Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Katholikos

In The Beginning, Bibles Before The Year 1000

17 posts in this topic

Luther would not have -- could not have -- made his colossal mistake of "Sola Scriptura" had he and his followers known the facts about how the Bible came into existence. A great book, [i]In the Beginning, Bibles Before the Year 1000[/i], published by the Smithsonian on the occasion of a recent exhibition by the same name under the auspices of the Freer Gallery of Art and others, documents the history of the Bible during the first millenium of Christianity.

There were two collections of Jewish Scriptures at the time of Christ -- one in Hebrew, used in the region of Palestine, and one in Greek, known as the Septuagint, used by the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora.

"But from an early time Christianity began to find its larger constituency not within Palestinian Judaism, but in the Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora where both Jews and non-Jews were recruited to the Church, with the result that the Bible of early Christianity quickly became and has long remained the [Greek] Septuagint. Then gradually, over a period of several centuries, Christians began to supplement their use of the Septuagint with specifically Christian writings -- gospels, letters, apocalypses, and the like, all composed in Greek. As such Christian writings aquired wider use and authority, they were progressively gathered up and shaped into a special collection consisting of twenty-seven documents. These were designated as writings of the 'new covenent' or 'New Testament.' . . . Thus the Christian Bible, in its ultimate shape . . . was characterized by two distinct bodies of literature, one Jewish and one Christian, but both in the Greek language."

Protestants have got it backwards. History proves that any Bible-based church is not the True Church. As I and others have often said, the Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible[b];[/b] rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church! Jesus didn't leave us an instruction book[b]; [/b]He left us a Church as our teacher. The Church produced the Bible and is its only rightful interpreter.

Great book, beautifully illustrated. Available from Amazon.

Likos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, no comments? I thought surely there would be objections from FullTruth, Dairygirl, Budge, or (fill in the blank).

This historical book from a secular source (the Smithsonian) destroys the Protestant myths that:

[i]The Bible fell out of heaven, ready-made.

Christianity is based on the Bible (the 66-book cut version of the Protestants).

That the early Christians relied solely on the Bible as their only guide to faith and morals, and studied it faithfully, and kept a copy tucked under their arm.

The Catholic Church didn't write the NT in the first century and select the contents of the NT and form the Bible at the end of the fourth Christian century. God did it without the Church.

All churches developed out of the Bible.

The Catholic Church kept the Bible from Christians and didn't let them read it.

The "deuterocanonical" books of the Old Testament are apocryphal (i.e., not Scripture).

The Catholic Church added writings to the Bible at the Council of Trent (1545-63).

There was no canon of Scriptures until the Council of Trent.

And so on. [/i]

A little history of Christianity and of the Bible is an antidote to myth and does a body a world of good. It made a Catholic out of me and countless others.

[i][b]"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant"[/b][/i] ~ John Henry Newman, Anglican clergyman and Catholic convert.

Likos
Ex-Protestant, agnostic, atheist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would buy a copy, but Amazon.co.uk is pricing it at £54. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[center]J.M.J.[/center]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1247981' date='Apr 18 2007, 11:26 AM']Luther would not have -- could not have -- made his colossal mistake of "Sola Scriptura" had he and his followers known the facts about how the Bible came into existence. A great book, [i]In the Beginning, Bibles Before the Year 1000[/i], published by the Smithsonian on the occasion of a recent exhibition by the same name under the auspices of the Freer Gallery of Art and others, documents the history of the Bible during the first millenium of Christianity.[/quote]

Luther did know what He was doing. He is quoted as saying, "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics] - that they posess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

So, my question is not so much why Protestants are unwilling to recognize the truth about the history of the Bible, but rather why are they still unwilling to recognize it when even Luther recognized it. I mean, when the very man you recognize as the "founder of Christ's true Church" recognizes the true history... then why my dear Protestant friends do you seek to make up history to justify what you believe? Luther did not. He knew he could not. He accepted history. He simply walked against it. Protestants today must either admit that what they believe is totally wrong or they must make up a history of their own that goes along with what they believe.

"To be deep in History, is to cease to be Protestant" - John Henry Newman

God bless you all!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luther and Calvin spoke very harsh against artificial birth control also. And we see where that influence is in protestantism now.

I called vegas. I couldnt get the over/under on budge making an intellegent post on this thread. Any bet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's quite simple my friend. Being protestants, we don't have to adhere to all of what one theologian says. So, since Calvin also believed that Mary remained a virgin, we don't have to accept that teaching. We can believe in total depravity and so forth, but we don't have to accept this concept for we are not bond by just one theologian.

About the history of the Bible, many people are lead to conspiracy theories and blasted revisionist history. No one believes things are black and white anymore, but that man changed things in order to cover things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1249788' date='Apr 19 2007, 08:54 PM']So, my question is not so much why Protestants are unwilling to recognize the truth about the history of the Bible, but rather why are they still unwilling to recognize it when even Luther recognized it. I mean, when the very man you recognize as the "founder of Christ's true Church" recognizes the true history... then why my dear Protestant friends do you seek to make up history to justify what you believe? Luther did not. He knew he could not. He accepted history. He simply walked against it. Protestants today must either admit that what they believe is totally wrong or they must make up a history of their own that goes along with what they believe.[/quote]

It is important to remember that Luther didn't see himself as founding a new church, but reforming the old -- as did most of the magesterial reformers. I am sure Luther would have a lot of problems with modern day Protestants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you read Carl Braaten, a top-notch lutheran eccesiologist (wrote a book called "Mother Church") he puts a very solid argument together than Luther considered the reform to be a temporary break that was intended to bring people back into full roman communion once his reforms were made.

Being an Augustinian monk, Luther would have had more issues with the modern "free" church than he would have with the catholic church. Remember shortly after the formal break he met with Calvin and others and the issue of the Lord's supper and keeping a sacramental sense causes luther and calvin to claim "we are no longer brothers"

Protestantism is in its essence a child of relativism. No objective truths, no objective morals. If someone can come out of this system and find grace then sweeeeet. But the system in itself can be just as dangerous as it is developmental.

As Desertwoman shows, "truth" is an invalid concept in protestant theology. Just do what you, in your limited knowledge, feels right to believe. Logic, history, and objective truth matters less in determining a church than how the bathroom and nursury look

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the many Protestant myths I failed to list in my earlier post is the myth that Luther merely wanted to reform the Church, not start a new religion.

Luther has been given many coats of whitewash by his defenders, and I would consider the book Rev refers to as "whitewash." Or wishful thinking at best. Luther may have started out to reform the Church, but when he came under the influence of the German princes, it was all out rebellion against Mother Church that continued unabated and continues still.

True, he expected the world to accept his interpretation of the Bible, and was dismayed when Calvin, Zwingli, et al. took his doctrine of Sola Scriptura to its illogical conclusion and made their own competing and conflicting interpretations. The avalance of denominationalism that Luther triggered began and continues to this day.

Luther introduced completely new doctrines of his own making as the foundation of his new religion of Protestantism -- Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides -- in opposition to the ancient teaching of the Church. He called the Church the Whore of Babylon and the Pope the antichrist, terms which are still used by Protestants against the Church to this day.

Luther even approved bigamy and taught polygamy (or more accurately, polygyny). He removed eleven books and parts of two others from the canon of Scripture.

A reformer, no. A deformer and destroyer of souls, yes. Edited by Katholikos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rev,

You are thinking of Luther and Zwingli. I don't think Luther and Calvin ever met since Calvin was the in the second generation of reformers. Sounds like an interesting book in any case.

That said, the consequences of Luther's actions are obvious, but we quickly devolve into polemic when we try to start talking about Luther's "true" motives and intentions. I suspect Luther became bitter later in life over the failures of his own vision of reform (which did included radically new interpretations), but his rebellion originally stemmed from deep, pious convictions and over the alarming moral decadence in the Church. Luther clearly had a different conception of Christianity, but he thought it had some historical precedence and certainly the need for reform was long overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[center]J.M.J.[/center]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1250118' date='Apr 20 2007, 10:43 AM']It is important to remember that Luther didn't see himself as founding a new church, but reforming the old -- as did most of the magesterial reformers. I am sure Luther would have a lot of problems with modern day Protestants.[/quote]

Reform means to renew and regroup. What Luther did was not a reformation. He never meant for it to be. He meant to leave the Church. He meant to destroy the Church. He even said so. What he did is more like a revolt than a reformation. And for him to refer to Catholics as "Papists" and not still refer to himself as one means that he was seeking to found a new Church, with a new name, with new teachings, and with new everything. He did not consider himself Catholic, and therefore didn't have anything to "reform". I think he totally saw himself founding a new church.

I don't know... that is just the way I see it. I don't see him as reforming anything, and I honestly do not think he intended too. If he truly meant to "reform" the Church then he would have sought peace and compromise at the Diet of Worms, instead he marched right out saying he would never change what he believed and preaching that the Church should be destroyed. That is a revolt, and a revolt is what he had in mind.

God bless,
Marie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='desertwoman' post='1250025' date='Apr 20 2007, 05:30 AM']It's quite simple my friend. Being protestants, we don't have to adhere to all of what one theologian says. So, since Calvin also believed that Mary remained a virgin, we don't have to accept that teaching. We can believe in total depravity and so forth, but we don't have to accept this concept for we are not bond by just one theologian.

About the history of the Bible, many people are lead to conspiracy theories and blasted revisionist history. No one believes things are black and white anymore, but that man changed things in order to cover things up.[/quote]

Where is the logic behind where modern protestant churches came from? They just popped up in the last 500 years. The man who lead the break is condemned by those who live by the break. It is ridiculous.

"No one believes things are black and white anymore"

You say that as if at one time they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1250228' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:53 PM']Rev,

You are thinking of Luther and Zwingli. I don't think Luther and Calvin ever met since Calvin was the in the second generation of reformers. Sounds like an interesting book in any case.

That said, the consequences of Luther's actions are obvious, but we quickly devolve into polemic when we try to start talking about Luther's "true" motives and intentions. I suspect Luther became bitter later in life over the failures of his own vision of reform (which did included radically new interpretations), but his rebellion originally stemmed from deep, pious convictions and over the alarming moral decadence in the Church. Luther clearly had a different conception of Christianity, but he thought it had some historical precedence and certainly the need for reform was long overdue.[/quote]

Sorry sir. The book and the "lord supper" story are two different things. I did not mention the difference Im sorry.

I learned the Zwingli/Luther/Calvin and the issue of the Lords supper story as a protestant. Luther stood by the idea that "something" happens, where as Zwingli and others persisted that it was a symbol Give me a day or so, but I will need to check the source. I think Steven Ray mentions something about it also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1250374' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:56 PM']Where is the logic behind where modern protestant churches came from? They just popped up in the last 500 years. The man who lead the break is condemned by those who live by the break. It is ridiculous.

"No one believes things are black and white anymore"

You say that as if at one time they were.[/quote]


Most honest Protestants will tell you that we are protesting the Catholic Church, but many people don't know what we are protesting now. Some are just led in blind fear of all things that are Catholic or "Catholicish." I'm I weary of some things, darn tootin!! This is because we have been separated for so long and we have our own traditions as well. Its like we are from two different planets sometimes, or that we have the same father but different mothers.

When I say black and white, look at all of the conspiracy theories and so forth going on today. Its ridiculous.

In school, I never heard of people denying the fact that the Holocaust happened, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor and forced into the war, and that the Bible was composed by the Catholic Church.

Now, there are essays and "scholars" who say that the Holocaust was a hoax, that America is to blame for 911, and that the Bible was around way before the Catholic Church started. I mean... who collected the letters? For crying out loud, why is their a conspiracy in everything little thing no days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1249580' date='Apr 19 2007, 07:06 PM']I would buy a copy, but Amazon.co.uk is pricing it at £54. :([/quote]

Amazon in the U.S. has connections to the used book market. That's where I bought mine. It had been purchased previously, but had never been read. I paid $23 (the dust jacket says $45, $58 in Canada). Maybe you'll find it used, but in good condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[url="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3079"]http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3079[/url]

[url="http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9901/reviews/dulles.html"]http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9901/reviews/dulles.html[/url]

reviews from Dulles on the Braaten book i mentioned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like hearing the phrase "The Catholic Church preserved and compiled the Bible" in the context of the Roman Catholic Church because Copts [among other rites] also contributed. Infact St. Athansius wrote the Nicene Creed, St. Cyril was also very present in a council following. It wasn't just a Roman Catholic thing... but rather pre-schism Church, that compiled it and preserved it, which was more then just the Roman Catholic Church and those that adhere to it's Patriarch as "supreme".

Reza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0