Catholics cannonized the Bible, right?

StinkyPantz

Isn't it true that the Roman Catholic church put together the Bible (canonized the books), and decided the order and all that? If this isn't true set me straight please.

What do the Witnesses think about this? Is it (the Bible) just as valid if part of "Christendom" decided which books of the Bible would be included? What about the "gospel" accounts that were not included? How'd they choose which ones were holy enough to be considered a part of God's Word? And what if they left out a book that should've been in, couldn't that potentially be catastrophic for mankind?

willy_think

Yes, it is true, not only did the Catholic Church canonize the bible they did it years after they allegedly went apostate, making the bible an apostate book from the church lead by Satan.

The bible is part of the Tradition of the church, according to Tradition the pope and bishops were led by the holy spirit in there work, making there choice of books infallible. future divisions within the church lead to fractures and the abandonment of many Traditions, like infallibility, but most sects still hold the bible as holy book. Go figure?

They didn't chose "holy enough" books, they only picked books that were "inspired by the holy spirit," if it was inspired it was in, if it was simply the work of men it was out.

It is really quote simple: the Pope with the guidance of the holy spirit can declare a subject of faith and morals an infallible truth. This you see is his authority given to him by God. on his authority alone the bible came to be the holy scriptures of the catholic church and of every church using it today.

Edited by - willy_think on 1 September 2002 6:55:54

A Paduan

But most break away groups, even large ones (eg protestants), have taken out some books. The catholics still use the same bible, which includes very important scriptures - the jws could well do with putting the story of Susanah back in - a story about "two witnesses".

"Taking his stand in the midst of them, he (Daniel) said, "Are you such fools, you sons of Israel? Have you condemned a daughter of Israel without examination and without learning the facts?"

paduan

Yerusalyim

Willy Think,

A pretty accurate assesment of the whole deal. A bit more in depth, the Canon (which simply means LIST) of the New Testament was entirely set by the Catholic Church, the criteria being that the books were supposed to have been written by Apostles or eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. The Canon of the Old Testament comes from the Greek Septuigant translation of the Old Testament. The reason the Hebrew Canon and Protestant Canon differ from the Catholic one is that around the year AD 110 the Rabbis got together in Jamnia or Jaffa (I forget which) in Roman Palestine and set the Canon for their scritpures. They excluded any books that were suspected of not having been written in Hebrew or for which no ancient Hebrew text could be found. They also eliminated 1 and 2 Macabees because these books, written before Pompey showed up in 64 BC, showed Rome as a friend and ally. Given what had happened to the Jews since Rome came on the scene, it's not suprising.

RE the Infallibility thing, that wasn't declared dogmatic until the 1st Vatican council in the late 1800's.

Pancho

This should be interesting.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html

and this

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml

Thank you.

Pancho

2nd try...

This should be interesting.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml

Thank you

willy_think

Bank of WisdomBox 926,
Louisville, KY 40201238F
ORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/chapter_7.html

The Son of the Hebrew God came in course of time to Jewryostensibly to make amends for some of his Father's damningvengeances. He came "to fulfill the law"; not only that, he overdidit and added to it sundry fiery climaxes of cursing and damnation,religious bigotry and intolerance unique to the "Gospel of Love"and of redemptive salvation. For sanctions ad terrorem of the newpreachments of Christ who "came to bring not peace but the sword,"Jesus himself kindled the fires of Hell and decreed eternaldamnation for unbelief: "He that believeth not shall be damned";"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire"; "Except yerepent, ye shall all likewise perish"; "He that believeth not theSon, the wrath of God abideth on him"! These genial persuasions tobelief in the priests were added to by Paul the Persecutor; harkingback to his God's Law of Sinai: "He that despised Moses' law diedwithout mercy; ... Of how much sorer punishment ... shall he bethought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God?" -- "Thesame shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, and shall betormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holyangels and of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment aseendethforever and ever: and they shall have no rest day or night" from"the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God"! All this is for thehappy Hereafter; but the pious deviltry begins by Hell-on-earth, asthe gentle Jesus himself prescribed: "Those mine enemies, whichwould not that I reign over them, bring hither, and slay thembefore me." (Luke, xix, 27.) The whole body of Apostles appealedfor Divine permit, that "we command fire to come down from heaven,and consume them" (Luke ix, 54), who sought to imitate their piousdevil-enchantments. Peter, Prince of Apostles, takes up the bloodycue: Every soul which will not hear that prophet shall bedestroyed" (Acts, iii, 23); and Bigot Paul enjoins persecution,boycott and murder for the dissentient: "For there are many unrulyand vain talkers ... whose mouths must be stopped" (Titus, i, 10,11): and "He that troubleth you ... I would they were even cut off"(Gal. v, 10, 12)

What am I to make of a man who tells me this is what Jesus and Paul did and were?
How can he help me to understand anything about who canonized the Bible, when he shows such a twisted understanding of it?

Edited by - willy_think on 1 September 2002 18:26:16

Robdar

Stinky,

One of the books left out of the cannon was the book of Enoch. This book was important to the Gnostics. The Catholic church opposed the Gnostics, considering them heretics. The book of Enoch stresses a personal relationship to God as opposed to finding God through an organized religion. The church would not tolerate this opinion so they slaughtered the Gnostics and removed this book from the scriptures.

The book is apocalyptic in nature. It discusses the origin of evil, final judgment, the resurrection, the Messiah and his kingdom; as well as the elect and their duty to God.

In the early 20th century, the book gained new interest in the USA and other parts of the world. I am reading the book right now and I believe that this book may have been influential in forming some of the WTS views regarding the little flock and the great crowd.

You can pick up a copy at your local bookstore. You may find it interesting. .

Love,

Robyn

Edited by - robdar on 1 September 2002 19:18:15

Yerusalyim

Rodar,

You said,

The church would not tolerate this opinion so they slaughtered the Gnostics and removed this book from the scriptures.

Slaughtered the Gnostics? How? The Gnosticism was pretty much defeated as a heresy before the "Church" had any power or authority. Enoch was not included because it was not part of the Septuigant.

Mac

All the gospels are prieslty forgeries created over a century after their pretended dates! They were not heard of till 120 years after Jesus had supposedly died and were unknown to the early Christian fathers. In reality none of the Gospels were written by their purported authors and no mention of any new test. text can be found in writings prior to the beginning of the second century, C.E.Makes you wonder about the historicity of Jesus, doesn't it?

Catholics cannonized the Bible, right?

Share this