Greek Bible

[The Liturgist]

Jesus never told his disciples to go forth and hand out Bibles--God does not need a Bible to reach a tree-worshipper or anyone else.

Indeed, but the Gideons and the Roman Catholic friendly American Bible Society have helped many people by placing bibles in hotels and prisons.

Distressingly some hotels no longer allow the Gideons; Marriotts place The Book of Mormon, and one where I like to say with really friendly Hindu owners places in some of their rooms the Bhagavad Gita.

But whats worse than that is a lakeside resort in England the atheist owner of which got massive free publicity when he banned Gideon Bibles and replaced them with the inappropriate contentographic, sexually perverted book Fifty Shades of Grey. I expect more incidents like this in the future.

 

[Valletta]

Indeed, but the Gideons and the Roman Catholic friendly American Bible Society have helped many people by placing bibles in hotels and prisons.

Distressingly some hotels no longer allow the Gideons; Marriotts place The Book of Mormon, and one where I like to say with really friendly Hindu owners places in some of their rooms the Bhagavad Gita.

But whats worse than that is a lakeside resort in England the atheist owner of which got massive free publicity when he banned Gideon Bibles and replaced them with the inappropriate contentographic, sexually perverted book Fifty Shades of Grey. I expect more incidents like this in the future.

Oh I'm very pro studying and praying the Bible. Typically an encounter with Jesus leads to Bible reading.

 

[Ligurian]

Classical Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic that was spoken in Syria and Mesopotamia, mainly by Christians, and remains as a liturgical language; vernacular Aramaic consists of some Syriac dialects like Turoyo, and some Syriac-influenced dialects like Assyrian Eastern Neo-Aramaic, the most widely spoken Aramaic language.

Before adopting Aramaic, Babylon spoke Akkadian, a Semitic language, like Aramaic and Hebrew, and before that, Sumerian, a language isolate.

A couple of decades ago, there was a book called "Hebrew is Greek" by Joseph Yahuda. Five decades ago, the book "The Common Backgrounds of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations" was written by Cyrus Gordon. The first book was always expensive, and now that it's a rare book, it's trippled in price. The second seems to be calling the Ugaritic a semitic language... but it's a dialect of Amorites, like Hamurrabi.* Since then, we have learned that there were many languages in that area, the trade-language being Akkadian... which, as you say, is semitic. Back in the day, Sumerian was called, by Halevy, a secret language of Hebrew priests... this was called the "Sumerian Problem".

Now, some say that the Celtic is an IE language, and others say Celtic is from the West. In an attempt to categorize everything under the sun, the language people keep fighting. Some say Etruscan is Celtic. They used to say that Lydia was a semitic land until they discovered that Luwian was spoken all over Anatolia. The same thing is true of Elam or Persia being called semitic. If the language people ever get it right... having read a few lines of Pokorny's IE dictionary thing... I'm thinking that'll never happen. All because they started out with a false premise, thinking that "Le Mirage Oriental" was real. Some people still think the out of Africa theme was right, until "Not out of Africa" by Mary Lefkowitz, and DNA research came along.
____________________
* Hamurrabi the Amorite, in profile.
Hammurabi, Shamash, and Comet Venus - Scientia Press

 

[Ligurian]

What happens to the tree-worshipper who never met an apostle, never met anyone who'd ever met an apostle, and never even met anyone who ever met someone who'd met an apostle? What if he doesn't even know what apostle means or who the apostles are? What if all he has is the Bible?

Because tree-worshippers are as a rule illiterate and impoverished, and as a rule are evangelized by missionaries, who continue in the tradition of the Apostle.

The Druids were called tree-worshippers; they weren't a poor or illiterate, they used the Greek letters. (Gallic Wars, Book 6, Chapter 14)

"Professor Rhys goes so far as to refer Druidism to the Silurian race, because Caesar mentions Britain as the birthplace of that cultus, and it is of a character which he considers non-Aryan. It is almost certain that second-sight and other ecstatic moods must be referred to the pre-Celtic races."--MacBain, Celtic Mythology and Religion

"The ancient throne was, however, in existence in that part of Wales formerly denominated Siluria, and though its practical authority was curtailed, yet it was genuine and vigorous, and laid claim to all its primitive rights and privileges. Under its protection also flourished Bardism in its native integrity. The correctness of this hypothesis is attested by the unanimous voice of our traditionary documents; and it is remarkable that all those which relate to the doctrine and institutes of the primitive system are invariably written in the Silurian dialect.
... the open proceedings of the Bards would be particularly opposed by the Romans, being regarded by them as the especial source of patriotism, freedom, and independence. This was remarkably instanced in the conduct of Suetonius Paulinus, who so cruelly massacred an assembly of Druids, and cut down their sacred groves in the isle of Anglesey about the year 59. Nevertheless, we are informed that the Silurian Druids very generally embraced Christianity on its first promulgation in the island, and that in right of their office they were exclusively elected as Christian ministers, though their claims to national privileges as such were not finally sanctioned until the reign of Lles ab Coel (Lucius)."--Williams, Ecclesiastical Antiquities of the Cymry

"Solinus ... states that 'a stormy channel separates the coast which the Damnonii occupy from the island Silura, whose inhabitants preserve the ancient manners, reject money, barter merchandise, value what they require by exchange rather than by price, worship the gods, and both men and women profess a knowledge of the future.'"--Skene, Celtic Scotland, v1

ZEUS, JUPITER AND THE OAK, by Arthur Bernard Cook
"But it, is at least clear that in Philostratus' picture a golden dove was perched on the sacred oak and served as the oracular mouthpiece of Zeus."
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. Volumes 17 & 18, 1903 & 1904

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him.

"Pelasgians ... Homer too makes it perfectly clear from their mode of life, when he calls them “men with feet unwashen, men who sleep upon the ground,” that they were barbarians ... Apollodorus takes it for granted that he did not call the people who lived about the temple “Helli,” but “Selli,” since (Apollodorus adds) the poet also named a certain river Selleeïs. He names it, indeed, when he says, “From afar, out of Ephyra, from the River Selleeïs”...
--Strabo, Book 7, Chapter 7

The Selleeïs River, now called the Ladon, is in Elis, west of Arcadia.
So... from Arcadia, to Dodona, to Italy and Liguria.

"SA´LYES (Σάλυες) SA´LYI, SALLU´VII, or SA´LLYES (Steph. Byz. s. v.), a Ligurian people in Gallia. There are other varieties in the writing of the word. The early Greeks gave the name of Ligyes to these Salyes; and their territory, which was in the possession of the Massaliots, when Strabo wrote, was originally called Ligystice."--Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography

"But the general idea we get from the various confused passages is that the Iberi are for Roman and Greek writers the earliest inhabitants of the Spanish peninsula, as the Ligures are of the Italian."
--Peet, The Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy and Sicily

"Avienus makes only one direct reference to the Celts when he mentions that beyond the tin-producing Oestrymnides was a land now occupied by the Celts, who took it from the Ligurians."
--Cunliffe, Ancient Celts

And to think, this whole thing started with the mention by some men on Earth called "fathers"... saying there was a previous Hebrew version of Matthew. But... where is this 2000-year-old Hebrew copy of Matthew?

Well, we have what we think are quotes of it.

“It should be further noted that Jerome thought he had discovered the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in the one used by the Nazarenes; but afterward he found reason to doubt it…Jerome, who knew Hebrew, as other Latin and Greek fathers did not, obtained in the fourth century a copy of this Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, and at once asserted that he had found the Hebrew original. But when he looked more closely into the matter, he confined himself to the statement that many supposed that this Hebrew text was the original of Matthew's Gospel. He translated it into Latin and Greek, and made a few observations of his own on it.” (George W. Clark, Notes on the Gospel of Matthew)
Hebrew Matthew

13th. That, the Hebrew language was understood by none of the Christian Fathers, save Jerome and Origen, and that its study and knowledge continued dormant in the Church, till the era of the Reformation.

There were several Hebrew recensions, which Origen grouped together with the Greek translations in his Hexapla. Unfortunately, many of them, and the Hexapla itself, are lost.

"Origen, the Church Father, ordinarily used the Old Greek version of the Bible. But he, too, apparently assumed that his Greek Bible was translated from a Hebrew textual base that was the same as the rabbinical Hebrew text in current use in his day. Hence, in his monumental Hexapla he carefully corrected his Greek manuscripts to be the Hebraica veritas — incidentally, with catastrophic results for the subsequent transmission of the Greek Bible."
"--Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, p.180

 

[Ligurian]

Jesus never told his disciples to go forth and hand out Bibles--God does not need a Bible to reach a tree-worshipper or anyone else.

Of course Jesus didn't say hand out a Bible... because that would have been an anachronism. But He did say that we would believe on Him by the words given to His Galilean Disciples, which have been passed onto us by the Bible. (John 17:20) If you could have gotten any of this doctrine from thin air, Jesus wasted His time coming here for you.

Could you even know the Kingdom Gospel without a Bible? How would you know the context of what they call the Great Commission? Could you even keep Jesus' Commandments without knowing what they are? Would your ignorance of this law be your excuse for taking the mark of the beast?

Matthew 24:14 And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come.

Matthew 28:16-20 Then The Eleven Disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw Him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in Earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me.

para = a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local (especially beyond or opposed to) or causal (on account of):--above, against, among, at, before, by, contrary to, X friend, from, + give (such things as they), + that (she) had, X his, in, more than, nigh unto, (out) of, past, save, side...by, in the sight of, than, (there-)fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.

 

[Fervent]

The Catholic Church was thriving during the entire lifetime of Iraeneus.

Depends what you mean by "catholic church." If you mean the modern denomination that is headed by the bishop of Rome who calls himself the pope, then no it didn't. It's not even clear that Rome was a single episcopate during Iraeneus' lifetime. If, however, you mean the one church, holy, catholic, and apostolic then sure, but that church is not in institutions of men.

 

[Ligurian]

A couple of decades ago, there was a book called "Hebrew is Greek" by Joseph Yahuda. Five decades ago, the book "The Common Backgrounds of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations" was written by Cyrus Gordon. The first book was always expensive, and now that it's a rare book, it's trippled in price. The second seems to be calling the Ugaritic a semitic language.

"As already stated, the research of J. Yahuda restores part of a universal truth that has fallen into oblivion for millennia. Not only is the Hebrew language "Greek wearing a mask" (in other words, a distorted version of Greek), but, as we have announced at international conventions, there is no other language on the face of the earth except Greek. A few years ago, we made this statement at a convention of the Literary Society Parnassos, titled: "The Ecumenical Character of the Greek Language," where we used texts and images to prove this statement. All other languages are just descendants or distorted dialects of Greek, adopted by the peoples."
Hebrew is Greek - The 'blocked' book of Joseph Yahuda

It's all Greek, to me.

 

[Valletta]

There was no RCC when Iraeneus wrote, and there's nothing circular about their quotations. Eusebius and Iraeneus quoted the sources available to them independently, and while Papias is one of those primary sources he does not appear to be the only source. If we are going to dismiss every author that the RCC attempts to lay claim to that pretty much gives us no Christian authors prior to around 1000 AD when the East and West split and leaves us entirely reliant on critical authors.

Wrong. As I previously said, the Catholic Church was thriving at the time of Saint Iraeneus. In fact, Iraeneus is a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Iraeneus knew Polycarp, and Polycarp had personally been instructed by the Apostles. Here's what Iraeneus wrote:

"The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 4)

 

[Fervent]

Wrong. As I previously said, the Catholic Church was thriving at the time of Saint Iraeneus. In fact, Iraeneus is a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Iraeneus knew Polycarp, and Polycarp had personally been instructed by the Apostles. Here's what Iraeneus wrote:

"The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 4)

The trouble with quoting Ireneus here is if you understand the context you see he's denying one of the core claims of the Roman church. The tradition of the apostle's he is speaking of and defending is the open and public teachings of them found in their letters, with Polycarp and those in direct contact being used to affirm the trustworthiness of those document and deny the claim of the gnostics of an unwritten tradition. Certainly, when you add anachronistic details like capitalizing "Catholic Church" as if he's speaking of an institution when he's simiply speaking of the body of believers. Taking the argument out of context as you have is little more than distortion of Ireneus' words especially since he is presenting a hypothetical specifically to deny the claim of the gnostics. Understood appropriately, what he is saying is if there were a secret tradition it would be known to those who knew the apostle's but they deny such secret knowledge instead testifying to the authenticity and sufficiency of the public teachings. It's more a defense of Sola Scriptura than "holy tradition."

 

[Ligurian]

Wrong. As I previously said, the Catholic Church was thriving at the time of Saint Iraeneus. In fact, Iraeneus is a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Iraeneus knew Polycarp, and Polycarp had personally been instructed by the Apostles. Here's what Iraeneus wrote:

"The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 4)

Who else says Ireneas knew the guy who knew the Apostles? Do we have two witnesses with direct knowledge upon which a thing is established? Or does it all go back to Eusebius quoting scraps of something that was allowed to fall into dust? Church tradition needs proof.

And by the way... regarding that quote about thieves and robbers... the church is NOT the door of the sheep. That alone makes me skeptical about Ireneas.

Jesus calls Himself the door and says all who came before/above/in-front-of Him are robbers, and also lets us know that the enemy has sown tares among the wheat... So then, how do we know which "father" was planted by God? What they say must match what Jesus taught His Galilean Disciples... John 10 was said to the 12.
This teaching opportunity came right after the John 9:39-41 verses about the Pharisees who were made blind. Matthew 15:12-14
But Jesus' Galileans have been given to see the Kingdom of God in the parables, Matthew 13:11-16. And they used to live in the country of darkness.

15 γη Ζαβουλών και γη Νεφθαλείμ οδόν θαλάσσης πέραν του
Land of Zabulon, and land Nephthalim way of [the] sea, beyond the

Ιορδάνου Γαλιλαία των εθνών 16 ο λαός οκαθήμενος
Jordan, Galilee of the nations, the people which was sitting

εν σκότει είδε φως μέγα και τοις καθημένοις εν
in darkness has seen a light great, and to those which were sitting in [the]

χώρα και σκιά θανάτου φως ανέτειλεν αυτοίς 17 από
country and shadow of death, light has sprung up to them. From

τότε ήρξατο ο Ιησούς κηρύσσειν και λέγειν μετανοείτε
that time began Jesus to proclaim and to say, Repent;

ήγγικε.γαρ η βασιλεία των ουρανών
for has drawn near the kingdom of the heavens.
--Berry, Interlinear New Testament Matthew 4:15-17


Matthew 13:12-15 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Esaias 6:8-13 And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said, behold, I am here, send me. And he said, Go, and say to this people, 9 Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive. 10 For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
11 And I said, How long, O Lord? And he said, Until cities be deserted by reason of their not being inhabited, and the houses by reason of there being no men, and the land shall be left desolate. 12 And after this God shall remove the men far off, and they that are left upon the land shall be multiplied. 13 And yet there shall be a tenth upon it, and again it shall be for a spoil, as a turpentine tree, and as an acorn when it falls out of its husk.LXX

 

[Valletta]

The trouble with quoting Ireneus here is if you understand the context you see he's denying one of the core claims of the Roman church.

Irenaeus, first a Catholic priest and later a Catholic bishop, had a duty to speak out against the Roman Church and the Gnostics. Remember he lived in the Gaul area of the Roman Empire and would have been well aware of their pagan practices.

It's more a defense of Sola Scriptura than "holy tradition."

Sola Scriptura did not become established until more than a thousand years later. Realize that the Catholic Church did not finish compiling the Bible until the late 300s. Iranaeus has been credited as being one of the first to insist that the four Gospels be part of the New Testament.

 

[Valletta]

Who else says Ireneas knew the guy who knew the Apostles? Do we have two witnesses with direct knowledge upon which a thing is established? Or does it all go back to Eusebius quoting scraps of something that was allowed to fall into dust? Church tradition needs proof.

It doesn't sound like you've read the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
Here's a link to a 1990 English translation by J.B. Lightfoot:
The Martyrdom of Polycarp (Lightfoot translation)

 

[Ligurian]

"As already stated, the research of J. Yahuda restores part of a universal truth that has fallen into oblivion for millennia. Not only is the Hebrew language "Greek wearing a mask" (in other words, a distorted version of Greek), but, as we have announced at international conventions, there is no other language on the face of the earth except Greek. A few years ago, we made this statement at a convention of the Literary Society Parnassos, titled: "The Ecumenical Character of the Greek Language," where we used texts and images to prove this statement. All other languages are just descendants or distorted dialects of Greek, adopted by the peoples."
Hebrew is Greek - The 'blocked' book of Joseph Yahuda

It's all Greek, to me.

They say that the Pelasgians were the most ancient people, and they lived on the banks of the Hebrus River in Thrace before the Thracians came down from the north and displaced them.
Pelasgian is a language isolate... supposedly. But then, why would they try to learn what the Pelasgian/Minoan letters say? Would their findings ever get published? No one wants to talk about the work of a Jewish man saying that Hebrew is Greek with a mask. What gets buried peaks my interest, but it seems to have the opposite effect in the mind of the general public.

 

[Fervent]

Irenaeus, first a Catholic priest and later a Catholic bishop, had a duty to speak out against the Roman Church and the Gnostics. Remember he lived in the Gaul area of the Roman Empire and would have been well aware of their pagan practices.

Again, you're using an historically inaccurate lensing. In Irenaeus' day there were city churches but no overarching church structure. The institutional church primarily developed approximately a century later during the writings of Cyprian of Carthage. Irenaeus was the chief episcopate for Lyons, but these churches were primarily loose confederates operating independently not a single institutional body. The distinctives of the modern Roman Catholic church(especially the papacy) had not developed and would not develop for 200 years.

Sola Scriptura did not become established until more than a thousand years later. Realize that the Catholic Church did not finish compiling the Bible until the late 300s. Iranaeus has been credited as being one of the first to insist that the four Gospels be part of the New Testament.

The church did not compile the Bible, the Bible is a canonized document that was recognized not authorized by the presbyters. The Bible does not derive its authority from the church, and the church is not an authority over it. Understanding these early authors makes it clear that the historic practice has always been to look to the public writings of the apostles for final decisions., whether we call that sola scriptura or not. Irenaeus' argument unfolds in 3 parts and flatly denies the existence of a received "tradition" apart from what was made publically available in the letters of the apostles as that was essentially the position of the gnostics. First, he established the writings as the authority, then he considered the possibility of a secret tradition made known to an inner circle and discarded it due to the witness of those who were closest to the apostles(your quote comes from this section) and then he returns to pointing to the publically available teachings in the apostolic writings handed down. So it is far closer to a defense of sola scriptura, especially as the claim of an unwritten "Holy Tradition" is gnosticism repackaged and nothing more.

 

[Ligurian]

It doesn't sound like you've read the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
Here's a link to a 1990 English translation by J.B. Lightfoot:
The Martyrdom of Polycarp (Lightfoot translation)

Polycarp seems to be Paul's disciple.
Polycarp to the Philippians (Lightfoot translation)

John or Paul? Who Was Polycarp's Mentor?
"Each time Polycarp mentions Paul's name, he clusters quotations from and allusions to Paul around the mention of Paul's name.22 Polycarp does not refer to any other apostle by name.23 He connects with many of Paul's theological themes, particularly those that emerge in Paul's ethical teaching."

I follow the Gospel of the Kingdom taught by Jesus to His Galileans.

 

[Valletta]

The church did not compile the Bible, the Bible is a canonized document that was recognized not authorized by the presbyters. The Bible does not derive its authority from the church, and the church is not an authority over it.

Incorrect. While readings used at masses in the first century were similar, there were differences. The Church wanted only God-breathed text to be used for readings at mass and set out to determine what was God-breathed and what was not. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. This was not until 367 A.D. The 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. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. No Catholic Church--no Bible.

 

[Fervent]

Incorrect. While readings used at masses in the first century were similar, there were differences. The Church wanted only God-breathed text to be used for readings at mass and set out to determine what was God-breathed and what was not. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. This was not until 367 A.D. The 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. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. No Catholic Church--no Bible.

The only reason the books were approved was because they were already in practical use within the church in a variety of ways. Books that came close to canonization, such as the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache were excluded because despite their possible apostolic origins they had fallen into disuse within the church. The process of canonization was not that of an authority curating a collection of books from which to teach but an affirmation of official boundaries due to the influx of forgeries and pseudonymous works in the late 3rd through 4th centuries. Which is why earlier independent canons like the Peshita and the various Greek collections agree with the canonical books. The church got its authority from the books, not the books from the church.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Irenaeus' day there were city churches but no overarching church structure

Whereas that was true of the first century, by the second century we see from St. Ignatius there was one bishop per city, and inngeneral we can discern the archepiscopal triad described by Canon VI of Nicaea, which by the way directly refutes later claims to Roman papal supremacy but rather shows that the Roman Archbishop was Primus Inter Pares, with the other Archbishops being that of Alexandria (the first to be called Pope, in the 230s) and the future Patriarch of Antioch. In the fourth century, the restoration of Jerusalem meant its autocephalous, or independent status, was restored (as indicated by canon VII of Nicaea), and by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, Constantinople had become either second to or equal in honor to Rome, depending on whether or not one was talking to a Constantinopolitan. And Cyprus was also always an autocephalous archepiscopate.

 

[Fervent]

Whereas that was true of the first century, by the second century we see from St. Ignatius there was one bishop per city, and inngeneral we can discern the archepiscopal triad described by Canon VI of Nicaea, which by the way directly refutes later claims to Roman papal supremacy but rather shows that the Roman Archbishop was Primus Inter Pares, with the other Archbishops being that of Alexandria (the first to be called Pope, in the 230s) and the future Patriarch of Antioch. In the fourth century, the restoration of Jerusalem meant its autocephalous, or independent status, was restored (as indicated by canon VII of Nicaea), and by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, Constantinople had become either second to or equal in honor to Rome, depending on whether or not one was talking to a Constantinopolitan. And Cyprus was also always an autocephalous archepiscopate.

That level of detail requires too much reconstruction to definitively say, though it is true that the institutional structures developed quickly even after the vast majority of local bodies had gone to single episcopates "the church" didn't really adhere to a centralized structure until Constantine gave the Christian church an official status and a lot of the structuring came from the bureaucracy of the state religion especially as previous officials converted in order to maintain official positions.

 

[Ligurian]

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. No Catholic Church--no Bible.

Why did Jerome compile the various Latin translations of the Greek LXX? Didn't it matter to the RCC which translation was used in their Canon Law? Are all translations considered God-breathed? How did Jerome make the judgment of which Latin translation texts to use? Didn't the RCC have final say in his selection? Was a common Latin translation needed because the Roman Empire had followed the Macedonian-Greek? Aren't there also Egyptian MSS called Coptic? An Assyrian bible MS called Aramaic? The Babylonian Talmud... does that fit? Is there a Persian Farsi bible?

Can you trace the 7-kings by those Bible-translations? Because all of Revelation is a letter written to the 7 churches Revelation 22:16 of Asia... the western shore of "Anatolia"(= east).

Revelation 17:10-11 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is; the other is not yet come. And when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

1.Egypt, 2.Assyria, 3.Babylon, 4.Medo-Persia, 5.Greece 6.Roman Empire...
Holy Roman Empire--Charlemagne, Byzantine Empire--Constantine.
Holy Roman Empire | Map, Definition, History, Capital, & Significance
Byzantine Empire | History, Geography, Maps, & Facts
Rome and Constantinople have 7-hills, and so does Jerusalem.
Who rules the kings of the Earth? which is the merchant-kingdom?