The Bible Is A Catholic Book

Can we just do an Orthodox/Catholic discussion while the rest of Protestant watch? It will be more interesting that way.

Gracia Singh said:

I'm not sure that's really fair, though. Many ancient Christians did look up to Rome as uniquely authoritative for many centuries prior to the Schism. To say that the Catholic Church began at the Schism sounds almost as inaccurate as saying the Eastern Orthodoxy began at the Schism, too. There was a split, to be sure, but either way you look at it, they were Apostolic Christians.

Click to expand...

Rome did enjoy a primacy of honor among the apostolic sees. And that is why the Roman See was honored for her (usually) continued orthodoxy amid theological controversies.

That honor, however, was never the same thing as authority. In fact when Anatolius of Constantinople overstepped his episcopal authority it was Leo of Rome who rebuked him for doing so.

No See was greater than the other.

-CryptoLutheran

The posts in this thread seem to ignore the fact that the Books of the Bible were penned by Hebrews/Jews (GOD'S Chosen People). Yeshua (Jesus) was a Jew as were the Jewish Apostles (just in case some think that Jesus was Catholic).

Also, lest some forget it was Roman soldiers that mocked, whipped and crucified Israel's Messiah. The sixty-six Books of the Bible (OT/NT) were penned by Hebrew and Jewish authors (Luke was not a Catholic) as they were inspired by HIS Spirit. The RCC was instrumental in preserving the books, but corruption among priests led to the Protestant Reformation. The result being the increased availability of the Bible to Protestants like the Puritans that arrived in the New World.

AbbaLove said:

The posts in this thread seem to ignore the fact that the Books of the Bible were penned by Hebrews/Jews (GOD'S Chosen People). Yeshua (Jesus) was a Jew as were the Jewish Apostles (just in case some think that Jesus was Catholic).

Also, lest some forget it was Roman soldiers that mocked, whipped and crucified Israel's Messiah. The sixty-six Books of the Bible (OT/NT) were penned by Hebrew and Jewish authors (Luke was not a Catholic) as they were inspired by HIS Spirit. The RCC was instrumental in preserving the books, but corruption among priests led to the Protestant Reformation. The result being the increased availability of the Bible to Protestants like the Puritans that arrived in the New World.

"The Puritans believed that God had formed a unique covenant, or agreement, with them. They believed that God expected them to live according to the Scriptures, to reform the Anglican Church, and to set a good example that would cause those who had remained in England to change their sinful ways."​

Click to expand...

"God's chosen people" had a council rejecting the New Testament that talks about the Lord.

AbbaLove said:

The posts in this thread seem to ignore the fact that the Books of the Bible were penned by Hebrews/Jews (GOD'S Chosen People). Yeshua (Jesus) was a Jew as were the Jewish Apostles (just in case some think that Jesus was Catholic).

Also, lest some forget it was Roman soldiers that mocked, whipped and crucified Israel's Messiah. The sixty-six Books of the Bible (OT/NT) were penned by Hebrew and Jewish authors (Luke was not a Catholic) as they were inspired by HIS Spirit. The RCC was instrumental in preserving the books, but corruption among priests led to the Protestant Reformation. The result being the increased availability of the Bible to Protestants like the Puritans that arrived in the New World.

"The Puritans believed that God had formed a unique covenant, or agreement, with them. They believed that God expected them to live according to the Scriptures, to reform the Anglican Church, and to set a good example that would cause those who had remained in England to change their sinful ways."​

Click to expand...

The Apostles were catholic though.

The word "catholic" is one of several terms used to refer to Christ's Church. As in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". "Catholic" isn't the name of a church, it is an adjective describing the Church.

The word "catholic" is of Greek origin, καθολικός (katholikos) which means "according to the whole".

The first recorded Christian use of the word is found in the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch writing around 107 AD. Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch, having succeeded Evodius (who had been selected as bishop by St. Peter) after Evodius was likely martyred under the reign of Nero. Ignatius, who had been serving as Antioch's bishop since the late 60's AD was an old man when he was arrested by Roman authorities and escorted by Roman soldiers back to Rome to face trial and, ultimately, his own martyrdom.

Ignatius speaks of the "Catholic Church", by which he means "the entire Church". In contrast to the local churches, i.e. the Church in Corinth, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Rome, etc. Because the unity of Christ's Body is beyond mere locality, and is universal--there is only one Church even though the Church can be found located anywhere.

As such catholicity was one of the essential qualities of the Christian Church. This catholicity was one of the marks of the Christian Church, pointing toward the unity of faith maintained by all the churches, holding firm to the teaching and faith received from the apostles (over and against the false doctrines of the heretics).

So, absolutely, the Apostles were catholic Christians. As it is the Apostles who established, by the working of the Holy Spirit, the catholic and apostolic faith that was to be received and confessed everywhere. It is precisely this catholicity of faith that the Apostle St. Paul speaks of in his letters when he exhorts Christians to be of one mind, to be of one faith, to not follow after false teachings and heresies. When the Apostle write, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8-9) he is telling the Galatians to hold to what they had received already, to hold firm to the catholic and apostolic faith. When the Apostle writes, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) he is saying the same sort of thing.

This is why we confess in the Athanasian Creed,

"Now this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Essence."

The first Christians were Jews. So that means the first "catholics" were also Jews. Since "catholic" and "Christian" are two sides of the same coin.

What you are confusing is the term "catholic" with the particular entity known as Roman Catholicism; and likewise seem to be confused as to why the term "Roman" is used to refer to that particular ecclesiastical institution. You make this error by thinking that mentioning how the Roman Empire persecuted the Church that this is somehow relevant in regard to Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with the Roman Empire.

There are two reasons for the use of "Roman Catholic":

1) Catholicism maintains that "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" refers exclusively to the Roman or Latin liturgical Rite--the particular liturgical forms which developed around the See of Rome and which came to largely dominate liturgical forms in Western Europe. However there are other liturgical rites, most of the western ones have largely disappeared, however among Eastern Catholics (those Eastern churches which established communion with Rome after the Great Schism) there are the Byzantine, Marionite, Chaldean, and others.

2) However, most non-[Roman] Catholics tend to apply "Roman" specifically because of the unique position which the Roman See holds within Catholicism. Namely since Catholicism insists upon the primacy of St. Peter, and that the bishop of Rome therefore holds a primacy among all bishops--what we usually refer to as the papacy. While the word "pope" originally was a term of endearment for any bishop, in the West it came to be used rather exclusively to the bishop of Rome. It is this institution of the papacy, that the bishop of Rome is a more senior bishop and with a universal pastoral jurisdiction over the entire Church catholic that is regarded as the most distinctive feature. And hence the term "Roman Catholic" as used by non-Catholics highlights this particular feature.

It has nothing to do with the Roman Empire. For most of the last two thousand years the Roman See hasn't even been part of the Roman Empire. In the 5th century the barbarian invasions effectively ended the Empire in Western Europe, and the Roman Empire was restricted to its eastern half--which later historians have termed the Byzantine Empire. However the Byzantine Empire is simply an historian's term; it was simply the Roman Empire and it continued to exist until its final collapse at the hands of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century. So for around 75% of Christian history, for the 2/3 of the time the Roman Empire existed during Christian history, the Roman See wasn't even in the Roman Empire.

-CryptoLutheran

Gracia Singh said:

And yet, Apostolic means similar things to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic Christians. For all of them, this succession is important, and means something.

Click to expand...

and means similar things to other Traditional Churches so much so that any place with an Apostolic succession I do not consider a Church just a meeting place.

packermann said:

True, it is God's Word. It originated by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. But God compiled and preserved the Bible through the Catholic Church.

We do not have any of the original Biblical documents. They are long gone! What we have instead are copies and copies of the documents. Who wrote them? Hermits wrote them. They were celibates who lived in caves. Thank the Lord for celibacy! If these men were married with children they would not have had the time to write these copies. And later on, it was done by Catholic monks. This had to be done until the 16th century before the printing press was created. Thanks to the Catholic, and Orthodox, monks we have the Bible that we have today.

But not only this. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible from different documents. Up until the 6th century, there was no such thing as the "Bible". Instead, you had the the gospels, the letters of Paul, the letters of Peter, etc. It was the Church that put them all together into what we now call the Bible. This was not a small task! For instance, there were 19 different gospels. I do not know them all, but I am aware of the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The Church had a Council to determine which ones were genuine. They only accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being the genuine gospels. Well, first they prayed for the Holy Spirit. But they did more than that. They used common sense. They knew the teaching that was passed from the apostles, to the apostle's disciples, and to the next generation of disciples. Other gospels (Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc) contradicted what was passed down to them. So they knew they were forgeries. They used the teaching of what was passed down to them to determine what was genuine and put them in the Bible. Now, could this Council be wrong? To the Catholic, no - the Holy Spirit had worked infallibly to give us a Bible that is a genuine Word of God. But I do not see how the Protestant can be sure. The Protestant believes that no Council is infallible. So it is possible that this Council made mistakes. Maybe the Gospel of Matthew should not have been in the Bible. And maybe the Gospel of Peter should be in the Bible. Who knows? The problem is that the Protestant does not have an objective standard to determine that. It seems to me that the only standard the Protestant has is that the Bible as is gives him a certain feeling or that the Bible as is is what he was brought up with.

The point of this thread is to point out we would not have the Bible as we have it today if we had never had tradition. Tradition means "to pass on". God did not drop the Bible from the sky. It was passed on from copies and copies. The Bible is part of written tradition. But the compilation of the Bible was determined by accepting only the documents that were in harmony with oral tradition. Those that contradict oral tradition were rejected. So the Bible vs. Tradition is a false dichotomy. The Bible is part of tradition! There are false, man-made traditions. But there is a true tradition that the Holy Spirit has led just as not all gospels are true gospels (Gospel of Thomas is a false gospel). We do not reject all oral traditions simply they are oral. And we do not accept all written traditions simply because it is written.

The Bible is a Catholic Book. God preserved and compiled it through the Catholic Book. This is why it can only be translated and interpreted it by Catholic Church.

BTW, I did post this on another forum. So if you do find it there, that does not mean I stole this from someone else. In both forums I use the same name.

Click to expand...

Whereas many monks , priest and celibate individuals were in fact copiest for which I am thankful, I prefer to give God the credit . When Paul wrote , He is a jew who is one inwardly , who's circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit , who's praise is of God and not of men .
How does(did ) the Catholic church ( and the protestant church ) interpret , be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves . The church (without question ) has been in error by killing and torturing each other over assumed errors in translation or authority . How would a child translate the phrase , So , what soever you would have men do to you , do ye so to them . " Love your enemies . How should I understand that ? No , my friend . History calls you out on your premise .
What about 1st Corinthians 14 where Paul said " I would that ye would all prophesy ? " How about where Paul says , if any man be prophetic or spiritual , let him acknowledge that the words that I write to you are commandments of the Lord . ? That seems pretty clear .

You might have a valid argument except for history . We could always get rid of truth . He was crucified once before

David Cabrera said:

"God's chosen people" had a council rejecting the New Testament that talks about the Lord.

Click to expand...

I suspect that this is talking about the Council of Jamnia.

Two points about that:

1) Supposedly the Council of Jamnia was a rabbinic council which decided on which books should be definitively canonical in Judaism. As such the New Testament neither existed yet at this time, nor would it have even been relevant to the rabbinical authorities.

2) There's no evidence that it ever happened, there's no historical records for it and is a hypothesis that was developed in the 19th century.

The only thing we can be certain of are the rabbinical disputes over some books, as what would eventually become the Jewish Tanakh was not completed until about a century or two after Christ. While the status of the Torah and Nevi'im (Prophets) was already pretty well settled in Pharisaism, there was ongoing dispute and conversation about the Ketuvim (Writings).

-CryptoLutheran

packermann said:

But God compiled and preserved the Bible through the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true.

Would that the Roman branch of the catholic church in particular would put aside the traditions of men and adhere to what that bible itself teaches.

But then - that would likely require a paradigm shift in their teachings about the methods of accessing and experiencing salvation itself.

That's not likely to happen though. They still teach those erroneous traditions even after the Bible has been made available to all men since the Reformation.

packermann said:

True, it is God's Word. It originated by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. But God compiled and preserved the Bible through the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

On the contrary - Josephus states clearly that the OT had been canonized and preserved for over 400 years prior to Christ.

So then Christ and all NT saints - not relying on the RCC for access to the OT, Hebrew Bible etc.

Nor were NT saints waiting hundreds of years before reading NT letters as scripture, according to Peter that is exactly what they were doing with Paul's letters as with "the rest of scripture" - reading them as scripture then... and not waiting.

packermann said:

But God compiled and preserved the Bible through the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

God can also deliver a gold coin in the mouth of a fish, which has no appreciation for the thing which it carries and delivers.

What council are you talking about? Your above quote suggests that you may have been mistakenly taught by the RCC that they (RCC) have replaced Israel as "God's Chosen People" (also known as RT or fullfillment theology). The very first so-called "council" (Matthew 28:11-15) was that of the chief priests (forebearers of Rabbinic Judaism established after 70 AD) who also perpetuated the rejection of Israel's Jewish Messiah Yeshua/Jesus as does Rabbinic Judaism to this day ...


Thus it was not necessary for Rabbinic Judaism to have a "Council" to decide if the writings of the Apostles were valid scripture as it was the lie that spread around the world. FYI, the Messianic Jewish Council at Jerusalem (GOD'S chosen people) did not reject Yeshua (Jesus) as their Mashiach, the annointed one of GOD (Christ), but rather confirmed HIS Word as prophesied by Isaiah ...


The Apostle Paul clarifies God's Chosen People (Galatians 3:28) as those that accept Yeshua/Jesus as their Lord and Savior (Jew and non-Jew)...


You may have a copy of the RCC's "New American Bible (Revised Edition)" from which i've quoted the above scripture passages. You may find its many footnotes of further interest/explanation.

Edited Note: What's different about the NABRE translation of Isaiah 9:6 is that it is Isaiah 9:7 in the KJV. The Hebrew Bible also has a difference as to which verse should actually be 9:6. The NABRE may be the more correct Hebrew translation of Isaiah 9:6 with 9:5 representing 9:6 in the KJV.

continued ... Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 9:5 - New American Bible (Revised Edition)

AbbaLove said:

​

What council are you talking about? Your above quote suggests that you may have been mistakenly taught by the RCC that they (RCC) have replaced Israel as "God's Chosen People" (also known as RT or fullfillment theology). The very first so-called "council" (Matthew 28:11-15) was that of the chief priests (forebearers of Rabbinic Judaism established after 70 AD) who also perpetuated the rejection of Israel's Jewish Messiah Yeshua/Jesus as does Rabbinic Judaism to this day ...

Matthew 28:11-15 (NABRE)
11 ... some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened.
12 They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,
13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.’
14 And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy [him] and keep you out of trouble.”
15 The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has circulated among the Jews to the present [day].​

Thus it was not necessary for Rabbinic Judaism to have a "Council" to decide if the writings of the Apostles were valid scripture as it was the lie that spread around the world. FYI, the Messianic Jewish Council at Jerusalem (GOD'S chosen people) did not reject Yeshua (Jesus) as their Mashiach, the annointed one of GOD (Christ), but rather confirmed HIS Word as prophesied by Isaiah ...

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Translating Hebrew into English is not an easy matter; especially this verse ... https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf​

Isaiah 9:6 (NABRE)
His dominion is vast

and forever peaceful,​

Upon David’s throne, and over his kingdom,

which he confirms and sustains​

By judgment and justice,

both now and forever.​

The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this!​

The Apostle Paul clarifies God's Chosen People (Galatians 3:28) as those that accept Yeshua/Jesus as their Lord and Savior (Jew and non-Jew)...

Romans 11:16-18 (NABRE)
16 If the firstfruits are holy, so is the whole batch of dough; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not boast against the branches. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you.​

You may have a copy of the RCC's "New American Bible (Revised Edition)" from which i've quoted the above scripture passages. You may find its many footnotes of further interest/explanation.

Edited Note: What's different about the NABRE translation of Isaiah 9:6 is that it is Isaiah 9:7 in the KJV. The Hebrew Bible also has a difference as to which verse should actually be 9:6. The NABRE may be the more correct Hebrew translation of Isaiah 9:6 with 9:5 representing 9:6 in the KJV.

Click to expand...

The Church is Israel, and the Council of Jerusalem does not talk about the Scriptures canon but other councils do.

Three centuries of Greek speaking Christians, but yeah, the Latin church made it all come together. Come on dude. At least try to be generous. It is a Christian virtue, after all.

His student said:

Would that the Roman branch of the catholic church in particular would put aside the traditions of men and adhere to what that bible itself teaches.

Click to expand...

Said the partisans of one denomination to thos of every other denomination, always. If everybody could see the light and become Anglican like I am all would be well, right? I mean, if I believe it it's obviously correct, because otherwise I wouldn't believe it, duh! That's not likely to happen though. They all still teach those erroneous traditions even after the Bible has been made available to all men since the Reformation.

BobRyan said:

Nor were NT saints waiting hundreds of years before reading NT letters as scripture, according to Peter that is exactly what they were doing with Paul's letters as with "the rest of scripture" - reading them as scripture then... and not waiting.

Click to expand...

Just so. And the Catholics did us the service of compiling those NT letters into what we now refer to as the New Testament. I appreciate them doing that, don't you?

Jipsah said:

.................the Catholics did us the service of compiling those NT letters into what we now refer to as the New Testament. I appreciate them doing that, don't you?

Click to expand...

I appreciate the ratification of the canon myself - most particularly the establishment of those books found in the N.T.

Would that Rome had gone farther while they were invested with the authority to do so and studied and applied those scriptures by doing away with the unbiblical priesthood all together starting with the concept of the Pope.

His student said:

doing away with the unbiblical priesthood all together

Click to expand...

"So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the presbyters by the hand of Barnabas and Saul." - Acts 11:30

"And when they had appointed presbyters for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed." - Acts 14:23

"This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you—" - Titus 1:5

Priest, etymology
"From Middle English prest, preest, from Old English prēost (“priest”), from Late Latin presbyter, from Ancient Greek πρεσβύτερος (presbúteros), from πρέσβυς (présbus, “elder, older”). Reinforced in Middle English by Old French prestre, also from Latin presbyter." - Wiktionary

Christian priests are presbyters.

-CryptoLutheran