Historically, the Bible is a secondary support for Christians and Jews. I was raised Roman Catholic, and our tradition and practices included the Bible, but it was not a key centerpiece of our faith. The Jewish side of my family likewise have a rich history of tradition and faith that is lived, and not pinned down to every word in the Bible. When I have met with my Jewish family and friends for Bible discussion, I have enjoyed how they "allegorize" the Bible and give historical ponderings that reflect much more emphasis on personal meaning, rather than some "official" dogma.
The Bible was not really completely compiled and agreed upon until almost 400 years after Christ. The Hebrew scrolls were there, but were not commonly available to Christians except in the Synagogues. The New Testament was not there at all. Early Christians at times may have had letters shared and hear a reading, and possibly be able to copy the letters. But, it was the ancient Catholic Church (before the East-West split in 1054 AD) that eventually collected these letters and decided upon which ones were canonical and which were not. Christians largely lived by Church tradition and short creeds for memory (hence the Apostles Creed):
Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546. [Source: http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm]
The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles. [Source: http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm]
The whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D. The notes included in the text were written by Dr. Challoner. [Source: http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm]
One can see that the Bible was not really made available in general to people to get copies until after 1611 AD. Then, the completed verification with the Latin Vulgate was not complete until 1752 AD. This must give us cause to wonder just how the Watchtower Society can makes its absurd claims about restoring "truth" in these last days (similar to Mormon claims) when in fact such could not be circulating at all, not even during the time of Christ, except by what was known and accepted by word of mouth, tradition, and letters that were circulated. So, it was eventually the early Catholic Church that declared the Bible inspired. The New Testament is a Catholic work, built upon Catholic criteria, and Catholic claims of inspiration long after the Watchtower considered the Catholic Church to be completely apostate. Essentially, if the Watchtower really thought about it, the Bible is the work of total Apostates! Some modern Protestant denominations that get all worked up over the Bible seem to treat it as something that just popped directly out of heaven. Some groups, like the JWs, treat every word as coming from the mouth of God. Many people forget that the Bible is not with Word of God, but that Jesus Christ is the Word of God! - John 1:1. Could the Bible be inspired? Yes. But, I believe that it "contains" inspired words of God, and that the Bible also contains errors and words of men. So, when the Apostle Paul says that "All Scripture is inspired of God" he was really speaking about the Hebrew Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox recognizes the limitations of the Bible, and takes a more pragmatic view than do modern Protestants, especially fundamentalists. We must be careful when quoting the Bible to understand its limitations. The Christian faith is built far more upon tradition and Church evolution than upon Biblical developments. This is a point that completely escapes and ultimately undermines the credibility of such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses who think that they have restored "truth" but in fact have done nothing more than created a fiction.
So, for those that believe all of this history and the pros and cons, each one must decide on the historical and Bibical opinions that are varied, that they have studied and researched and come to their own conclusions. - Blueblades
Absolutely! The reason that I associate with the Greek Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox) is because of such pragmatic views. Actually, I was raised Roman Catholic, and our views were somewhat similar. This is why Catholics do not give the Bible quite as much attention as do Protestants. There are pros and cons to this view. Catholics, both Roman and Orthodox, have a wide variety of personal views at all levels of the Church. The Orthodox especially is very reluctant to impose dogma upon the Church. They keep it vey limited to Church tradition, ritual, and liturgy. They would be embarassed to publish something like the many volumes of The Watchtower magazines which function more like detailed operating procedures of a court of insane rules.
All of us are affected on what we want to believe, scripturally or historically. I have always said in my past post's on here that there will always be two camps for and against opposing views and conclusions, this cannot be avoided. - Blueblades
Agreed. However, there are facts of history we can pin down that are not subject to any real question. It is the "meaning" we place on those facts that cause the divided opinions. The fact that the early Church Fathers, especially the Ante-Nicene, taught the Trinity is there for all to read. I found it fascinating, given that when I became a Jehovah's Witness, I was led to believe that the Trinity was not really taught until the 4th century. So, I am sharing these findings on JWD for everyone to consider yet another way that the Watchtower misled us.
As for me, I'm in the "DOUBTING THOMAS" class. Remember Jesus rewarded Thomas greatly with a personal appearance even though he doubted. So, there is hope for people like me. - Blueblades
I posted something on this about Thomas years ago. In my own personal faith, I have recently renewed my former "Catholic" style of personal experience with God. By saying Catholic, I always included the Orthodox who are really the same faith, but they do not recognize all of the Pope's claims of monarchial authority. They hold that the authority of the Church should be with the Bishops as St. Ignatius stated in the year 105 AD, and run by ecumenical councils, the way it was prior to the schism of 1054 AD, where the Pope was a "first among equals" who led, but did not dictate. The two churches are continuing reunification dialogue.
So, as a Catholic, the way is to hold personal beliefs, and not "cram" these views down the throats of my fellow humans. I love and respect everyone and their differing views, from which I am challenged and learn. I have simply returned to the Catholic position that by living my faith, my humble words and example will be more powerful than by being a dogmatic s.o.b. And, in the Catholic way, it is better to realize that one can always learn and be open to change from various sources. True, some Catholics and their leaders have not always been so open-minded, but these have not been dominate among the majority of Catholics. The Bible is an important and useful historical work. It details a rich history of the Jews and early Christians. But, it must be kept in perspective and not worshiped as an icon, as Jehovah's Witnesses are taught to believe. Jehovah's Witnesses bitch about Catholics venerating the Virgin Mary, but themselves worship a book as the Word over the Lord Jesus Christ as the Word. Thus they invent rules of men that supplant what Jesus taught. Jim Whitney