SPLIT: The Bible never came from the Catholic church. This is a misnomer


#1

The Bible never came from the Catholic church. This is a misnomer. :tsktsk:


#2

Prove it!! Start a new thread, if you dare.


#3

Let’s be precise.

  1. The Holy Spirit inspired the men who wrote the books and letters of the New Testament.

  2. These authors were members of what was referenced in writing as early as 107 A.D. as the Catholic Church - a fact which indicates that it was known by that name probably during the lifetime of John the Apostle.

  3. After carefully and prayerfully considering all of the available books and letters that were in circulation in the first three centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church infallibly recognized and canonized those books that were and are to be held as “God-breathed” scripture.

  4. When Martin Luther attempted to remove certain books from his German edition of the Bible, his course of action was stayed in part by his own associates in recognition of the fact that the canon established by the Catholic Church was without error.

  5. No Christian denomination today accepts any canon of the New Testament other than that which was infallibly established by the Catholic Church.

Therefore, it is rightly said that the Catholic Church wrote, canonized and preserved the Bible from Apostolic times to our own present day under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To claim anything else is to be ignorant of history or willfully in error.

Finally, the existence of a Catholic Church led by the Spirit of God has significant implications for those who seek to deny her primacy and authority.


"Works" Salvation?
"Works" Salvation?
#4

Really?! where did it come from?


"Works" Salvation?
#5

Drive by poster…:tsktsk:


#6

Split from “Works-Salvation” thread as off topic. Carry on.
MF


#7

I can tell you mine came from a religious book store on the southside of town.:wink:

But, if you mean the compilation of the Bible, I always thought it was the Catholic Church who was trusted by God to do that.

Am I wrong? Please correct where needed. I don’t like to believe error.

God Bless and Peace


#8

You have provided absoluutely no substantiation for this statement; therefore, it is useless. :cool:
Either back it up with universally acceptable sources or retract it.


#9

If you want a serious discussion on this, you’re going to have to do better than that, and tell us why you believe this. Otherwise, you’re not helping your cause any.


#10

You haven’t prove it. We have.

51-125 AD The New Testament books are written.

140 Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.

200 AD The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

367 AD The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D…

382 AD Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

393 AD the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

397 AD The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …
787 AD The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

1442 AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.

1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed
once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.


#11

This guy doesn’t even realize what “Catholic” means, and he has no sense of history or he wouldn’t say such a thing.

That’s like saying, “Martin Luther was never Catholic”. Martin Luther was a Catholic until the day that he died. He was just a ‘cafeteria catholic’ and probably died in mortal sin because of his heretic teachings.

The Bible was written for Catholics by Catholics and most educated theologists of most faiths won’t even argue that. Protestants get their validity, if they have any, because of a much needed reformation in the church. But Martin Luther got angry, took his ball and went home and created his own Church.

God bless you if you want to follow a church created by a man. But for me, I’ll follow a faith and church created by Jesus Christ.


#12

Most hard-core Protestants ignore history and worst they make it up to fit their own causes.


#13

This is an incorrect use of the word misnomer. A misnomer is “an error in naming a person or place”. There is no “naming” error of the Bible. Despite this mistake, I still understand that you are denying that Catholic bishops set the Canon. Firstly, even Protestants admit that the Canon of Scripture was not set until the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. I ask you then, why did the bishops at the Council of Carthage send the list of the Canon of Scripture to the Pope for approval?

From the document of the Council of Carthage (The Code of the Canons of the African Church, A.D. 419):

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop,* Boniface**, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.*

The Boniface in this document is Pope Boniface I, the 42nd Pope, which you can see in the “List of Popes”:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Since you claim that “the Bible never came from the Catholic Church”, can you please explain why the bishops at the Council sent the list of inspired books to Rome for confirmation?


#14

And how did it get there? :wink:

But, if you mean the compilation of the Bible, I always thought it was the Catholic Church who was trusted by God to do that.

You are right. And if you trace back how your Bible got into that southside book store, you’d trace it right back to a Catholic priest named Jerome, who was working for a Pope named Pope Damasus.

Then, you’d trace back how Father Jerome got the documents of the Bible, and you’d see three Councils of Catholic Bishops giving the Pope a list of the books to look for and translate. The Pope then gathered up all these books on the list from all the libraries of the known world, and gave them to Jerome to translate.


#15

Looks like the OP has fled the scene!!


#16

Hey DLC, Where’d you go???

Even my Jehovah’s Witness friend expresses, much to the dismay of his congregation, that his faltered rendition of Holy Scripture originated in the Catholic Church.

Make a statement like that and then run away. Pretty typical. Sorry to see that you have :tsktsk: rebuttal.


#17

That was my initial reaction. I decided to look it up on an Webster’s online dictionary
209.161.33.50/dictionary/misnomer

1: the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument2 a: a use of a wrong or inappropriate name b: a wrong name or inappropriate designation

I thought it might fit the last definition:confused:

This was split off of another thread the OP might not realizes
that he is an OP.


#18

I’m pretty sure this means the actual name has to be inappropriately designated. In other words, because “Holy Bible” does not contain the word “Catholic”, there is no misnomer. :nerd:

From Wiktionary:

The term “misnomer” is generally used in an assertion that something is a misnomer. See the definitions above for examples.

The extended sense of misnomer meaning myth is generally considered incorrect. Note, however, that its use follows the same pattern as the other senses.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misnomer


#19

**Hey, C’mon, now!:wink: **
**At least he had enough sense to know that he didn’t have a theological or historical leg to stand on . . . **:smiley:


#20

No, in fact even non-Catholic historians affirm the canon being chosen by the Catholic Church. Wikipedia a non-Catholic secular encyclopedia online says. speaking of the Biblical canon…

"Early Christianity also relied on the Sacred Oral Tradition of what Jesus had said and done, as reported by the apostles and other followers. Even after the Gospels were written and began circulating, some Christians preferred the oral Gospel as told by people they trusted (e.g. Papias, c. 125).
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament:

“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.” By the end of the 1st century, some letters of Paul were collected and circulated, and were known to Clement of Rome (c. 96), Ignatius of Antioch (died 117), and Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 115) but they weren’t usually called scripture/graphe as the Septuagint was and they weren’t without critics. In the late 4th century Epiphanius of Salamis (died 402) Panarion 29 says the Nazarenes had rejected the Pauline epistles and Irenaeus** Against Heresies* 26.2 says the Ebionites rejected him. Acts 21:21 records a rumor that Paul aimed to subvert the Old Testament (see Romans 3:8, 31). 2 Peter 3:16 says his letters have been abused by heretics who twist them around “as they do with the other scriptures.” In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius** Ecclesiastical History** 6.38 says the Elchasai “made use of texts from every part of the Old Testament and the Gospels; it rejects the Apostle (Paul) entirely”; 4.29.5 says Tatian the Assyrian rejected Paul’s Letters and Acts of the Apostles; 6.25 says Origen accepted 22 canonical books of the Hebrews plus Maccabees plus the four Gospels but Paul “did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines.” Bruce Metzger in his Canon of the New Testament, 1987, draws the following conclusion about Clement…*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Note: Bruce Metzger is a Protestant scholar of textual criticism. But notice how earlier they refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia because they know their was only one Church at that time; the Catholic Church.


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.