PDA

View Full Version : Origin of the Bible??



Barry Morris
02-02-2015, 08:58 PM
Did the Roman Catholics give us the bible?? Found this looking for something else.

http://fellowshipforum.yuku.com/topic/2233/The-Roman-Catholic-Church-did-not-Give-us-the-Bible#.VM-Jdp3F98E

The Roman Catholic Church did not Give us the Bible

By the time of Origen (185-254 A.D.), there was general agreement about most of the New Testament. However, there was disagreement as to whether the following six epistles should be part of the New Testament canon: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. This was sixty years before Constantine's "conversion" and the formation of the Roman Catholic Church in 314 A.D. By 367 A.D., all of the books of the New Testament were acknowledged as being authoritative Scripture. [William Webster, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), page 8. "The Canon of the New Testament: A Brief Introduction". (This article is available on the Internet).]
The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical "only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon". [Walter A. Elwell (editor), "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), page 141.] In other words, it didn't create the canon. Rather, it formally identified the canon that already existed.

So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible.

The true test of canonicity, contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, is that of propheticity. God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. So only books written by a prophet or an accredited spokesperson of God are inspired and belong in the canon of Scripture.

Of course, while God determined canonicity by propheticity, the people of God had to discover which of these books were prophetic. This was done immediately by the people of God to whom the prophet wrote, not centuries later by those who had no access to him or any way to verify his prophetic credentials.

For example, Moses' books were accepted immediately and stored in a holy place (Deut. 31:26); likewise Joshua's books were immediately accepted and preserved along with Moses' law (Josh 24:26)/ Samuel wrote a book and added it to the collection (1 Sam. 10:25); Daniel already had a copy of his prophetic contemporary Jeremiah (Dan 9:2, 11, 13); Paul encouraged Churches to circulate his inspired epistles (col. 4:16); and Peter had a collection of Paul's writings calling them "Scripture" along with the Old Testament (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The evidence that there was a growing canon of books accepted immediately by contemporaries who could confirm its prophetic authenticity is that succeeding books cited preceding ones. Moses' writings are cited through the Old Testament beginning with his immediate successor Joshua (Josh 1:7; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron 17:9; Jer 8:8; Ezra 6:18; Neh 13:1; Mal 4:4). Likewise, later prophets cited earlier ones (e.g. Jer 26:18; Ezek 14:14, 20; Daniel 9:2; Jonah 2:2-9; Mic 4:1-3). Let you think I speak only of the Old Testament, in the New Testament Paul cites Luke (1 Timothy 5:18); Peter recognizes Paul's epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Jude (4-12) cites 2 Peter. And the book of Revelation is filled with images and ideas taken from previous Scripture, especially Daniel (cf. Rev 13).

In fact the entire Jewish Bible/Protestant Old Testament was considered prophetic. Moses, who wrote the first five books, was a prophet (Deut. 18:15) and the rest of the Old Testament books were known as "the Prophets" (Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:17). "The Prophets" were later divided into Prophets and Writings. The reasons are not clear, but some believe this division was based on whether the author was a prophet by office or only by gift, while others claim it was for topical use at Jewish festivals. Some say they were arranged chronologically in descending order of size, but whatever the reason, it is clear that the original (cf Zech 7:12; Dan 9:2) and continual way to refer to the entire Old Testament up to the time of Christ was the twofold division of the "Law and Prophets." In the same way, the "Apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20; cf. 3:5) composed the entire New Testament; hence, the whole Bible is a prophetic book, including the last book (cf. Rev 22:7, 9-10, 19).


Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Dave Munson

Barry Morris
02-05-2015, 12:06 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the bible the collected works of some 40 different authors?

True, but we believe that they were inspired by God to write as He directed.

The Left Sock
02-05-2015, 08:07 AM
Well, you think he would have just wrote it himself, and save the world a lot of grief and confusion. Why trust such an important job to us fallen, imperfect creations?

After all, he did zap the tablets on that mountain, so it's not like he wasn't already a published author.

Barry Morris
02-05-2015, 10:19 AM
Well, you think he would have just wrote it himself, and save the world a lot of grief and confusion. Why trust such an important job to us fallen, imperfect creations?

After all, he did zap the tablets on that mountain, so it's not like he wasn't already a published author.

You'd never believe it anyway!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
02-05-2015, 03:37 PM
You should really check out the documentary on Netflix called 'Hellbound'.

Fascinating stuff.

RWGR
02-05-2015, 05:52 PM
Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.



Yet Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, where every man and woman can interpret the Bible for themselves.

Looks like our Protestant friends do not take heed of the above Psalm.

RWGR
02-05-2015, 05:53 PM
You should really check out the documentary on Netflix called 'Hellbound'.

Fascinating stuff.

Can you give us a Cliffs Notes version?

The Left Sock
02-05-2015, 07:51 PM
Okay, I get it now.

Somebody saw that someone else's ban was about to expire, and set up a thread with controversy about Catholics, for bait.

There has to be a better strategy than that, for keeping this dying site alive.

RWGR
02-05-2015, 08:23 PM
Okay, I get it now.

Somebody saw that someone else's ban was about to expire, and set up a thread with controversy about Catholics, for bait.

There has to be a better strategy than that, for keeping this dying site alive.

Actually that's not it.

This account has been in good standing the entire time.

As for attempts to keep the dying site alive, well, I'm afraid it's too late.

Barry Morris
02-05-2015, 10:59 PM
Yet Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, where every man and woman can interpret the Bible for themselves.

Looks like our Protestant friends do not take heed of the above Psalm.

You're off topic, and trying to push your pet peeve. Consider this a warning.

Barry Morris
02-05-2015, 11:01 PM
Actually that's not it.

This account has been in good standing the entire time.

As for attempts to keep the dying site alive, well, I'm afraid it's too late.

That's twice. Discuss the topic or get lost.

Barry Morris
02-05-2015, 11:02 PM
Okay, I get it now.

Somebody saw that someone else's ban was about to expire, and set up a thread with controversy about Catholics, for bait.

There has to be a better strategy than that, for keeping this dying site alive.

I think 15 years is a long time for a site like this.

It can keep going if the trolls stay away.

And no, Sock, nobody is keeping track of bannings.

RWGR
02-06-2015, 08:30 AM
Martin Luther had no question on if the Catholic Church gave us the Bible:

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" -Martin Luther

Barry Morris
02-06-2015, 10:41 PM
Martin Luther had no question on if the Catholic Church gave us the Bible:

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" -Martin Luther

That quote says nothing of the sort.

RWGR
02-07-2015, 02:27 PM
That quote says nothing of the sort.

Saying we have received the Holy Scriptures from the Catholic Church doesn't mean we received the Bible from the Catholic Church?

Barry Morris
02-08-2015, 05:38 PM
Saying we have received the Holy Scriptures from the Catholic Church doesn't mean we received the Bible from the Catholic Church?

Trust you can read.

"... it didn't create the canon. Rather, it formally identified the canon that already existed."

Simple.

RWGR
02-08-2015, 05:48 PM
Trust you can read.

"... it didn't create the canon. Rather, it formally identified the canon that already existed."

Simple.

Ummm...yes, I simply assumed we were way beyond that.

There were hundreds of books that could have gone into the Bible. Yet a Catholic council chose which ones went in it. and it is that Bible you claim is the Word of God.

More circular Protestant reasoning.

Barry Morris
02-09-2015, 12:35 PM
Ummm...yes, I simply assumed we were way beyond that.

There were hundreds of books that could have gone into the Bible. Yet a Catholic council chose which ones went in it. and it is that Bible you claim is the Word of God.

More circular Protestant reasoning.

Did Martin Luther recognize this RCC canon completely??

And of course, we ARE talking origins. The RCC did not exist for 300 years after Christ, and did not originate a single book.

AND they added doctrines in defiance of the clear biblical injunction not to add anything to Scripture. Which is rather odd when you think about it.

Revelation 22:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

A few hundred years before the canon was "set".

RWGR
02-09-2015, 12:53 PM
The RCC was established with the first Pope, Peter. That means its origins go back to immediately after Christ's death.

No one said the RCC originated a book. You are simply making a strawman argument.

A RCC council chose which books went into the Bible. It is that very Bible you use.

I know, it's hard to accept, but it's true.

Knowing Christian history would help in this case.

RWGR
02-09-2015, 12:53 PM
A few hundred years before the canon was "set".

What???

Barry Morris
02-09-2015, 12:58 PM
The RCC was established with the first Pope, Peter. That means its origins go back to immediately after Christ's death.
So the RCC claims. Not true. The Body of Christ, the real Church began with Christ. The irony today is that, as you claim the RCC to be the Body of Christ in itself, you also recognize the "separated brehtern", some OUTSIDE the RCC, which makes no sense at all.


No one said the RCC originated a book. You are simply making a strawman argument. A Book of Books perhaps. But with garbage included


A RCC council chose which books went into the Bible. It is that very Bible you use.

I know, it's hard to accept, but it's true.

Knowing Christian history would help in this case.

What, your version of history?? Thanks for todays laugh!!!

Barry Morris
02-09-2015, 12:59 PM
what???

zoom!!!

RWGR
02-09-2015, 01:00 PM
zoom!!!

LOL...good to see you engaging these threads now...now that your back-up has arrived :) :) :)

Is that the imaginary backup that abandonded me??? I don't see anybody else here!!

It would be good to see YOU engage. But it will never happen!!

RWGR
02-09-2015, 01:03 PM
So the RCC claims. Not true. The Body of Christ, the real Church began with Christ. The irony today is that, as you claim the RCC to be the Body of Christ in itself, you also recognize the "separated brehtern", some OUTSIDE the RCC, which makes no sense at all.

A Book of Books perhaps. But with garbage included



What, your version of history?? Thanks for todays laugh!!!

The RCC picked which books went in the Bible.

You cannot refute that.

It puts you in a tizzy that such elemental knowledge escaped you for so long.

Protestantism:

1) The RCC is wrong
2) The Bible is right

...but the RCC picked the books that make up the Bible ...

Protestant reaction: "well, it, the...ummm...what I mean is...the...well...you see...ummm...

LOL

Barry Morris
02-09-2015, 05:11 PM
The RCC picked which books went in the Bible.

You cannot refute that.

It puts you in a tizzy that such elemental knowledge escaped you for so long.

Protestantism:

1) The RCC is wrong
2) The Bible is right

...but the RCC picked the books that make up the Bible ...

Protestant reaction: "well, it, the...ummm...what I mean is...the...well...you see...ummm...

LOL

A one word response is "Apocrypha"

RWGR
02-09-2015, 05:25 PM
A one word response is "Apocrypha"

Which was in the original Bible, and Luther took out.

Let's see...

And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
-Rev, 22:19

Hmmm...now who just posted that recently...

:):) :)

Barry Morris
02-09-2015, 09:58 PM
Which was in the original Bible, and Luther took out.



Maybe you can dig up the original list for us.

RWGR
02-10-2015, 08:16 AM
Sure!!

http://www.bible.catholic.net/