Who decided what would be in the Bible?

[Akita Suggagaki]

Jesus said "do THIS in memory of Me" He took the bread blest it and break it.

Catholics do all manner of things, waving of hands, bobbing up and down, holy incantations, but the simple thing Jesus said to do they do not.

I have heard anti-Catholics deny that bread becomes Christ's body.
But this is the first time one denies it is bread to begin with.

 

[Aaron112]

I have heard anti-Catholics deny that bread becomes Christ's body.
But this is the first time one denies it is bread to begin with.

So you have heard Christian men, women and children who are not deceived by catholic teachings
,
and likely even secular, not religious people also aware of truth who are not deceived by catholic ways,
point out that the sinful teachings are not true nor right -
and yet apparently you continue to promote the sinful teachings / dogmas/ practices that God Himself call abiminatios !?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?

"Can you drink the cup I will drink?" It occurred to me that this is the same cup he prayed could be passed in Gethsemane. And we hear at Mass just as his first disciples, "Take this all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of my blood. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant."

But in our own lives when it comes to The Cup, don't we often say, "No thanks. I'm good"? Because it is essentially also the cross. And we don't like that. We might wear them around our necks but that is not the same as humbly enduring our hardships and trials.

It is a cup of blessing as well as a cup of suffering. What a paradox!

"The Blood of Christ." AMEN

 

[BBAS 64]

The first canon was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382) Pope Damasus I.
Most of that is ok with protestants except for a few intertestamental books known as the Apocrypha.

So we can we attribute this selection of books by Catholics as guided by the Holy Spirit. We all agree they are divinely inspired.

This is where I don't get Sola Sctiptura that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christians.
The Bible itself is a product of tradition and Church authority.

Anglicanism, Methodism and Pentecostalism uphold the doctrine of prima scripture with scripture being illumined by tradition and reason.

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

The Catholic officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, forming a single deposit, and considers the magisterium as the living organ which interprets said deposit

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Good day, Akita

I would submit that there is no primary historical evidence that the Roman Council ever did such a thing.

See- Council of Rome lists a canon Historically problematic

Now I find the name it claim it fallacies of the Roman Catholic denomination to be lacking in so many ways, therefore I am not a member there.
I do also believe that they for their members can tell them what their Canon should be.

Like most Roman Catholics you have a faulty view of what Sola Scriptura is and often conflate it with interpretation of Scripture.

I hope you find this helpful:

Sola Scriptura- Defined

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

Ok back to the issue at hand...

Can you give me one primary historical source ( within 300 years of (382)) that attributes their view of the Canon from the Council Of Rome.


We know that Jerome was in Rome (382) at the time, and he never mentioned it when he listed the Canon of the Church in his Latin translations in (398) some 16 years later.

We see Jerome in 398 writing: Fourth Century Christianity » Jerome – Translation of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Songs of Solomon according to the Hebrew (c. A.D. 398)

Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.

So if you have one I would like to follow up with that primary source.

Thanks!

In Him,

Bill

 

[Valletta]

I have heard anti-Catholics deny that bread becomes Christ's body.
But this is the first time one denies it is bread to begin with.

Good day, Akita

I would submit that there is no primary historical evidence that the Roman Council ever did such a thing.

See- Council of Rome lists a canon Historically problematic

Now I find the name it claim it fallacies of the Roman Catholic denomination to be lacking in so many ways, therefore I am not a member there.
I do also believe that they for their members can tell them what their Canon should be.

Like most Roman Catholics you have a faulty view of what Sola Scriptura is and often conflate it with interpretation of Scripture.

I hope you find this helpful:

Sola Scriptura- Defined

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

Ok back to the issue at hand...

Can you give me one primary historical source ( within 300 years of (382)) that attributes their view of the Canon from the Council Of Rome.


We know that Jerome was in Rome (382) at the time, and he never mentioned it when he listed the Canon of the Church in his Latin translations in (398) some 16 years later.

We see Jerome in 398 writing: Fourth Century Christianity » Jerome – Translation of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Songs of Solomon according to the Hebrew (c. A.D. 398)

Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.

So if you have one I would like to follow up with that primary source.

Thanks!

In Him,

Bill

Catholics do as Jesus commanded when He said "do this." The bread is blessed, the words of consecration that Jesus gave us are said, and the Body and Blood of Christ is distributed to the people. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list.

 

[BBAS 64]

Catholics do as Jesus commanded when He said "do this." The bread is blessed, the words of consecration that Jesus gave us are said, and the Body and Blood of Christ is distributed to the people. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list.

Good day, Valletta

Thanks!

I thought this was about the council of Rome and it's history.

Just for some Historical accuracy Athanasius included a list of the OT as well.

I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)


Historically we have early OT lists: from bishop of Sardis

"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." (Melito of Sardis, cited in Eusebius, Church History, 4:26)

Primary sourced Historical lists : Ancient Canon Lists



In Him

Bill

 

[Valletta]

The bible chooses itself. The church only admits that certain books are the ones most read and most cherished among all ranks and classes. If for instance "The apocalypse of Peter" were read and cherished among Christians or the "Epistle of Barnabas"they would be in the canon.

The clergy class [unknown and unrecognised in scripture] is a usurpation.

No, there were many beautiful texts. The Catholic Church had to decide which were God-breathed.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I would submit that there is no primary historical evidence that the Roman Council ever did such a thing.

Later at council of Hippo, 393 then later affirmed in the council of Carthage. 397 and 419

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So you have heard Christian men, women and children who are not deceived by catholic teachings
,
and likely even secular, not religious people also aware of truth who are not deceived by catholic ways,
point out that the sinful teachings are not true nor right -
and yet apparently you continue to promote the sinful teachings / dogmas/ practices that God Himself call abiminatios !?

what are you talking about?

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
And He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink ye all of it; Matthew 26:26-17

 

[BBAS 64]

Later at council of Hippo, 393 then later affirmed in the council of Carthage. 397 and 419

Good day,

The local council of Hippo, nor did the council of Local Carthage refer to Rome.

Do you have a primary Historical sources?

IN Him

Bill

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

The first canon was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382) Pope Damasus I.
Most of that is ok with protestants except for a few intertestamental books known as the Apocrypha.

So we can we attribute this selection of books by Catholics as guided by the Holy Spirit. We all agree they are divinely inspired.

This is where I don't get Sola Sctiptura that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christians.
The Bible itself is a product of tradition and Church authority.

Anglicanism, Methodism and Pentecostalism uphold the doctrine of prima scripture with scripture being illumined by tradition and reason.

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

The Catholic officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, forming a single deposit, and considers the magisterium as the living organ which interprets said deposit

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scriptures came through the Jewish people long before the Catholics showed up to claim exclusive rights to scripture and their interpretations

As to scripture as a general point, the Words of God bear far more weight and authority than, let's say, the words of the devils or of the unsaved-non believers therein

The Catholic church has not recorded a single Word of God that originated from their organization

In Judaism of the O.T. if any of them tried to claim they spoke the Word of God and it didn't happen, they were to be put to death. So it was serious business. And it was moderated by angels, both holy and evil

 

[Dan Perez]

Not Popes, Monsigniors, Cardinals, Archbishops, Canons and Priests.

Where is the prophetic word? wholesome teaching? miracles, healing, administrations and tongues and interpretation?

These are replaced with rituals and sacraments.

And 2 Peter 1:20-21 reads , Knowing this first , that NO prophecy of the scripture is of any PRIVATE INTERPERTATION .

For the Prophecy came NOT in old time by the WILL of man , but Holy Men of God spake as they were MOVED by the Holy SPIRIT .

dan p

 

[throughfiierytrial]

The bible chooses itself. The church only admits that certain books are the ones most read and most cherished among all ranks and classes. If for instance "The apocalypse of Peter" were read and cherished among Christians or the "Epistle of Barnabas"they would be in the canon.

The clergy class [unknown and unrecognised in scripture] is a usurpation.

From what I have read and studied those writings among all the existing writings which were known to be in use and practiced by the early church were canonized. These selected writings are also backed up by other sources such as personal letters and evidencing their wide-spread usage and purity. Practices and teachings in contradiction were ommited. Today we have even older sets of scrolls which were more recently discovered and contain markings which appear to be ratings as to accuracy and signed by priests...the Alexandrian scrolls.These scrolls were used in light of the more modern and predominantly used scrolls which are the source of the KJV for instance and the NIV 1984 and its earlier versions were then translated. Such translations are said to be eclectic meaning their language was compared with the Majority Text (KJ source manuscripts) and so the they are new, but said to be in light of the Majority Text.
This is my understanding.