Where did we get The Bible? - A IN-DEPTH STUDY

[BreadOfLife]

I can't have an obsession with genitalia because I do not think it matters.
It is the Catholic Church that is obsessed with virginity and crotch qualifications.
Spiritual Level? Is spiritualism based on crotch sniffing?

Again why do think that females should not be priests?

No - it's because you're a pervert and you only have the capacity to think on a carnal level.

 

[Grailhunter]

Because Jesus didn't choose any women to lead in His Church.
It's that simple.

No churches! He could not give them a special parking spot.
And Yeshua did not denounce slavery or polygamy....should we continue on with that?
And Yeshua did not say we should have wedding ceremonies….should we stop having wedding ceremonies?

 

[Grailhunter]

No - it's because you're a pervert and you only have the capacity to think on a carnal level.

Do you know what happened when the priests looked for the devil's mark on a naked woman.

Carnal?! I am saying that the genitals have nothing to do with it.

It is the Catholic Church that has the obsession with the holy crotch thing.

Do you think that women are second rate Christians because they have a vagina?

Do you think they should not be priests because they have a vagina?

How about your mother….is she a second rate Christian because she has a vagina?

 

[Titus]

If it wasn't for these MEN- YOU would NOT even know who Jesus is.

You just proved you have no faith in Gods word,

Matthew 16:18-19,
- I(Jesus) will build My(Jesus) church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Nothing can stop the good news it will never be destroyed!!!

As long as God allows mankind to go on living. His word will go on being proclaimed!

No one can stop Gods sovereign will!

1Peter 1:24,
- because All flesh is as grass
And the glory of man as the flower of grass
The grass withers
And its flower falls away
But the word of the Lord endures forever

 

[Titus]

these MEN were CATHOLIC

Uninspired heretics

 

[Athanasius377]

Can you give me a list of "spurious books" that the church "added"?

Sure,
-1-2 Maccabees. (3 and 4 Macc were rescinded by later canonical lists prior to Trent)
-1-4 Esdras. (same deal here)
-Tobit
-Wisdom of Solomon
-Baruch
-Additions to Daniel (Song of the three children, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna)
-Ecclesiasticus
-Epistle of Jeremiah
-Judith
-Additions to Esther
-Prayer of Manasseh
-Psalm 151

At no point were these books ever considered canonical by the Jews. They were never included in the traditional 22 book listed by ancient Jewish writers and were never laid up in the Temple. Nor did they make one's hands unclean.

Roger Beckwith observes:

Accordingly, in chapter two the developing concept of Scripture, beginning in the Old Testament itself, was traced, attention being drawn to the importance of sacred collections at shrines, especially at the Jerusalem Temple. Then the evidence about particular books of Scripture was assembled, and it was found that, at least from the second century bc onwards, and down to the first century ad, there is a mass of remarkably uniform evidence for the scriptural status of most of the books belonging to the present Hebrew Bible.

Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (p. 435). SPCK.

 

[Athanasius377]

There is NO such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church".
It is just the "Catholic Church."

I agree. There is just the catholic church.

"Roman" (Latin) refers to ONE of about TWENTY Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church.
There are Melkite Catholics, Maronites, Byzantines, Coptics and several others - and we are ALL in full communion.

This is the Roman church. All are in submission to the Roman Pontiff are they not?

It is the very SAME Catholic Church that first century Bishop and lifelong student of the Apostle John, Ignatius of Antioch wrote about right before his martyrdom in 107AD.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

It is the catholic church but he is not a member of a church that won't appear for centuries (ca 700 to 1000 Ad) to come.

But since you brought up Ignatius of Antioch let's take a looksy;

First. lets talk about church offices. Lets start with what the Bible has to say about the matter.


This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Tt 1:5–9). (2016). Crossway Bibles.


The words I have bolded are the Greek words πρεσβύτερος or presbyteros and ἐπίσκοπος or episkapos where we get the word for bishop. The two offices are interchangeable according to Paul. The idea of a monarchial bishop was unknown in the early church so reading the modern Roman idea back into this time is incredibly anachronistic. Historically, there are only two different offices listed that of διάκονος or diakonos where we get the word for Deacon, and ἐπίσκοπος sometimes referred to as πρεσβύτερος.



See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper20 Eucharist, which is [administered] either p 90 by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.


Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 89–90). Christian Literature Company.

The word that your translation used for πρεσβυτερίῳ is clergy but the better translation would be presbytery or group of elders. You see, the bishop or episkapos is just one of the elders in church. I included the original Greek text if you would like to look it up for yourself.


Τοὺς δὲ μερισμοὺς φεύγετε, ὡς ἀρχὴν κακῶν. Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ Πατρί· καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις· τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἐντολήν. Μηδεὶς χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τὶ πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα, ἢ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψῃ. Ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς [Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.] Οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν, οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν· ἀλλʼ ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος δοκιμάσῃ, τοῦτο καὶ τῷ Θεῷ εὐάρεστον, ἵνʼ ἀσφαλὲς ᾖ καὶ βέβαιον πᾶν ὃ πράσσεται.

Ignatius of Antioch. (1849). Corpus Ignatianum: Greek Text, Middle Recension (W. Cureton, Trans.; p. 109). Asher and Co.


So you see that text doesn't really help you as you could easily say "Pastor" instead of bishop. The bishop in this case is not in charge or a diocese as the Roman Empire had yet to experience the Diocletian reforms (fourth centuty AD). He's a pastor or elder or overseer (one of several) in the local church. That is why your use of Ignatius is improper and anachronistic.

A.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Christ identifies as one with His Church. Recall Acts 9:4, where Jesus knocked Saul (Paul's Hebrew name) off his horse as he was going about persecuting Christians.

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?

Note that Jesus didn't say, "..why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was, but, "...why are you persecuting Me?" Persecute Christ's Church, and you persecute Christ!

Further, look at Luke 10:16, that says,

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles, the first hierarchy of His Church. If you listen to His Church, you listen to Christ.

The Catholic Church is not a mere man-made institution like the other Christian groups. It is a Divine, living entity, with Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its soul. It was founded by God (Jesus), Who promised that it would never teach doctrinal error, and would still be here at the end.

All that aside, with regard to Judgement Day, take a look at Matt. 25:31-46 to see what Christ's criteria will be for those going to heaven or hell.

Here's a snippet:
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

The focus isn't how much you know, but how much you followed God's will, in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. And if you go off on a tangent, making up your own rules, and trying to better Christ's message that He gave mankind through His Church, then you're inevitably going to miss the mark.

So, that Multitude of speech informs me of the "knowledge" that 'the church" is the final authority of
my salvation? I thought so - only problem with that is, I am:

"Looking unto JESUS The Author and Finisher of my faith; who for the joy that​

was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at​

the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2)​

This may also be of interest of why I do not follow "the church," But The Final Authority Of
God's Sound Doctrine, Found In Scripture, Which I do not disobey, and "think above" It!:

@St. SteVen asks "who decides" and @amadeus answers "the individual between them and God"

in: I have decided to follow Jesus?

Amen.

 

[Athanasius377]

Trent closed the Canon - it's didn't "decide" it.

So you can't find it either. I didn't think you could even if I spotted you the text.

Your Protestant Fathers had removed 7 Books and portions of Daniel and Esther from the Old Testament. Some, like Luther and Calvin were even considering removing some New Testament Books like James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Had it not been for the pleading of contemporaries like Philip Melanchton – YOUR Protestant Bible would be a LOT thinner.

Thee NT books you are referring to were 2 peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. These were books that were spoken against in the early church or antilegomena. These books were in the ancient church not as well known or thought to be of unknown authorship. Eusebius tells us about these books:



Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,9 saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.



Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, pp. 134–135). Christian Literature Company.

Hebrews was spoken against by the church in Rome. Ironic isn't it?

There's more but here's a brief summary:

Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized8 by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude,10 also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John,12 whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.


4 Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul,14 and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter,16 and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;18 and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.20



Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 156). Christian Literature Company

These disputes regarding these books continued right up to the sixteenth century. Furthermore, Luther wasn't the only person who had concerns about these books even some leading Romish scholars at the time expressed the same concerns. These concerns were in fact based on the historical record. Luther also did not "delete" the apocryphal books from his translation of the Bible. They were included and even read from in public worship though they were not to be considered inspired.

A.

 

[St. SteVen]

@St. SteVen asks "who decides" and @amadeus answers "the individual between them and God"

If I remember correctly, this was the conclusion to a discussion about who's doctrine, or understanding of the Bible is "true".
Since there is no consensus, I asked, "who decides?"
@amadeus answered, "the individual between them and God." (emphasis yours)

This serves to confirm my statement about the lack of consensus.
How then is "the Word of God" handled correctly?
What is "correctly", when there is no consensus?
The question stands. IMHO "who decides?"

 

[face2face]

If I remember correctly, this was the conclusion to a discussion about who's doctrine, or understanding of the Bible is "true".
Since there is no consensus, I asked, "who decides?"
@amadeus answered, "the individual between them and God." (emphasis yours)

This serves to confirm my statement about the lack of consensus.
How then is "the Word of God" handled correctly?
What is "correctly", when there is no consensus?
The question stands. IMHO "who decides?"

St SteVen,
This is a challenging thought, well done!
I perceive you would believe there to be truth, and from the Heavenly perspective it would be futile to argue against such a reality.
I am reminded of these words of the Lord.

The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

I personally believe there is an orginal Gospel which is found in the Lords Words and subsequently in the Apostles God choose to teach them. This original Gospel is difficult to find and requires somewhat of a skeptical mind, given the Scripture has had mens hands all over it for many 100's of years.

Understanding this, I perceive there are degrees of truth - from absolute error, to a mix of truth and error to total truth.

Ultimately this all will be resolved at his return.

F2F

 

[amadeus]

So, that Multitude of speech informs me of the "knowledge" that 'the church" is the final authority of
my salvation? I thought so - only problem with that is, I am:

"Looking unto JESUS The Author and Finisher of my faith; who for the joy that​

was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at​

the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2)​

This may also be of interest of why I do not follow "the church," But The Final Authority Of
God's Sound Doctrine, Found In Scripture, Which I do not disobey, and "think above" It!:

@St. SteVen asks "who decides" and @amadeus answers "the individual between them and God"

in: I have decided to follow Jesus?

Amen.

 

[amadeus]

If I remember correctly, this was the conclusion to a discussion about who's doctrine, or understanding of the Bible is "true".
Since there is no consensus, I asked, "who decides?"
@amadeus answered, "the individual between them and God." (emphasis yours)

This serves to confirm my statement about the lack of consensus.
How then is "the Word of God" handled correctly?
What is "correctly", when there is no consensus?
The question stands. IMHO "who decides?"

No matter what the individual or group answer here is, ultimately is it not what God states which finally holds the sway? Who is seeking His face and who is listening to and obeying His Word?

What is His Face and what is His Word? Who has eyes to see and ears to hear? Many may claim to have both while having nothing at all.

Ps 27:8

When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.

Ps 56:10

In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.

Ps 119:11

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Ps 119:105

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

1co 13:12

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

[Augustin56]

So, that Multitude of speech informs me of the "knowledge" that 'the church" is the final authority of
my salvation? I thought so - only problem with that is, I am:

"Looking unto JESUS The Author and Finisher of my faith; who for the joy that​

was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at​

the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2)​

This may also be of interest of why I do not follow "the church," But The Final Authority Of
God's Sound Doctrine, Found In Scripture, Which I do not disobey, and "think above" It!:

@St. SteVen asks "who decides" and @amadeus answers "the individual between them and God"

in: I have decided to follow Jesus?

Amen.

Ah, Grace. So, in your opinion, Christ created a Church for nothing, and just left it to each individual to create his/her own theology?

Look at Luke 10:16, that says

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Context: To whom was Jesus talking? The Apostles! The first members of the hierarchy of His Church!

Jesus is, indeed the "author" of the faith. But how did He desire to spread the faith? Through His Church! He never wrote a book. That would have been silly, anyway, since the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until the latest 100 years or so of history. And even then, the Bible, compiled by the Catholic Church, was never meant to be a do-it-yourself kit for anyone to use to make up their own doctrines. It was always intended to be a tool of the Church, to be read in context of the teachings of the Church.

The Bible says that not everything Jesus did and taught is in the Bible. John 21:25

And, yet, Jesus commanded the first hierarchy of the Church, the Apostles, to go forth and teach all that He had taught them. Matt. 28:20

So if all is to be taught, and all is not in the Bible? Where's the rest?! In Oral Tradition (aka Holy Tradition) as mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Thes 2:15. It is from Oral Tradition that Written Tradition (Scripture) was taken. Some of what was orally taught was written down.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Uninspired heretics

As I said before –

Without them – YOU wouldn’t even know who Jesus is.
You wouldn’t even have a Bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No churches! He could not give them a special parking spot.
And Yeshua did not denounce slavery or polygamy....should we continue on with that?
And Yeshua did not say we should have wedding ceremonies….should we stop having wedding ceremonies?

WRONG.

The Jewish wedding ceremony is ancient and is written about in the Talmud. It involves prayer, wine, ceremonial reading of the Ketubah (Marriage contract) and a gift of money to the Bride. Rings weren’t introduced until the Medieval period.

As for what Jesus didn’t mention – he didn’t mention eating spaghetti or pizza.
Should we NOT eat spaghetti or pizza??

He doesn’t mention driving a car or flying in a plane. Should we avoid those things?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do you know what happened when the priests looked for the devil's mark on a naked woman.

Carnal?! I am saying that the genitals have nothing to do with it.

It is the Catholic Church that has the obsession with the holy crotch thing.

Do you think that women are second rate Christians because they have a vagina?

Do you think they should not be priests because they have a vagina?

How about your mother….is she a second rate Christian because she has a vagina?

I already explained to you WHY women can’t be priests – and genitalia has nothing to do with it.

Yours is a carnal fixation that can only be eradicated by the Holy Spirit.
You might want to seek help with your obvious sexual addictions . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You just proved you have no faith in Gods word,

Matthew 16:18-19,
- I(Jesus) will build My(Jesus) church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Nothing can stop the good news from being destroyed!!!

As long as God allows mankind to go on living. His word will go on being proclaimed!

No one can stop Gods sovereign will!

1Peter 1:24,
- because All flesh is as grass
And the glory of man as the flower of grass
The grass withers
And its flower falls away
But the word of the Lord endures forever

And WHO do you think God used to deliver the Gospel through the centuries of persecution, Einstein?

The Early Church Fathers - who were CATHOLIC.

 

[Grailhunter]

WRONG.

The Jewish wedding ceremony is ancient and is written about in the Talmud. It involves prayer, wine, ceremonial reading of the Ketubah (Marriage contract) and a gift of money to the Bride. Rings weren’t introduced until the Medieval period.

As for what Jesus didn’t mention – he didn’t mention eating spaghetti or pizza.
Should we NOT eat spaghetti or pizza??

He doesn’t mention driving a car or flying in a plane. Should we avoid those things?

Did not say that the Jews did not have a process for marriage.

The Jews definitely had a contract because it was about the tranfer of property....namely women.

The Hebrew language did not have a word for wedding, so try to produce that Old Testament scripture.

When do you think the Talmud was written? And which one?

Provide the description of a wedding ceremony in the Talmud....just for fun.

Find a requirement in the Old or New Testament for a wedding ceremony to be married.

 

[Grailhunter]

I already explained to you WHY women can’t be priests – and genitalia has nothing to do with it.

Why can't they be priests? What would be wrong with it?

What is the difference between a man and a woman that makes a difference?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28