The Bible Is A Catholic Book

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,982.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Last edited:

8484838

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 27, 2017
1,530
1,627
28
.
✟480,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
Perhaps the protestant would agree with you. As neither catholic nor protestant, I simply believe that God through the working of the Holy Spirit is able to preserve his perfect word. A council full of fallible men doesn't change the infallibility of God. You trust in men, that they "had common sense." I trust in God, that all things work according to his will.

And you will say, "I just said I believe the Holy Spirit worked to bring about the Bible as it is today," but not really. You think that these men were able to determine what was genuine based on tradition, not from any influence of the Spirit. God alone authors his word; not men through tradition, common sense, or any other vanity of mind. God alone is the only One who could have determined what books would be compiled as scripture.
 
Upvote 0

rockytopva

Love to pray! :)
Supporter
Mar 6, 2011
20,039
7,665
.
Visit site
✟1,056,468.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
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.

I believe the times have produced seven general church congregations ...

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

There are churches such as the Orthodox Church that have seniority over the Catholics.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Up until the 6th century, there was no such thing as the “Bible” nor was there any distinction of church denominations. So the bible, the church, and the members were all one.

Then came division.

They became different branches stemming from the same root. The same bible, the same church fathers, the same members of Christ. Different denominations.

But catholic or protestant, they all have the same roots.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,787
Pacific Northwest
✟728,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The problem is the OP's presumption that "Catholic" is somehow the unique possession of those churches which are in communion with the See of Rome.

Yes, the Biblical Canon is the result of the Church's reception of certain books and the consensus of the catholic faith of the Church throughout history.

But Rome doesn't have a monopoly on the Church's catholicity.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
"The bible is a Catholic book."

I hear that it is an Orthodox book too. :liturgy:

Seriously though, the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until the 11th century. It is only fair if you say that Protestantism didn't exist until the 16th century.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"The bible is a Catholic book."

I hear that it is an Orthodox book too. :liturgy:

Seriously though, the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until the 11th century. It is only fair if you say that Protestantism didn't exist until the 16th century.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,947
11,699
Neath
✟1,002,593.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
"The bible is a Catholic book."

I hear that it is an Orthodox book too. :liturgy:

Seriously though, the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until the 11th century. It is only fair if you say that Protestantism didn't exist until the 16th century.

The Pope goes all the way back to Peter.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.

It was the geographical, political, and theological sway and sphere of influence by which Rome was look up to than the East, and I don't blame the eastern churches for their concerns over this issue during those theological turbulent times. However, the "original" church began in Jerusalem before Alexandria, Antioch, etc.

The term apostolic means very differently to the Roman Catholic Church than it did before the 6th century.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It was the geographical, political, and theological sway and sphere of influence by which Rome was look up to than the East, and I don't blame the eastern churches for their concerns over this issue during those theological turbulent times. However, the "original" church began in Jerusalem before Alexandria, Antioch, etc.

The term apostolic means very differently to the Roman Catholic Church than it did before the 6th century.
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.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How many other metropolises claimed such apostolic succession?
The succession is there, friend, for every one. For Antioch, Alexandria, etc. They all validly do have Apostolic Succession. The difficulty lies in how we do or do not see the role of the Bishop of Rome as Peter's successor.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: charsan
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,191
4,204
Wyoming
✟122,609.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.

I don't believe that is true. The idea or conception of a Pontifex Maximus is not understood in the east, it is clearly made up.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rockytopva

Love to pray! :)
Supporter
Mar 6, 2011
20,039
7,665
.
Visit site
✟1,056,468.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
I believe the times have produced seven general church congregations ...

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

There are churches such as the Orthodox Church that have seniority over the Catholics.

The Catholic church is indeed a Christian church... But will find she will have company in that last day!

Candlesticks - Seven church congregations
Stars - Individuals within the congregations, all held in the right hand of Christ
Seals - The seven seals sealed each congregation within the lambs book of life

And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. - Revelation 5:4

If this interpretation is not correct why all the ado?

sevenages_zps36af611f.png
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums