MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[JonNC]

=davidmlamb;9287306][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]The Council of Trent only confirmed what every other Church Council confirmed. The canon of scripture was first codified at the council of Rome in 382 AD and then at subsequent councils, Hippo 392 AD, Carthage 397 AD, Florence 750 AD....and the list goes on.

Yet none of these are general councils of the Church, but local councils. That's why the Orthodox canon(s) vary from the western canon.

This is all verifiable through Christian antiquities and records kept from the Church Councils. The truth is it was Luther and the Reformation that tore these books out of scripture. Luther did not even believe James was inspired and called it "an Epistle full of straws." If it was not for Luther's contemporaries Protestants would only have 25 books in the NT.

This is untrue. On a number of fronts.
Luther's translation includes all of the 73 books of the western canon, plus the Prayer of Manasseh. So, if anything, Luther added to the western Bible.
Luther, in regards to both the New and Old Testament, reflects the history of dispute regarding the both the Deuterocanon and the Antilegomena of the NT. This dispute, regarding the Deuterocanon predates Luther by a fair bit, but runs right up to Trent. Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther, writes the D-C's out of the canon, and Luther says this about The Epistle of James:

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

He here questions the authorship, not a novelty of Luther's.

As others have pointed out Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint Scriptures which contained many more books considered scripture in which neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Church codified. A couple of these books are mentioned in the book of Jude and they are the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch. Jude cites these as scripture yet they cannot be found in any bible today. When I was a Protestant I read the book of Sirach and Wisdom and I fell in love with them both being convinced they were inspired. You should read these two books and ask yourself "Why they are not inspired?"

Perhaps you should ask St. Jerome. That said, it isn't a matter of inspired or not, it is a matter of historic dispute regarding them. Luther and Lutherans respect the fact that they are disputed, but do not reject them. If Luther had rejected them, they certainly would not have been part of his 1534 Die Bibel. And James was in his 1522 NT.

Jon

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Makko52

You all have pointed out some interesting views, i recieve it with a smile. Thank you.

It would be helpful if you could respond to some of the questions that were posed to you, Makko. Dialogue is can be quite fruitful here on the CAFs that offers a perspective that one may have never considered.

[Makko52]

Originally Posted by JustaServant

The first thing you need to understand is the world the people who wrote various books collected into what we call 'the Bible'. You are looking at the Bible with 21st century, post Enlightenment, post printing press eyes.
In order to understand the ancient world, we have to step out of our comfort zones and walk in their shoes.
Many times that means accepting things our age rejects. Other times we can see how fragile our 'modern' society is. Without our gagets and toys, we are no different than they were. Even in parts of the world today family structure is the bedrock of the culture. Things like covenants still exist in what we so arrogantly call the 'third world'. African and native American tribes had no written language, yet they were steeped in the history of thier culture far more than our so-called 'enlightened' society.
I say all this because I suspect you are looking at these ancient people, as I used to, through 21st century western eyes. That is a grave error. Because we are far from being superior.
Not everything was 'on paper'. It was timely and sometimes expensive to do that. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown.
Repitition helped people remember. Look up some time the story of how Isaac got his wife in Genesis. The story is repeated three times.
Many Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our anscestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought. Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many ancient civilizations have no written history, all they have is oral. So...should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and in due time, the Apostles wrote it down.

My position is this, if oral tradition contradicts written scripture, which one is right?

Rom 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; ..."

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Makko52

So the first thing i would like calification on is "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54 Now if one were to take just that one verse it would almost seem that is teaching cannabilsm but if you read the versus before that i believe it clarifies it. ..now i say that very humbley becuase i am quite ignorant when it come to Catholic Doctrine. I'd appreciate any repsonse on the following verses on cannabilsm.

Did you pose this to your priest friend? What was his response?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Makko52

My position is this, if oral tradition contradicts written scripture, which one is right?

Rom 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; ..."

There is no oral tradition (and here we mean the Word of God transmitted orally) that contradicts written Scripture.

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Yet none of these are general councils of the Church, but local councils. That's why the Orthodox canon(s) vary from the western canon.


This is untrue. On a number of fronts.
Luther's translation includes all of the 73 books of the western canon, plus the Prayer of Manasseh. So, if anything, Luther added to the western Bible.
Luther, in regards to both the New and Old Testament, reflects the history of dispute regarding the both the Deuterocanon and the Antilegomena of the NT. This dispute, regarding the Deuterocanon predates Luther by a fair bit, but runs right up to Trent. Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther, writes the D-C's out of the canon, and Luther says this about The Epistle of James:

He here questions the authorship, not a novelty of Luther's.



Perhaps you should ask St. Jerome. That said, it isn't a matter of inspired or not, it is a matter of historic dispute regarding them. Luther and Lutherans respect the fact that they are disputed, but do not reject them. If Luther had rejected them, they certainly would not have been part of his 1534 Die Bibel. And James was in his 1522 NT.

Jon

But the facts you present don't sound as "convincing" as "Luther took the DC's out of the canon".

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Makko52

I believe the Bible interprets itself.

This is a man-made tradition, Makko.

You believe it because you heard a man preach it, who heard another man preach it, who heard another man preach it...

But not a single soul ever read "The Bible interprets itself" in a single page of Scripture.

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by Makko52

My position is this, if oral tradition contradicts written scripture, which one is right? Rom 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; ..."

JL: If an oral tradition contradicts scripture then it isn't Apostolic Tradition but a tradition of men. A perfect example of a tradition of men, held by many, as a doctrine, that contradicts scripture is SCRIPTURE ALONE. It isn't found in scripture anywhere. Amen to Rms3:4. Even the scripture can be distorted. Many say, and I agree, the Watch Tower New World Translation is changed to fit their doctrine.

If God can preserve, thru the Church, the written Word by the Holy Spirit He certainly can preserve Apostolic Tradition by the same Holy Spirit.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.
All faith groups have traditions handed down, by which they see and interpret scripture. That's why a Baptist interprets the SAME scripture differently than a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian differently than a Methodist a Methodist differently than your faith group. Yet they will ALL deny they hold traditions.

[Arizona Samson]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

There is no oral tradition (and here we mean the Word of God transmitted orally) that contradicts written Scripture.

Perhaps this due to the fact there are no verifiable "words of God transmitted orally" that exist outside of Scripture.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Arizona Samson

Perhaps this due to the fact there are no verifiable "words of God transmitted orally" that exist outside of Scripture.

I don't think so. "Verifiable words" are not required when evaluating Sacred Tradition.

Who declared that to be a criterion for discerning whether something is true or not? That's a very peculiar paradigm, to be sure!

Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture come from the same source, Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot contradict each other.

[Miriam1947]

Originally Posted by Makko52

I recently had an discussion with a Catholic Priest in Gate City Va. He was very graciouse and kind to me, and I have a Great Deal of respect for him for taking time out of his busy schedule to speak to a non-Catholic on some very deep questions on some of the dotrcines of the Catholic Faith. That being said one of the questions i asked him was about Transubstantiation. He gave me some very good information on it. I wanted some clarification on How the bread and wine are turned into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ: and how it MAY contradict with scripture.

So the first thing i would like calification on is "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54 Now if one were to take just that one verse it would almost seem that is teaching cannabilsm but if you read the versus before that i believe it clarifies it. ..now i say that very humbley becuase i am quite ignorant when it come to Catholic Doctrine. I'd appreciate any repsonse on the following verses on cannabilsm.

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4

"... No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." Leviticus 17:12

Would God ever command His children to do something He had already forbidden?

One other thing. The priest told me about the verse in John 6. where it states that it is his body and blood. Are we to take it litterly? What about when He said He was the door in John 10:7 "Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep." Does that mean that Jesus is Litery a door made of wood?(or other material?) or could it possibly be symbolic stating that He(Jesus) is the only way into Heaven? I would appreciate any clarification on it!
Thank you in advance

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself--He said, "I am the Light." "I am the Door." "I am the Shepherd."

But He never said, "That light is Me." "That door is Me." "That shepherd is Me."

However, He did say, "That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me."

(Thank you Cat)

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by Arizona Samson

Perhaps this due to the fact there are no verifiable "words of God transmitted orally" that exist outside of Scripture.

What is your proof of this statement? Regarding the bible, how have your verified that it is the word of God? Since you weren't there when Christ taught the apostles, and when the writers of the New Testament penned their works, how have you verified that the New Testament is what you believe it is?

[andrewstx]

I have a question, do most Bibles used by Lutherans currently still contain the DCs?

When I was investigating the ALC many years ago all the bibles contained only 66 books.

[ThatOneGuy92]

Originally Posted by andrewstx

I have a question, do most Bibles used by Lutherans currently still contain the DCs?

When I was investigating the ALC many years ago all the bibles contained only 66 books.

Most Bibles used by Lutherans sadly do not contain the DCs. When the transition went from publishing in German to English, the DCs somehow were never put into the works.

I would also say that most Lutherans use the common translations that a wide variety of Christians use. And this would preclude the DCs from being there, as those are usually used found in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, and Lutherans don't purchase those [usually] for obvious reasons.

That being said, the publishing arm of the LCMS (Concordia Publishing House) is supposed to be publishing an English version of the Apocrypha sometime in the near future, although it will be in a separate volume. Baby steps, as they say.

[IggyAntiochus]

Originally Posted by andrewstx

I have a question, do most Bibles used by Lutherans currently still contain the DCs?

When I was investigating the ALC many years ago all the bibles contained only 66 books.

German Bibles based on Luther's translation would include them. In English, there is no Lutheran Bible, just various English translations. Concordia Publishing House, of the LCMS, is releasing the DC books in the ESV translation this fall.