The Catholic Church claims it created the Bible.

Assuming that is true, what criteria do you think they based their belief on to make those choices? a- The Holy spirit dictated to them

b- The Holy Spirit gave them a list

c- Jesus appeared and gave them a list

d- Jesus pointed out which books were true and holy

e- Peter came ans said to his church which books to choose.

f-Paul, as the Apostle to the gentiles came to Rome agan to show them the true books

- It was a political decision

- It way my way of the highway.

- It was because so and so said so.

- A response to heresy.

(Any combination of the above or none of the above).

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004

Answers

Check out this link:

The Roman Catholic Church did not give the world the Bible!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 18, 2004.

I think we have to give the Catholic Church major credit in compiling, editing and deciding which scriptures ultimately evolved into the NT. It was an ongoing process effeced by the many early community beliefs, that eventually became "heresies" by those who won the theological battles. The Catholic answer is that the Holy Spirit lead the early Church to reach correct decissions, and continues to lead it to correct interpretation.

As far as we know, Jesus was not around when they gospels were actually being compiled so it would have to be the Holy Spirit.

My personal flawed view brings me to the belief that many componants of the "laundry list" compiled above by Elpidio had a major influence on what has come down to us as the NT canon today.

THis leads me to one of my own difficulties when discussing Church/religious history. What is the correct way to approach these questions? From a basis in Faith i.e. The Holy Spirit?... or... Scholastically based history ie, The Jesus Seminar, Crossan, Pagels, Spong, Eisenamnn, etc?

If you are a religious person, at some level I think we can do it both ways, as long as we don't confuse the two. I would have tremendous difficulty throwing away all we know about Church history, gnosticism, Nag Hamadi, apocrypha, etc. I think we can use it all, and still understand concepts of faith and the Holy Spirit.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), May 18, 2004.

One thing is true: as the Muratorian Fragment attests, most of the new Testament books had been already classified as Canonical by 180 AD, before any Church councils of the 3rd, and 4th centruries pronounced them good.

councils of the church played little part in the canonization of scripture

Yes and no. Councils only defined the canon in its final form: from 397 AD to Trent in 1572 in the catholic Church as to what books are in the New and those in the Old testaments.

The Protestants folow Jerome's logic as to the Hebrew canon. He preferred the Hebrew as opposed to the Greek Septuagint when translating into Latin that even Augustine got so upset that told him not to do it. It is in one of the letters of Augustine adressed to Jerome.

-- Elpidi Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Here is the translation from the Muratorian Canon: Muratorian canon

Excerpt: Roberts-Donaldson Translation: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5 III.-Canon Muratorianus.22 (In Muratori, V. C. Antiq. Ital. Med. oev., vol. iii. col. 854.)

I. ...those things at which he was present he placed thus.23 The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name24 in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself25 as one studious of right.26 Nor did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and he, according as he was able to accomplish it, began27 his narrative with the nativity of John. The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, "Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us." On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind.28 And hence, although different points29 are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit,30 which concern the Lord's nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,-the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future. What marvel is it, then, that John brings forward these several things31 so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, "What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that have we written."32 For thus he professes himself to be not only the eye- witness, but also the hearer; and besides that, the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the Lord in their order.

2. Moreover, the Acts of all the Apostles are comprised by Luke in one book, and addressed to the most excellent Theophilus, because these different events took place when he was present himself; and he shows this clearly-i.e., that the principle on which he wrote was, to give only what fell under his own notice-by the omission33 of the passion of Peter, and also of the journey of Paul, when he went from the city-Rome-to Spain.

3. As to the epistles34 of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Oid Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object35 in these;-which it is needful for us to discuss severally,36 as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing- that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.

4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above- named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church. The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public38 in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time. Of the writings of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Miltiades, we receive nothing at all. Those are rejected too who wrote the new Book of Psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides and the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians.39

So only Wisdom from the Old is mentioned.

Hebrews is not mentioned as being from Paul.

Neither is James.

The Apocalypse of Peter is accepted.

Notice the 7 attached to the number of letters= 7 churches of Paul, same as John sends to in revelation.

The use of numerology it seems also played a part in choosing scripture.

4=40=400=4000, 5=50=500=5000, 3=30=300, 7=49=70=490, (Thse common in th Gospels, Acts, and I Corinthians) 10=100=1000=10,000=100,000,000, 12=24=144=144000 (common in revelation).

That is why, I must always question the numbers.

The Christian Yahwist

-- lpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Notice how in letter 71 of augustine , he attacks Jerome's translations from the Hebrew:

These are taken from New Advent

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) Letters Letter 71 (A.D. 403) Letter 71 of Augustine to Jerome

3. In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places. I would have put down here an extract or two in illustration of this criticism; but at present I have not access to the manuscript of the translation from the Hebrew. Since, however, your quick discernment anticipates and goes beyond not only what I have said, but also what I meant to say, you already understand, I think, enough to be able, by giving the reason for the plan which you have adopted, to explain what perplexes me.

4. For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities: pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them.

5. A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church.' Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew MSS. were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation -- a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken. You will also observe how great must have been the difficulty if this had occurred in those writings which cannot be explained by comparing the testimony of languages now in use. ...... I wish you would have the kindness to open up to me what you think to be the reason of the frequent discrepancies between the text supported by the Hebrew codices and the Greek Septuagint version. For the latter has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is not only proved by looking to the text itself, but has also been, as I remember, affirmed by yourself. You would therefore confer upon us a much greater boon if you gave an exact Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint version: for the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intolerably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help.

Here see Jerome's response

But if, challenging me as it were to single combat, you take exception to my views, and demand a reason for what I have written, and insist upon my correcting what you judge to be an error, and call upon me to recant it in a humble palinwdia, and speak of your curing me of blindness; in this I maintain that friendship is wounded, and the laws of brotherly union are set at nought. Let not the world see us quarrelling like children, and giving material for angry contention between those who may become our respective supporters or adversaries. I write what I have now written, because I desire to cherish towards you pure and Christian love, and not to hide in my heart anything which does not agree with the utterance of my lips. For it does not become me, who have spent my lift from youth until now, sharing the arduous labours of pious brethren in an obscure monastery, to presume to write anything against a bishop of my own communion, especially against one whom I had begun to love before I knew him, who also sought my friendship before I sought his, and whom I rejoiced to see rising as a successor to myself in the careful study of the Scriptures. So either disown that book, if you are not its author, and give over urging me to reply to that which you never wrote; or if the book is yours, admit it frankly; so that if I write anything in self-defense, the responsibility may lie on you who gave, not on me who am forced to accept, the challenge.

Letter 72- reply from Jerome

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

The Catholic Church did not pronounce the full canon of scripture in an ecumenical council until Trent, over 1500 years later from the last books written.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

It was a political decision . Before the text became a universally public document, people heard and saw the Gospels via sermons and artwork because the majority of the laymen were illiterate. Plus, there was the problem of bringing together the various doctrines into one doctrine that everyone could live with stemming from one Holy Bible compilation. If this doesn't sound political, I don't know what does. The source of those compilations was already inspired by the Holy Ghost.

.....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Jim,

did you notice how tradition becomes a myth? Notice how the Gospel of John came into being: Andrew had a dream that John should write it.

The problemis that John was a fisherman. The other John, John Mark, was aprobably Levite. He could read and write. He was the cousin of Barnabas, who was a Levite.

I believe he was the inspiration for the Gospel of Mark and The Gospel of John. If you take away the long dialogues of John, and rearrange some of the scenes you have Mark!!!!

We alrady know that Matthew copied 80% of Mark (over 600 verses), and Luke over 300 verses (40%). Luke eliminated from Mark the rough sayings of Jesus many for Gentiles or medical doctors.

So the question who was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Rod ,Jim, Ian,Emily, as Catholics, have you ever read that the Holy Spirit made the Church choose the books we have now?

Any signs?

The reason I brought out the Muratorian Fragment Kevin, is that even though the church before 200 AD had alraedy the New testament scriptures accepted as scripture, it stll had not decide on all of them.

This was done by regional councils of the Catholic Church. The Church as a whole onl pronounced on them until Trent.

Other than Luther who objected to James ( and by linkage, then to Jude), Protestants tend to follow the canon from the late 4th century.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Elpidio said: Rod ,Jim, Ian,Emily, as Catholics, have you ever read that the Holy Spirit made the Church choose the books we have now? Any signs?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I'll give it a shot. Of course the Holy Spirit guides the Church, this is obvious from Scripture.

Below Jesus gives the authority to Peter's office as head of the Church:

Mt. 16:16 (KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Below Jesus promises to the apostles (He is addressing them) that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth.

John 16:13 (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

If the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church and the Holy Spirit will guide the leaders of the Church into all truth, then it goes without saying that they were guided by the Holy Spirit when they declared what was contained in the canon of Scripture.

1 Tim. 3:15 (KJV) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

If the "church" is the "pillar and ground of the truth" then it, by definition, cannot wander into error. Otherwise it would cease to be the "pillar and ground of the truth."

It's my understanding that Protestants trust the Catholic Church's authority at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 when they declared what is contained in the NT, but they do not trust that same authority that declared that the deuterocanonicals are also inspired. Am I correct? Instead they revert to the Jewish canon of A.D. 90 for their OT, when the Jews lost their authority by rejecting Jesus as the Messiah.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Assume Emily you are correct about Peter. Also assume you are correct of Peter being the first Pope at Rome (even though not in scripture).

Since Paul says in Galatians that he was chosen to go to the Gentiles and Peter, James, and John to the circumcision (Jews),

How then Catholics do not circumcise first born, wear phylactelia, ... After all, he is the apostle to the circumcision as Paul stated?

I have searched, to no avail: -No proof the Holy Spirit ever told anyone the books chosen were legitimate, free of error,... -No proof that the bishop line of Rome is unbroken -No proof that Popes are chosen by the Holy Spirit -No proof that whatever the Church believed in the beginning is the same believed today.

This I do accept, as I wrote t the Pope before:

The Church of Rome derives its apostolic beginning from Paul, the apostle, not from Peter. It is in the accepted scripture. Yes, the Church is apostolic. That is true.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Which Church holds the keys of Peter? Antioch. Is that in the Bible? Yes, Peter(Kefas) was in Antioch, as mentioned in Galatians. Does Antioch still exist? Yes. Does it still have a person who can claim apostolic descent and the keys of Peter? Yes. His name? Maran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.

< a href="http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/directory/world/index.htm"> World directory of Syrian Orthodox Church

Syrian Orthodox Church USA

Patriarch of Antioch

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Look at the keys of Peter, Emily: Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas

Also notice is a world Church too.

Syrian Church- World directory

TheChristian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Here is the other half of the Church of Antioch. They are aligned with the Greek Orthodox.

Also they have a Patriarch also named Ignatius.

Antiochian Church

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

List of Patriarchs fron the Antiochene Church

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Here is the Patriarch and the Pope

Notice how Patriarch Ignatius from the Syrian Orthodox lectures the Pope on the true Church of Peter.

Enjoy, Emily!!!

PS: They still use Aramaic, the language of Jesus!!!

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Hi Elpidio,

From a Catholic/Christian viewpoint, there can be no other explanation for what has come to us as the NT canon other than as being guided by the Holy Spirit. Even with all we know and hypothosize about the historical development, evolution and editing of scriptures, the Christian sees the Holy Spirit as the "prime mover." I know you already know this as your knowlege of Christianiy is far better than mine.

As far as John is concerned, I'm not quite sure what your view point is here. If its that John predates Mark, or was written at the "same" time, I have doubts.

To me it seems that John was written at a time much later than Mark, but still based on Mark. As you note, the same basic story is there. But John is so much more theologically developed, which in itself would indicate that it was written later. For example in the synoptic gospels, in the trial scenes, the countrymen agreeing with and calling for "crusifixion" are referred to as the "people" or the "crowd." In John, the "crowd" becomes repeatedly and clearly demarked as "the Jews." Thus it would seem to be written at a latter time when Christians and the author saw Jews as something clearly different and more "culpable" than themselves. Mark being a bit earlier, did not specifically see this difference, or didn't feel it was necessary to report it.

This theory is not new or my own, but from bits and pieces of things I have read. Still it seems probable. Also I'm not even sure if I'm answering your question Elpidio.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), May 19, 2004.

Elpidio,

-No proof the Holy Spirit ever told anyone the books chosen were legitimate, free of error,...

What kind of proof are you looking for?

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 19, 2004.

Andy, the Church claims is guided by the Holy Spirit.

If that is true, then, the Holy spirit must reveal what is true.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.

Jim,

you and I agree on the same thing.

What happens is that I believe there is confusion about who John is...

everyone thinks is the brother of James, the son of Zebadee.

My belief is that John Mark has been confused with him.

John Mark is somehow responsible for the Gospel we have today. Somehow his name was retained inJohn. That part of Mark was elaborated to become what we now call the gospel of John.

So, that being the case, whatever was added later could be suspect since it did not come from someone who is an eyewitness.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.

Elpidio,

Your philosophy puts the book of Luke into question also, since Luke was not an eyewitness.

Also if John Mark wrote the book of John, who wrote the book of Mark?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.

Luke never said he was an eyewitnes, Emily.

He relies on Paul, Mark, Matthew, Thomas, and Josephus.

What is called now John, in my opinion was adressed to the Samaritans, Emily .It consisted orignally of 7 miracles. All are in Mark except the raising of Lazarus. This appears as the raising of the young man in Luke. Also, Mark's chronology was borrowed.

the later reviser of John confused the fisherman with John Mark.

I believe the disciple Jesus loved was John Mark. He is the young man also mentioned in Mark who runs naked after they arrest Jesus. John Mark was a Levite. So he had access to the priestly houses of Annas and Caiaphas.

Also, John Mark's house is the house Peter goes to when he escapes from prison. Peter is looking for James, Jesus brother there. This makes sense, since in John, Jesus tells John (Mark) to take care of his mother.

The Catholic and Protestant belief that is John the fisherman is probably wrong.

The Christian Yahwist

Later, it was expanded. The long dialogues were added.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.