For all who will listen,


#1

I have heard it stated in a few threads that the Bible was complied by Catholics for Catholics. That the New Testament was written to the Church by the Church.

When I asked if the Roman Catholic Church gave birth to the words of Jesus the answer that I received was,”No but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church did.”

To this I say…

History is not the property of the historian, no more than the sky is property of the birds and the water is the property of the fish. The words of Jesus were for all God’s children that they could come to him unhindered because such is the Kingdom of Heaven.


#2

[quote=Shibboleth]When I asked if the Roman Catholic Church gave birth to the words of Jesus the answer that I received was,”No but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church did.”
[/quote]

The Roman Catholic Church did not give birth to the words of Jesus, nor the “the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Jesus, and His words gave birth to the Church, which is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic.

Being that the Apostles and early church were catholic (the Gospel is catholic in its truest sense) then it is right to say that the NT was written by catholic.

[quote=Shibboleth]History is not the property of the historian, no more than the sky is property of the birds and the water is the property of the fish. The words of Jesus were for all God’s children that they could come to him unhindered because such is the Kingdom of Heaven.
[/quote]

Amen. You are definitely correct here. I say again. Amen. Jesus’ words were and are for all of God’s children…such is the Kingdom of Heaven. But, remember that you can’t use that term loosely. God’s family is ONE, mystically, spiritually and visibly.
For us to come to him UNHINDERED points to (ultimately) One way, which Christ has shown. That’s another thread though, right? :smiley:


#3

[quote=Cephas]The Roman Catholic Church did not give birth to the words of Jesus, nor the “the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Jesus, and His words gave birth to the Church, which is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic.

Being that the Apostles and early church were catholic (the Gospel is catholic in its truest sense) then it is right to say that the NT was written by catholic.

Amen. You are definitely correct here. I say again. Amen. Jesus’ words were and are for all of God’s children…such is the Kingdom of Heaven. But, remember that you can’t use that term loosely. God’s family is ONE, mystically, spiritually and visibly.
For us to come to him UNHINDERED points to (ultimately) One way, which Christ has shown. That’s another thread though, right? :smiley:
[/quote]

Quite wonderfully stated. :thumbsup:


#4

Shibboleth’s partial quote is a misrepresentation of my reply to his question on another thread.

For the record, here’s my full statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibboleth
The Roman Catholic Church gave birth to the words of Jesus?

No, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church did.:smiley:

In a manner of speaking, you could say that:D . The Church wrote the New Testament which recorded the words of Jesus as the sacred writers remembered them, long after they were spoken.

The NT was written to the Church, by the Church – written to believers, by believers. It’s an insiders book. It is not an instruction book in Christianity, as Protestants have tried to make it. Most of it – the letters (20 out of 27 ‘books’) – were written to address problems that had arisen in the local churches that had been founded by one or more of the Apostles. The new converts were instructed ORALLY in the Faith. The letters were corrective and supplementary reminders to what the early Christians had already been taught. The Gospels were eventually written to record the memories of the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were written by two eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) and by someone who recorded an eyewitness’s recollectons (Mark, Luke). Acts is a “history” of the newborn Catholic Church. Revelation is an apocolyptic treatise – a vision – written to sustain a suffering Church.


#5

The way I understand it, I’m neither a theologian nor a historian, the early Church had a dilemma. There were books being passed around that the canonicity were in question. The Church convened a councle or 2 to decide which books belonged to the Canon of Scripture and which didn’t. :tiphat:


#6

My question is for Shibboleth. If you feel that the Catholic CHurch did not organize the Bible for Catholics, then are you saying that the church councils that did the work knew that there would be division within the Church? CHrist prayed that the church be one, and to that end, why would anyone have doubted that this would be the case? After all, it was centuries after the Bible was organized that any divisions arose. See, even the individual books of the New Testament were written to Catholics (either converts from Judaism or pagan). I guess I am taking the long way home to ask did Jesus know when he was on the earth that one day HUMANS would tear assunder the one church he founded and so he intentionally allowed many of his sayings to allow for ambiguity?


#7

I’m gonna make what is probably gonna be construed as a really dumb remark, but wouldn’t “compiled” be a better word for all of this anyway? I mean, God did the inspiring, various people did the writing, scribes over the years did the copying, and the Catholic Church ultimately under the guidance of the Holy Spirit did the compiling.

So it’s not an authorship or historian issue, it’s a compilation issue. Kind of like who gets the “editor” credit on an anthology of stories only these are divinely inspired books written or passed down over centuries.

If the bible is really divinely inspired, and you believe that, surely you don’t believe that God allowed fifteen or more generations to read something that led people away from Him. So the “extra” books must not do so. And as to whom it belongs to, why would anyone claim it belonged to anyone? I know I’m tired but even tired I could hardly mistake the claim that God wants every single one of us to come unto Him. From every nation. That would hardly be possible if one of us claimed ownership of His word. That doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all to interpret it however. It’s one thing to have access to it, it’s another to freely interpret. Maybe that’s the point?


#8

Semantics seems to be getting in the way of what might truly be at issue here, and that is whether the Canon used by the Church of today is all those books which constitute the written and inspired Word of God, and whether the Church was correct in choosing these books. It seems really to be a question of whether the Church is competent authority to make such distinction, and from whence that authority is derived. I don’t have a full answer, and seek merely to refocus the issue (as it seems to me) but I would say that the Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are critically related: the Word of God (Dei Verbum) and the Word of God Unwritten (Dei Verbum non Scriptum). Authorship and source material is a whole other issue, one still very much a matter for debate in the Church, with such theories as the “Q-source” flying around. It’s a can of worms that neither detracts from nor adds to the reality that the Church was established by Christ and His Apostles given authority to fulfill the mission of evangelization in the world throughout time, and the Church must be guided by the Holy Spirit to achieve this task in all her decisions, including the choice of which books would be adopted as the proper Canon of the Bible.


#9

[quote=Maggie]I’m gonna make what is probably gonna be construed as a really dumb remark, but wouldn’t “compiled” be a better word for all of this anyway? I mean, God did the inspiring, various people did the writing, scribes over the years did the copying, and the Catholic Church ultimately under the guidance of the Holy Spirit did the compiling.

So it’s not an authorship or historian issue, it’s a compilation issue. Kind of like who gets the “editor” credit on an anthology of stories only these are divinely inspired books written or passed down over centuries.

If the bible is really divinely inspired, and you believe that, surely you don’t believe that God allowed fifteen or more generations to read something that led people away from Him. So the “extra” books must not do so. And as to whom it belongs to, why would anyone claim it belonged to anyone? I know I’m tired but even tired I could hardly mistake the claim that God wants every single one of us to come unto Him. From every nation. That would hardly be possible if one of us claimed ownership of His word. That doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all to interpret it however. It’s one thing to have access to it, it’s another to freely interpret. Maybe that’s the point?
[/quote]

Maggie,
The point is that the Old Testament is the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. It was over a thousand years from the first writing to the last. Judaism didn’t come out of a book. It is based on oral tradition. The books came much later.

The New Testament is the literary expression of the religious life of the New Israel – the newborn Catholic Church (Gal 6:16) – during the first 100 years or so of its existence. The writings that are in the New Testament were written by Catholics for Catholics, by members of the Church, to members of the Church. The Church was God’s agent in writing, preserving, collecting, and canonizing the writings of the NT, of canonizing the OT writings she received from Jesus and the Apostles, and forming the Bible.

The Church copied these writings by hand for 15 centuries until the printing press was invented in 1450. The Reformation followed soon after (1517) and Luther declared his novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible Alone).

But Jesus didn’t leave us a Bible, he left us a Church. The Church was founded by Christ for the salvation of the world; it’s an extension of Himself, His Very Body. The Church wrote the NT over a period of about 100 years. She selected the NT writings, added them to the OT, and formed the Bible when she was about 400 years old.

The Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:18). The Scriptures must be read within the life of the teaching, believing Church to be understood. Yes, the Bible is a Catholic book. The Catholic Church created it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the part of God’s Revelation which got written down; not all of it did. He entrusted both His written Word and the Sacred Apostolic Tradition to the Church.

God didn’t tell us to read a book. Nor did He give us the table of contents of the Bible. The Catholic Church did. The Church tells us to read it, but not to misinterpret it. The Bible can’t say “you misunderstand me.” But the Church, it’s creator and rightful guardian and interpreter, can!

I would have no way of knowing that these particular writings – 46 in the OT, 27 in the NT – are the “inspired Word of God” except that the Church founded by Christ tells me that it is so.

Peace be with you, JMJ Jay


#10

Here are a few good links to get started on Bible history:

bombaxo.com/canonchart.html

catholicapologetics.net/cloud.htm

orthodoxphotos.com/readings/bible/

catholic-legate.com/articles/w-word3.htm

If it wasn’t the Catholic Church that wrote, canonized, preserved and protected the Scriptures, who did? Who declared them any more inspired then the Koran or Book of Mormon? You cannot use a book to prove itself, you must use an outside source.

The original ‘inspiration’ was perfect and the writers or scribes inked out the text. They just wrote history and did not invent it or put words in Gods mouth (I hope not!). They wrote what they saw or what they heard. History is neutral, churches/people are bias.

Malachi4U


#11

There is a typographical error in my post yesterday (6/16) at 9:51 (#9). It should read: “The Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:16)” not Luke 10:18].

Sorry for the error.

JMJ Jay


#12

[quote=Katholikos]Maggie,
The point is that the Old Testament is the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. It was over a thousand years from the first writing to the last. Judaism didn’t come out of a book. It is based on oral tradition. The books came much later.

The New Testament is the literary expression of the religious life of the New Israel – the newborn Catholic Church (Gal 6:16) – during the first 100 years or so of its existence. The writings that are in the New Testament were written by Catholics for Catholics, by members of the Church, to members of the Church. The Church was God’s agent in writing, preserving, collecting, and canonizing the writings of the NT, of canonizing the OT writings she received from Jesus and the Apostles, and forming the Bible.

The Church copied these writings by hand for 15 centuries until the printing press was invented in 1450. The Reformation followed soon after (1517) and Luther declared his novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible Alone).

But Jesus didn’t leave us a Bible, he left us a Church. The Church was founded by Christ for the salvation of the world; it’s an extension of Himself, His Very Body. The Church wrote the NT over a period of about 100 years. She selected the NT writings, added them to the OT, and formed the Bible when she was about 400 years old.

The Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:18). The Scriptures must be read within the life of the teaching, believing Church to be understood. Yes, the Bible is a Catholic book. The Catholic Church created it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the part of God’s Revelation which got written down; not all of it did. He entrusted both His written Word and the Sacred Apostolic Tradition to the Church.

God didn’t tell us to read a book. Nor did He give us the table of contents of the Bible. The Catholic Church did. The Church tells us to read it, but not to misinterpret it. The Bible can’t say “you misunderstand me.” But the Church, it’s creator and rightful guardian and interpreter, can!

I would have no way of knowing that these particular writings – 46 in the OT, 27 in the NT – are the “inspired Word of God” except that the Church founded by Christ tells me that it is so.

Peace be with you, JMJ Jay
[/quote]

This is beautiful and should be read over and over again, especially by those with questions on this subject. :clapping:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.