Roman Catholics often say that it was their church that gave us the Bible. They sometimes claim this when defending their "Sacred Tradition" so that they might support extra-biblical teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship. They often say the only way the Christian church knew what books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture was because it was revealed by word-of-mouth in the early church; that is, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, this argument implies that tradition is superior to Scripture. Of course, we are not saying that the Roman Catholic church teaches that tradition is above Scripture. But when Sacred Tradition is claimed to be the thing by which Scripture is given, then tradition is inadvertently the thing that gives blessing and approval to the Bible. Heb. 7:7 says, "But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater." The unfortunate psychological effect of saying that Roman Catholic tradition is what gave us the Bible, is that it elevates their tradition to a level far greater than what is permitted in Scripture. In fact, it is contradicted by scripture:

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other," (1 Cor. 4:6).
The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God, to not go beyond the written Word, so that we might not make mistakes in what is true. Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of it's non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works of righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God's Word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me, " (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.

Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God," (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

Conclusion

The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27). The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. This is very important. The Christian Church recognizes what God has ordained through his sovereign inspiration to be the word of God. When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God. It needs to repent.

The article quoted extensively in an older thread should also be relevant for those interested. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-645892.0.html

@frosbel


it is too late 4 u to change history.While some scriptures had existed prior to the advent of the catholic church,every student of history knows the catholics decided the books today regarded as christian scripture.The entire gospels,acts and the letter 2 d hebrews are all anonymous ,their authourship were derived from this same catholic tradition you so despise.


I will ppardon ur ignorance since you are unaware that they were about 18 gospels and several other books which claimed divine authourship.

The synod of hippo in 393 CE with the council of carthage held in 397CE decided the christian canon.


By the second century CE there were differant christian sects with differant writings each purpoting theirs to be scripture.The fact remains that the catholc canon eventually prevailed and is today regarded as scripture

The likes of marcion arguably the greatest heretic in christian history was the first to compose a christian canon.Today his sect has gone into oblivion wihile catholicism flourishes and his heretical canon is discarded

Here is a short history of the Bible.

1. Old Testament

The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no "church" of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God's word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.

2. The Inter-Testamental Period

The time between about 400 BC and about 5 BC is usually called the Years of Prophetic Silence. This is because God created a process that lasted 400 years to create a world climate ready for the coming of the promised Messiah. There was no "church" at this time, either. But there was the new creation of the "synagogue," since the Jewish people needed to worship God and did not have the Temple when they were in exile. When many came back 400-500 BC, they already had functional synagogues; and even though the Temple was being rebuilt by those returning from exile, the synagogue idea remained and more were built. This was the beginning of the "congregation" or "church" as we have it today.

But there was no Scripture being written during this period. That was yet to come after one came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17).

3. The Time of Christ

It is likely that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector and later disciple of Jesus took notes of what happened during Jesus' ministry. However, it is also true that were God in the flesh living among you, His words would burn into your soul. I am sure, as the apostles clearly recollected as they wrote the New Testament (2 Peter 1:16-21; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14), they could not escape the image and words of Jesus Christ, God the Son and Son of God, when He spoke into their hearts (Luke 9:44; 24:32).

But it wasn't a "church" that made them write.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.



And

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.



God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not "inspire" anything.

4. The Church Age

When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."

There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians. Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures--they were not Scripture themselves. Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were "Lutherans" today, learning of God's word only what they find in Martin Luther's writings. Interesting writing, at times "inspirational" writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God's Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction. Now, 120 years after the switch from God's Word to devil's lies (the King James abandoned for the Alexandrian texts), while pretending to "improve" our copies of God's words, they really set up the abandonment of God's words. Now almost every Bible in the English-speaking world (and most other languages) is just another re-translation of the Alexandrian polluted stream.

Another way to view it is that the Scriptures as we find them preserved in the King James is like God's fountain ,

Jeremiah 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.



And that's the point: The bible spewed out by the Catholic church, which now almost all Protestants and other Christians use, ,  simply doesn't hold water.


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjb_from_catholics.htm

@chukwudi44,  While we agree that the Catholic church had a bible during the centuries gone by , why was it only in LATIN, such that the illiterate people of the middle ages could not understand and had to rely on their priests for interpretation ?

As Catholic Bible = Latin ONLY , so Islam Koran = ARABIC.

2 Similar religions.


Why where the reformers butchered by the church for wanting to translate the bible into English

Do you know that the bibles we use today have absolutely NOTHING to do with the catholic church bible, they were translated DIRECT from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Let is revisit history and see what happened to some reformers , who dared translate the Roman Catholic Latin bible into English.


Tyndale Killed by the Catholic church

In 1535, Tyndale was arrested by church authorities and jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year. He was tried for heresy, strangled and burnt at the stake in 1536. The Tyndale Bible, as it was known, continued to play a key role in spreading Reformation ideas across Europe. The fifty-four independent scholars who created the King James Version of the bible in 1611 drew significantly on Tyndale's translations. One estimation suggests the New Testament in the King James Version is 83% Tyndale's, and the Old Testament 76%.[2]




John Wycliffe persecuted by the catholic church until his death


The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!



John Hus Killed by the Catholic church

John Hus (a.k.a. Jan Huss) was a religious thinker and reformer, born in Southern Bohemia in 1369. He initiated a reform movement based on the ideas of John Wycliffe. His followers became known as Hussites. The Catholic Church did not condone such uprisings, and Hus was excommunicated in 1411 and burned at the stake in Constance on July 6, 1415, having been condemned by the Council of Constance, in an unfair trial.[/b]


The catholic church is NOT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, it is AN IMPOSTER.

@frosbel


ol boy you no fit read? Cant you read I posted .doing copy and paste with the works of the like of Jack chick would not help you.

That thrash you posted I read it online over 2 yrs ago.

I ve never claimed catholics wrote genesis or any other OT books so your your first post is irrelevant.

My point is this The collection of books today called the bible did not exist until the fourth century.Prior to that scriptures had existed as seperate books rather than a collection of books called the bible.

By the second century CE myriads of writings purpoting to be scripture.There were gospels ascribed to peer,mary magdalene.e.t.c

It all came down to the authourity of the catholic church to sieve out and canonise the authentic gospels.It is noteworthy to know that the entire canonised gospels were anonymous.St ireneaus it was in the second century in his great work 'against the heretics' written n 180 CE who listed these four gospels as the authentic gospels.
as in the second century in his great work 'against the heretics' written n 180 CE who listed these four gospels as the authentic gospels.

^^^


Jack Chick

These are excerpts of history from reliable sources not Jack Chick.

Let me tell you as a former catholic, you are just behaving like the Muslims , digging yourself into a pit of lies !!!!

Repent before it is too late .

your ignorance of biblical history really amazes me for someone who is out to 'save' the roman catholics.

How on earth could you claim the catholic bible existed only iin latin language.

Let me do a brief history of the bible for you.


The books of the bible were originally written in three main languages hebrew,aramaic and koine greek.While the OT was partly in hebrew/aramaic ,the new T was entirely written in koine greek with the only exception of mattew which had earlier being written in hebrew.

Now to the history of the translation.2

The first translation of the scriptures was in 272 BCE and was refered to as the septuagint.it was the translation of hebrew scriptures into greek.it was done by 70 jewish scholars @ the instance of ptolemy of egypt.


The second biblical translation was done by St Jerome @ the instance of Pope damasus1.it was refered to as the latin vulgate.It was also d first full translation of the bible.

Following d conquest of the world by alexander d great n d roman empire.most of the known world were using latin n greek as their main means of communication.By the fiorst few cenuries CE everyone in europe who coul read were familiar with this 2 languages.Thats why even the apostles wrote in greek and didn' even bother translating.

So contrary to your assertion,the catholic scripures had existed in latin,greek,hebrew and aramaic languages
The secondlatin n greek as their main means of communication.By the fiorst few cenuries CE everyone in europe who coul read were familiar with this 2 languages.Thats why even the apostles wrote in greek and didn' even bother translating.

So contrary to your assertion,the catholic scripures had existed in latin,greek,hebrew and aramaic languages
The second

@frosbel

why dont you post the links to your reliable historical sources.You go and copy and paste thrash from anti catholic websites and claim there are historical sources.

FYI i ve googled several anti catholic websites on my own and read up their articles.so this thrash you r just regurgitating is not new 2 me.


On your last statement ,is is not puerile you are resorting to the threat of hell to convince me.I want to be convinced by facts brought up by strong intellectual arguments.so my guy briong it on.On an uneducated man convinced 3000 people in one day.IN the past few weeks you have posted tens of thread about catholics without really convincing anyone,why is that?may be because your posts are so shallow.come on man you can do better than that really convincing anyone,why is that?may be because your posts are so shallow.come on man you can do better than that

@chukwudi44

why dont you post the links to your reliable historical sources.You go and copy and paste thrash from anti catholic websites and claim there are historical sources.

FYI i ve googled several anti catholic websites on my own and read up their articles.so this thrash you r just regurgitating is not new 2 me.

As a former catholic, I do not need to read up articles, I simply post articles that expose the truth about your false religion of which I was once a deceived member,

On your last statement ,is is not puerile you are resorting to the threat of hell to convince me.I want to be convinced by facts brought up by strong intellectual arguments.so my guy briong it on.

Where did I mention hell ?? By the way do you believe in Purgatory ?

On an uneducated man convinced 3000 people in one day.

And that man was not the first POPE. Peter was a married man.  Oh the lies of the Romans.

IN the past few weeks you have posted tens of thread about catholics without really convincing anyone,why is that?may be because your posts are so shallow.come on man you can do better than that really convincing anyone,why is that?may be because your posts are so shallow.come on man you can do better than that

And how are you sure that my articles are not having an impact on people !  Just because people keep mute, does not necessarily indicate a lack of interest.

Albeit it most likely depicts a gradual awakening to the truth about the monsters of Islam, Catholicosm and the prosperity gospel , which have held the souls of billions in chains of darkness.

I will keep posting, even if 1 person reads , I am fine with it.

I am not here to start a church or gain followers  , my purpose is simple, reveal and debate the TRUTH and do it amicably.
[quote][/quote]

chukwudi44:

@frosbel


it is too late 4 u to change history.While some scriptures had existed prior to the advent of the catholic church,every student of history knows the catholics decided the books today regarded as christian scripture.The entire gospels,acts and the letter 2 d hebrews are all anonymous ,their authourship were derived from this same catholic tradition you so despise.


I will ppardon your ignorance since you are unaware that they were about 18 gospels and several other books which claimed divine authourship.

u have said it all. need I add more?

@ frosbel,
may the Blessed Virgin Mary have compassion on you and save you from your pentecostal overlords.

bulDozer:

u have said it all. need I add more?

@ frosbel,
may the Blessed Virgin Mary have compassion on you and save you from your pentecostal overlords.

Here we have it again for ALL to see that you do not worship Jesus but Mary.

I will rephrase your comment so say , May the blessed SON of the Living GOD , Jesus Christ have compassion on you and save you from the false catholic church. Amen to that.