technique.
Always refer to your opponent as a Protestant to imply
that Biblical Christianity began with the "Reformation."
Always insist your opponent is a follower of Martin Luther,
or one of the other Reformers,
Do not accept any denials of this.
Rubber-stamp him as a follower of Heresy

and Misfit says
There will always be differing opinions on these things. We Christians argue incessantly about spiritual matters just as our big brothers the Jews do. What we have in the Christian world however is during the "Reformation era", the unprecedented actions of one man singlehandedly wanting to remove some books from the NT canon entirely to suit his own theological ideas.

EDIT PER MOD
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mica

Well-known member
By some Jews. As I reported: "From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture".

There is also this from the same article which I didn't post. "Only after the destruction of the Temple and debates with Christians, the Pharisees at Jamnia finally limited the Hebrew Canon in the 2nd century A.D. - a century after the Resurrection of Christ. They restricted the Hebrew Canon to Books written before 400 B.C. in Hebrew. They also rejected the Septuagint claiming it to be corrupted by the Christians." [S&W, p. OT 433]

There will always be differing opinions on these things.
We Christians argue incessantly about spiritual matters just as our big brothers the Jews do. What we have in the Christian world however is during the "Reformation era", the unprecedented actions of one man singlehandedly wanting to remove some books from the NT canon entirely to suit his own theological ideas.
We Christians argue incessantly about spiritual matters
in my decades as a Christian, I've not found that. we've discussed scripture / beliefs and searched scripture together, but not argue incessantly.
 

Misfit

Well-known member
in my decades as a Christian, I've not found that. we've discussed scripture / beliefs and searched scripture together, but not argue incessantly.
There is nothing wrong with a good argument. How many years have you been here, you don't see an incessant argument between Catholics and non-Catholics? Ummm, I must be missing something.
 

mica

Well-known member
Misfit said:
By some Jews. As I reported: "From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture".

There is also this from the same article which I didn't post. "Only after the destruction of the Temple and debates with Christians, the Pharisees at Jamnia finally limited the Hebrew Canon in the 2nd century A.D. - a century after the Resurrection of Christ. They restricted the Hebrew Canon to Books written before 400 B.C. in Hebrew. They also rejected the Septuagint claiming it to be corrupted by the Christians." [S&W, p. OT 433]

There will always be differing opinions on these things.
We Christians argue incessantly about spiritual matters just as our big brothers the Jews do. What we have in the Christian world however is during the "Reformation era", the unprecedented actions of one man singlehandedly wanting to remove some books from the NT canon entirely to suit his own theological ideas.
mica said:

in my decades as a Christian, I've not found that. we've discussed scripture / beliefs and searched scripture together, but not argue incessantly.

Misfit said: There is nothing wrong with a good argument. How many years have you been here, you don't see an incessant argument between Catholics and non-Catholics? Ummm, I must be missing something.
you are.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
By some Jews. As I reported: "From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture".
The Dead Sea Scrolls included writings the Jews considered Holy; along with writings they considered important, along with legal documents. marriage records and even recipes.

IOW saying something was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls does not mean it was considered Scripture
 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
By some Jews. As I reported: "From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture".

There is also this from the same article which I didn't post. "Only after the destruction of the Temple and debates with Christians, the Pharisees at Jamnia finally limited the Hebrew Canon in the 2nd century A.D. - a century after the Resurrection of Christ. They restricted the Hebrew Canon to Books written before 400 B.C. in Hebrew. They also rejected the Septuagint claiming it to be corrupted by the Christians." [S&W, p. OT 433]

There will always be differing opinions on these things. We Christians argue incessantly about spiritual matters just as our big brothers the Jews do. What we have in the Christian world however is during the "Reformation era", the unprecedented actions of one man singlehandedly wanting to remove some books from the NT canon entirely to suit his own theological ideas.
You aren't brothers with the Jewish people at all. The RCC beginnings is when the Jewish leaders were pushed out of the churches. I mean RCs keep complaining about the reformation but it came about because of the evil sin in the RCC. People were forced to leave because of its false teachings, and sin of greed for a start. They could no longer be in the bad tree. You can blame who you want but really it is the fault of the RCC that people left. It was not being apostolic, it was not being a good shepherd, it was putting huge burdens on people, it was committing the sins listed in 1 cor 5:11.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
WELCOME TO Catholic Responses 101

8:- Attack Martin Luther Technique

This can be used as a companion apologetic to the
Attack Sola Scriptura technique.
Always refer to your opponent as a Protestant to imply
that Biblical Christianity began with the "Reformation."
Always insist your opponent is a follower of Martin Luther,
or one of the other Reformers,
Do not accept any denials of this.
Rubber-stamp him as a follower of Heresy

and Misfit says


EDIT PER MOD
It is appalling the ignorance and false stories told about Luther and the canon of the Bible.

I wrote to a scholar in our church about this years ago. He wrote back:

As in many other judgments, Luther simply followed the decisions of the
early
church on the matter of which books to include in the Bible. That list
is known
as the "canon."

The German Bible's list of writings includes the apocryphal writings,
which are generally dated between the Old and New Testaments. Luther's prefaces to
each book of the Bible indicate that he believed that both the Hebrew and
Christian Scriptures had two classes of material: primary and secondary.

The primary Hebrew Scriptures are those which are in the typical
Protestant Old Testament. The secondary Hebrew Scriptures are the apocryphal writings
attested by both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, thus Luther's apocrypha omits
III and IV Maccabees and III and IV Esdras. He also omitted I and II Esdras
because they had no religious content.

The primary Christian Scriptures are the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles of
Paul, the Epistles of Peter, and the Epistles of John. The secondary Christian
Scriptures are Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. These latter books
Luther properly noted "have from ancient times had a different reputation."
They were known as the books "spoken against," i.e., "antilegomena."


Basically, Luther was restoring the "levels of authority" attributed to
the Biblical writings as found in the early church. He was not inventing his
own principle of criticism or canon.

Two books that will help demonstrate this are:
1) Martin Luther, "Luther's Works", Volume 35 (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press,
1960), pages 225 - 412.
2) David Scaer, "James the Apostle of Faith," (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing
House, 1983), pages 138-141.

So, Luther wasn't bent on throwing out books of the Bible in his own version of the canon. His version reflected the canon of old, that existed before the church was headquartered in Rome and headed by a pope. And Luther did include James in his Bible translation. We have a German bible and it is in there. Luther also had a good explanation of what James 2:24 means, that I read about in our book What Luther Says.
 
Last edited:

pilgrim

Well-known member
It is appalling the ignorance and false stories told about Luther and the canon of the Bible.

I wrote to a scholar in our church about this years ago. He wrote back:



So, Luther wasn't bent on throwing out books of the Bible in his own version of the canon. His version reflected the canon of old, that existed before the church was headquartered in Rome and headed by a pope. And Luther did include James in his Bible translation. We have a German bible and it is in there. Luther also had some good things to say about James, that I read about in our book What Luther Says.
Well, what is a Lutheran scholar supposed to say?
 

Misfit

Well-known member
So, Luther wasn't bent on throwing out books of the Bible in his own version of the canon. His version reflected the canon of old, that existed before the church was headquartered in Rome and headed by a pope. And Luther did include James in his Bible translation. We have a German bible and it is in there. Luther also had some good things to say about James, that I read about in our book What Luther Says.
Another viewpoint, this time from ZA Blog.

"Martin Luther was openly critical of James, and he wondered whether the epistle belonged in our Bibles, but he never formally proposed it should be removed. He did, however, suggest it be thrown out of schools"

Okay Bonnie, for the sake of argument I'll agree with you on that point

“Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.” —Martin Luther

“We should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any."

Obviously Mr. Luther is not a big fan of James.

From ZA Blog
 
Top