ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Who Wrote The Bible

Can we credit man for deciding what books would be in the Bible or was it God that used man merely as His instruments?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---e.lee7537 on 4/1/13
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog



Cluny, it seems like you hit a nerve with E.Lee7537.
---Nikki on 4/14/13


//Nikki, you and I have both presented sound doctrine to e.lee, Mark_V, and others.

I see nothing in any of the commentaries written by those that Lord has called into the ministry of teaching to support your superstitious beliefs.

However, you are entitled to your unsupportable and unbiblical viewpoints.

I really have no good reason to care one way or the other as our salvation and walk is by grace alone in Christ alone by faith alone, not by Gnostic style rituals you inherited from paganism.
---e.lee7537 on 4/14/13


Cluny //Let's not waste our time.

Nor should you waste your time fighting against God's word to promote your own brand of Gnostic type Christianity.
---e.lee7537 on 4/14/13


Well said, Mark V! YAHUSHUA is THE Door but not "a door". He is THE Vine, but not "a vine". He is THE Bread, but not a piece of bread. To eat the bread/Wafer, and to believe that it is literally the Lord's Body, and to drink the Juice and to believe that it's really and literally the Lord's Blood is sacrificing Him all over again, repeatedly. But, when you're brought up believing that they ARE His literal Body and Blood, then that's all you know and can't see the discrepancy of it as those on the outside looking in can. Like any pleasurable sin, when you're right in the middle of it, you don't see it as "sin". But, those on the outside can.
---Gordon on 4/14/13


God became man He never became a piece of bread. Nor a door, nor a gate.---Mark_V.

Let me ask you this question.
CAN God become a piece of bread, door or a gate IF HE WANTED?

I going to assume you will say yes, He can if He wanted to be a piece of bread, door or a gate.

So, if He said in the Gospel John "My body is true bread and my blood is true blood", what does 'true' mean to you?
And why do you reject the possibility of His Words?


1st and 2nd Peter completely debunk any teaching that one EAT Jesus to be partakers of His divine nature.---kathr4453

Tell where exactly Peter debunk the teaching of the Eucharist? My 1st and 2nd Peter doesn't say anything you claim. Give chapter and verse
---Nikki on 4/14/13




Nikki, you and I have both presented sound doctrine to e.lee, Mark_V, and others.

They reject it.

Let's not waste our time.

It's not for nothing that the Eucharist was NOT taught to Catechumens. They knew nothing about it until they first participated after their baptism, as the Mystagogical lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem show.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 4/14/13


1and 2nd Peter completely debunk any teaching that one EAT Jesus to be partakers of His divine nature. We do so through His precious promises. We were bought with the precious blood of Christ, not eating it.

Peter talks of that SPIRITUAL Habitation, that is the HEAVENLY Body of Christ, that HEAVENLY CHURCH, not an earthly one.
---kathr4453 on 4/14/13


Nikki//But, I am saying other denomination has killed itself because you don't have the HOLY EUCHARIST.

We as believers in Christ "eat" and "drink" Jesus, the Word of God, in a far more figurative and realistic sense than you Romanists do.

As such our life is in the living Christ whose Spirit indwells Christians (Romans 8:9), not in some ritual.
---e.lee7537 on 4/13/13


Nikki, you say,

"Jesus can settle our (Orthodox and RCC) disagreements
But Protestants are in grave danger due not having Jesus as their source of Life in the Eucharist."


Let me correct you, and say that Protestants know the difference that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. God became man He never became a piece of bread. Nor a door, nor a gate. The Trinity is not Father, Son, bread, door gate, and Holy Spirit. The minute you start using words literally, you change everything. Your doctrine of the Trinity ceases to exist. RCC believes in the Trinity and so the Protestants.
---Mark_V. on 4/14/13


Cluny//It was not WE who left.
And that is the dominant historical viewpoint. However, the Roman Church will always maintain that the earliest Christians were all Roman Catholics---e.lee7537

I see Cluny's point to me.
Cluny's quote:
Peter III, Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, and likewise a successor of St. Peter, wrote the Pope and said, "Know this: you have cut your own self off."

Just mean the RCC did the separation.
But, I am saying other denomination has killed itself because you don't have the HOLY EUCHARIST.

Jesus can settle our (Orthodox and RCC) disagreements
But Protestants are in grave danger due not having Jesus as their source of Life in the Eucharist.
---Nikki on 4/13/13




Cluny//It was not WE who left.

And that is the dominant historical viewpoint. However, the Roman Church will always maintain that the earliest Christians were all
Roman Catholics and the Peter passed His authority downward to the Bishops of Rome. Most Christians today, however, reject the view that there was any mantle of authority given any particular denomination.
---e.lee7537 on 4/12/13


\\That is why the Popes since mid 11th Century has prayed for unity with the Orthodox Churches who separated from us. \\

Actually, Nikki, it was Cardinal Humbert, papal legate, who first laid the bull of excommunication on the altar. (BTW, with the death of Leo IX, his legatine authority had expired.)

It was not WE who left.

Peter III, Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, and likewise a successor of St. Peter, wrote the Pope and said, "Know this: you have cut your own self off."

He also admonished both Rome and Constantinople to kiss and make up.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/12/13


"catholic" comes from the Greek "KATh 'OLON", literally, "through the whole," but implying communion, consensus, conciliatory, and collegiality.---Cluny

You are correct, Because for the 1st 1000 years, if you were a Christian you were Catholic. One Church. In agreement.
Jesus didn't start His Church to be divided.
That is why the Popes since mid 11th Century has prayed for unity with the Orthodox Churches who separated from us.
As for Protestants, we call for them for a change in heart and spirit.
We want everyone to come home.
We want one Church.
As we confess in the Nicene Creed:
I BELIEVE IN ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

Catholic as you speak of above.
---Nikki on 4/12/13


e.lee7537

volume 2, page 166)

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)
---Ruben on 4/12/13


\\Then James, tells everyone about Peter and his dream about God and the Gentiles.\\

Nikki and Reuben might not like this, but the word "catholic" comes from the Greek "KATh 'OLON", literally, "through the whole," but implying communion, consensus, conciliarity, and collegiality.

This is what "katholikos" means in Greek, and "sobornuyu" means in Slavonic. This is how the Orthodox understand it.

In fact, even the Greek Catholic Slavic churches in communion with Rome use this word--sobornuyu-- in the Nicene Creed.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/12/13


Why do you not acknowledge the fact of Scripture that they had to convene a council at Jerusalem to determine what Gentile believers had to do to be legitimate? Ever read Acts 15, apparently not.--e.lee7537 on 4/11/13

Guess what? I read Acts 15 again. Look at verse 7 and 13
What the heck, read the whole chapter.

Peter stands up and takes over????
Sounds like a man who knows who is in charge.

Then James, tells everyone about Peter and his dream about God and the Gentiles.

Then at the end of chapter 15, Paul and Barnabas needed a letter from the APOSTLES & CHURCH, plus a few representatives to tell them a message on how to live and what to eat.
I guess even Paul and Barnabas knew PETER was in charge.
---Nikki on 4/12/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Bro. elee, the writers of Scripture wrote the Bible. We can credit the Holy Spirit for inspiring the writers of Scripture for writing what they were guided to write. The Church and its members are to be submissive to the Word of God.
---Mark_V. on 4/12/13


Cluny //Then why did ancient churches of Apostolic foundation, separated from Rome...

The Episcopal style of church was one that evolved from the church that was ruled by elders.

Was not the main reason of separation of the Eastern Church from the Western Church really a matter of who had the right to rule over others.

Bishops often battled with other Bishops over control of churches in neighboring territories as they became corrupt and power hungry.

This is also something we see today with the various denominations fighting each other for members and $$$$$$$.
---e.lee7537 on 4/12/13


Paul was another central authority figure

2 Corinthians 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.


Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
---francis on 4/12/13


The historical fact is that the early church really had no central authority in a single person.
---e.lee7537 on 4/11/13

Peter in his days surely was the central authority

John 21:16 Feed my sheep.

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter,

Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples

Acts 15:7 Peter rose up, and said , yGod made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
---francis on 4/12/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


\\The hierarchal spirit arose from the domineering spirit of the Roman Church,\\

Then why did ancient churches of Apostolic foundation, separated from Rome and each other by centuries and miles, to say nothing of Christological differences, have bishops, presbyters, deacons, and minor orders: in other words, a hierarchy?

Did Schaff ever explain this issue?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/11/13


To continue with Schaff, volume 2, p.158 The hierarchal spirit arose from the domineering spirit of the Roman Church, rather than the Roman bishop or the presbyters who were simply the organs of the people. (footnote=It is quite evident from the Epistle itself that at that time the Roman congregation was still governed by a college of presbyters.) But a century later the bishop of Rome was substituted for the church of Rome, when Victor in his own name excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor for a trifling difference of ritual. From this hierarchal assumption there was only one step toward papal absolutism of a Leo and Hildebrand and this found its ultimate doctrinal climax in the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility.
---e.lee7537 on 4/11/13


e.lee7537 * The historical fact is that the early church really had no central authority in a single person.

St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD),
"... hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)
---Ruben on 4/11/13


Nikki//history is a revelation of the flesh, what man had done, the word of God prophets, Apostles and Christ is a revelation of the will of God.

But the point is, can we believe what has been substantiated as facts in history?

And early church history does indeed tell us that there was no central authority such as Rome.

Search as you may but you will find nothing to the belief that any authority was passed downward to the Bishops of Rome.
---e.lee7537 on 4/11/13


Send a Free Romantic Ecard


Nikki //God did not build his church on history.

And clearly God did NOT build his church on Peter who thereafter passed downward any authority to the Bishops of Rome.

The historical fact is that the early church really had no central authority in a single person.

Why do you not acknowledge the fact of Scripture that they had to convene a council at Jerusalem to determine what Gentile believers had to do to be legitimate? Ever read Acts 15, apparently not.
---e.lee7537 on 4/11/13


And much to the howl of our history ignorant Adventists,
---e.lee7537 on 4/10/13
God did not build his churh on history

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,

history is a revelation of the flesh, what man had done, the word of God prophets, postles and Christ is a revealtionof the will of God


you choose history, we choose the bible. If you do choose history what denomination would that make you and why?

History will reveal that OPC is Johny come lately
---francis on 4/11/13


Bible or at least parts of it, were available to most of the churches by the beginning of the second century..And at that time, the majority of believers did not know how to read or write but had to be instructed by those who were elders of the various churches.--e.lee7537 on 4/10/13

You are incorrect about most NT being available to the Churches. They didn't have the Gospels.
3rd and 4th centuries, some Churches had some letters with a couple of Gospels and other Churches had other parts of NT.

The Bible was read to the people as it is still today in the RCC. Most people today still can't read or write.
---Nikki on 4/10/13


//
Also keep in mind that in the " NT CHURCHES" there was no bible

---
We also must keep in mind that Bible or at least parts of it, were available to most of the churches by the beginning of the second century.

And at that time, the majority of believers did not know how to read or write but had to be instructed by those who were elders of the various churches.

Of significance was the Didache, a catechism for new believers. And much to the howl of our history ignorant Adventists, the Sabbath was not taught by the leaders of the church.
---e.lee7537 on 4/10/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Deuteronomy 4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it

Deuteronomy 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,

everything else that came after what Moses wrote is a result fo sin, and always points back to what Moses wrote

Also keep in mind that in the " NT CHURCHES" there was no bible
---francis on 4/10/13


BTW, mass stipends are set by the individual local dioceses, and are NOT a policy of the Roman Church as such.

And as you can see, in the USA, it's more a token offering than anything else.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/10/13


e.lee, I don't know what country your wife is from, but outside Western Europe and the USA, mass stipends are a large part of the priest's support. I've already pointed out the origin of mass stipends.

As St. Paul said, the laborer is worthy of his hire, and those who serve the altar should make their living by the altar.

And as another old priest said, salvation is free but the church costs money.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/10/13


If however, the Roman Church has changed its policies on this matter, I would have to say that is good...I married a Roman Catholic after I lead her to Christ, and she has many stories to tell of Roman Catholic priests, especially in her country.--e.lee7537 on 4/9/13

Your parents didn't witness anything. You made that up as well. No change in policy because it WAS NEVER a policy.
As far as your wife goes, I have told you before, you come up the the craziest stories and fiction. Stop with the fairly tales

Give facts man, give facts!
---Nikki on 4/9/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


//Tell me a Priest that is charging for Masses. Or are you just assuming again?

It was the custom during the time of my parents as they often witnessed it.

If however, the Roman Church has changed its policies on this matter, I would have to say that is good. But I would suspect that the influence of Protestantism caused this practice to cease.

Exposure of such practices has been good for the Roman Church.

I married a Roman Catholic after I lead her to Christ, and she has many stories to tell of Roman Catholic priests, especially in her country.
---e.lee7537 on 4/9/13


if you really want to get you mom out of the flames of purgatory where she is being purified of her terrible sinfulness, you need to have the priest offer a special Mass on her behalf and that will cost you MONEY.---e.lee7537 on 4/9/13

NO IT DOESN'T!
Tell me a Priest that is charging for Masses. Or are you just assuming again?

Only Protestants charge for Weddings, funerals and Baptisms.
You can get married and not give the Priest or Deacon one cent. It's their DUTY. Their office. It's my RIGHT to get married.
The RCC can't charge a dime.

Even cities knows this fact. Anytime they find a person that the State has to bury they call a priest.
Why? Because the city doesn't have to pay a dime for the burial service.
---Nikki on 4/9/13


\\I would question every reccomendation made by Europeans,\\

Does this include questioning the King James Bible? It was translated by Europeans.

**you need to have the priest offer a special Mass on her behalf and that will cost you MONEY.**

About Mass stipends. Originally, they were the support of a priest for one day, as a priest can NOT celebrate more than one mass and receive a stipend.

Today, as the usual stipend is $10 in the USA, it's rather silly to expect a priest to survive on less than $300 a month, as at least 4 masses a month must be celebrated for his flock. Would you try to live on that little? I doubt it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/9/13


I would question every reccomendation made by Europeans, it was not given to them to teach Bibical doctrine and certainly not a right for any of them to change dates and times. Their Theology is a deception and false
---Carla on 4/9/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Nikki//How can the RCC get money from me by me praying? Fasting?


They cannot however, if you really want to get you mom out of the flames of purgatory where she is being purified of her terrible sinfulness, you need to have the priest offer a special Mass on her behalf and that will cost you MONEY.

And yes, there are Roman Catholics that are have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior but they follow what they believe is right instead of the dictates of the church.
---e.lee7537 on 4/9/13


Of course, they were included in the Roman Church bible since they alone give a hint of their purgatory belief - a belief designed to exploit people of their wealth, after all would you not like to give some big bucks to get your mother out of purgatory where she is in great agony due to the purifying fires? Bulldung!
---e.lee7537 on 4/6/13

You make insulting comments. You should be ashamed of yourself.

How can the RCC get money from me by me praying? Fasting?

You hate what you THINK is the RCC, NOT what the RCC TRULY is.
---Nikki on 4/8/13


\\And what doctrinal belief does your denomination find in the Apocrypha?
---e.lee7537 on 4/8/13\\

Since Orthodoxy is PRE-denominational, I'm not a member of a denomination.

However, Orthodoxy DOES accept the whole Bible, not a Bible with a great big hole in it like you do.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/9/13


Cluny //The Apocrypha wasn't rejected by Protestants until the 16=17 centuries after Christ, as they did not exist until then.

And what doctrinal belief does your denomination find in the Apocrypha?
---e.lee7537 on 4/8/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


\\Ok, Cluny when and why did the Protestant churches decide that the Apocrypha was not part of the Bible?
---e.lee7537 on 4/7/13\\

The Apocrypha wasn't rejected by Protestants until the 16=17 centuries after Christ, as they did not exist until then.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/7/13


Gills commentary Isaiah 8:16 By 'the testimony' is meant the word of prophecy delivered to him, particularly that evangelical part of it respecting Immanuel, who was to be born of a virgin, and would be for a sanctuary to them that believe in him, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, to unbelievers, so the Gospel is called the testimony of Christ, it bearing witness of his person, office, and grace, and "binding" denotes care of it, as something valuable, that it be not lost, but committed to the trust faithful men, called disciples of Christ in the next clause, in allusion to the binding up of money, or anything of value, in bundles, to be laid up and preserved,
---e.lee7537 on 4/7/13


Can we credit man for deciding what books would be in the Bible or was it God that used man merely as His instruments?
---e.lee7537 on 4/1/13
Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
---francis on 4/7/13


//e.lee, EVERY pre-Reformation Church, including those that were NEVER part of the Roman Church or in communion with her, accepts the Apocrypha.

Ok, Cluny when and why did the Protestant churches decide that the Apocrypha was not part of the Bible?
---e.lee7537 on 4/7/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


==Of course, they were included in the Roman Church bible since they alone give a hint of their purgatory belief==

e.lee, EVERY pre-Reformation Church, including those that were NEVER part of the Roman Church or in communion with her, accepts the Apocrypha.

And there are NO verses in these books that hint at purgatory.

Doesn't it bother you to say things that have no basis in reality?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/7/13


born// There is definitely a human factor. I prefer the Catholic Bible because it has more books and these books absent from the protestant Bible are definitely worth reading.

The books do have some historical value as they depict the events of the intertestimonial period.

But most would agree with St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, that these books should be not be used for doctrinal purposes.

Of course, they were included in the Roman Church bible since they alone give a hint of their purgatory belief - a belief designed to exploit people of their wealth, after all would you not like to give some big bucks to get your mother out of purgatory where she is in great agony due to the purifying fires? Bulldung!
---e.lee7537 on 4/6/13


\\these books absent from the protestant Bible are definitely worth reading\\

Actually, the first Protestant English version that did not contain these books was the NASB of the 1960's.

Rather late, isn't it?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/5/13


There is definitely a human factor. I prefer the Catholic Bible because it has more books and these books absent from the protestant Bible are definitely worth reading. In as much as there is a human factor in all scripture, CONSIDER the validity despite this.

John 5:33-34
33You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony, but I mention it that you may be saved.

1 Corinthians 4:6
I have applied these things, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, Do not go beyond what is written.

John 17:20
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message.

John 4:39, 19:35, 5:46.
---born on 4/5/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


e.lee7537 * Who gave us the Bible? It was the Holy Spirit working thru the Apostles or their close associates that gave us the books of the New Testament. None were subject to any leadership of the Roman Church.

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports-Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384),Decree of,Council of Rome,The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN,33
---Ruben on 4/5/13


And where in History or in scripture does it say anything about any authority being passed downward to the Bishops of Rome?
As for Peter being the rock on which the church was built, Scripture does not teach that.--e.lee7537 on 4/4/13

Matthew 23:2-3
The Scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all the things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

Did you notice the words 'Chair of Moses' & 'whatsoever'?

Matthew 16:19 Peter: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven."
---Nikki on 4/5/13


Ruben//Where or who gave us the bible? Please give me a reply!!!

---
Who gave us the Bible? It was the Holy Spirit working thru the Apostles or their close associates that gave us the books of the New Testament. None were subject to any leadership of the Roman Church.

Where? The different NT books were written from various locations - Ephesus, Jerusalem, Patmos, Antioch, etc.

As to who decided upon what books made up the New Testaments, that was the consensus of those in the early church, the main criteria being of apostolic origin.
---e.lee7537 on 4/4/13


peter is a picture of the church which was founded by Jesus Christ as He taught the diciples. peter rebuked Jesus in matthew 16 vs22 and Jesus referred to him as satan in vs 23. obviously peter didn't know who Jesus was at that time. peter even denied that he even knew him. peter reminds me of us Christians today. sometimes we just don't get it.
---shira4368 on 4/4/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


//Scripture and History is clear on Peter been call rock of the Church, given keys and the authority to bind and loose.

And where in History or in scripture does it say anything about any authority being passed downward to the Bishops of Rome?

As for Peter being the rock on which the church was built, Scripture does not teach that.

Eph. 2:19-21 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
---e.lee7537 on 4/4/13

Those are really easy answers, but you seems to be struggling with my question:

Where or who gave us the bible? Please give me a reply!!!
---Ruben on 4/4/13


Anyone can claim "inspiration" but does that make it so?
There are those that believe Shakespere was inspired,
Jesus confirmed many of the OT writers, no one ,of authority can do the same for the NT!
---1st_cliff on 4/4/13


Ruben //However scripture is not clear on the books of the bible, if it was not the RCC and her councils then please tell me who or where did we get the books of the bible?

---
You have already admitted to the fact that none of the writers of the New Testament were Roman Catholic, i.e. under the direction of a pope.

As such we may logically conclude that the Holy Spirit gave direction as to what books were to be included in the Bible.

We can see that from the very early listings by the various church fathers as to what Christians recognized as scripture. And that was long before church councils.

While today the RCC may recognize the authority of scripture, it is subordinate to their own concept of authority.
---e.lee7537 on 4/4/13


//Scripture and History is clear on Peter been call rock of the Church, given keys and the authority to bind and loose.

And where in History or in scripture does it say anything about any authority being passed downward to the Bishops of Rome?

As for Peter being the rock on which the church was built, Scripture does not teach that.

Eph. 2:19-21 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
---e.lee7537 on 4/4/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


However from both history and the scripture we do not see any expectation of Peter being the head of the Church.

And we certainly do NOT see Christ promising Peter any immunity from error in his leadership, Christ's promise was only that the church will survive and that it has. But it took several reforms and the Reformation to enable the church to survive.
---e.lee7537 on 4/3/13

e.lee,

Scripture and History is clear on Peter been call rock of the Church, given keys and the authorithy to bind and loose.

However scripture is not clear on the books of the bible, if it was not the RCC and her councils then please tell me who or where did we get the books of the bible?
---Ruben on 4/4/13


Ruben //
I guess changing Simon name to Cephas(Rock) in Jhn 1:42 and MT 16:16-19- gave only Peter the keys and was the first to bind and loose.

However from both history and the scripture we do not see any expectation of Peter being the head of the Church.

And we certainly do NOT see Christ promising Peter any immunity from error in his leadership, Christ's promise was only that the church will survive and that it has. But it took several reforms and the Reformation to enable the church to survive.
---e.lee7537 on 4/3/13


Ruben: 'Ok, maybe not Roman but they were Catholics..'

Really there you mean from the 'We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.'

But that just means the WHOLE of the Church, all the believers. It had no connection with the Roman Church as it was now.

And the only one who was definitely a Roman citizen was Paul.

And in the Nicene Creed the 'catholic' is written with a LOWER CASE c
---Peter on 4/3/13


1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
One can easily replace "Paul" with "Cephas."
And it was the Christ, the Rock, that the church is built on, not a man that had to tell Jesus he loved him three times to know Jesus truly forgave him for denying him three times.
and on and on.
---micha9344 on 4/3/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


e.lee7537 * Sorry but Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, Jude, and Peter were not Roman Catholics,

Ok, maybe not Roman but they were Catholics..

e.lee7537 *and that Peter was given some kind of authority over the churches founded by the other Apostles and their disciples.

I guess changing Simon name to Cephas(Rock) in Jhn 1:42 and MT 16:16-19- gave only Peter the keys and was the first to bind and loose. Told only Peter "to feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." And sheep means all people..And on and on...
---Ruben on 4/3/13


It was no mere thing for God to influence the officials to count inspired books inspired, to differentiate what is not inspired.
_____

---1st_cliff on 4/1/13 God did not give Adam an "owner's manual" like you get when you buy a new appliance!

Yes he did. Adam had such greater intellect that he didn't have to write everything all down. It was instead written indelibly in his heart.

Later, because of our sin nature- God insisted on us having it written in stone because our hearts were impenetrable and our memories untrustworthy.
---jan4378 on 4/2/13


E.Lee7537, will you please back up your statements with history and Scriptures.
Just saying "It isn't the Catholic." isn't enough.

Even the History Channel with all it's errors still states the first Christians were knew as Catholics.
Not Baptists, JW, Mormons, Church of Christ or any other Protestant Churches.

Please answer Ruben's question:
How did we get the books of the bible??

Your answer is vague:

"Most of the New Testament writers wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired them."

Because, not most of the New Testament Writers were inspired the Holy Spirit, but ALL of the Writers were inspired.
AND THEY WERE ALL CATHOLICS WRITERS.
---Nikki on 4/3/13


\\Most of the New Testament writers wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired them.\\

This is not being denied by anyone on here, even Reuben or me.

However, there were many OTHER Christian writings penned during the same period, such as the Epistle of St. Barnabas, and the lost Letter to the Laodiceans of St. Paul.

HOW and WHO was it that God used to determine just which writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and which were not? THIS is the question that the original poster is asking.

There was not a list of them that dropped down out of heaven.

(BTW, by your question do you mean to imply that SOME of the NT writers did not do so? If so, which ones?)

Glory to jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/2/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


//Ruben Then how did we get the books of the bible??

---
Most of the New Testament writers wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired them.

Sorry but Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, Jude, and Peter were not Roman Catholics, contrary to your ASSUMPTION that the early church was all Roman Catholic and that Peter was given some kind of authority over the churches founded by the other Apostles and their disciples.

of course, you really want to believe what cannot be verified either in Scripture or in church history.
---e.lee7537 on 4/2/13


Your view is based upon the ASSUMPTION that all the early Christians were all Roman Catholic. I believe that view is next to impossible to prove either from a scriptural or from a historical viewpoint.

And you are stuck in the same hole with Cluny on this issue as he wants to claim that the Eastern Orthodox church with its Patriarch governed the church and guided the selection of the Bible books.

You guys boast of things in your ignorance.
---e.lee7537 on 4/2/13

Then how did we get the books of the bible??
---Ruben on 4/2/13


Ruben//
If it was not the dreaded RCC then please tell us who were the ones who gave us the books of the bible..

---
Your view is based upon the ASSUMPTION that all the early Christians were all Roman Catholic. I believe that view is next to impossible to prove either from a scriptural or from a historical viewpoint.

And you are stuck in the same hole with Cluny on this issue as he wants to claim that the Eastern Orthodox church with its Patriarch governed the church and guided the selection of the Bible books.

You guys boast of things in your ignorance.
---e.lee7537 on 4/2/13


\\\In any case, we can conclude that none of the writers of the Bible belonged to any denomination.
---e.lee7537 on 4/2/13\\

And I've often said that the Orthodox Church is PRE-denominational.

Don't you get it?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/2/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


What we often hear is that the Roman Catholic church due to its succession from the Apostle Peter were the ones that had the authority to decide what books would be in the Bible.
---e.lee7537 on 4/1/13

Because history backs it up!
If it was not the dreaded RCC then please tell us who were the ones who gave us the books of the bible..
---Ruben on 4/2/13


Cluny//Can you really call such men mere instruments, as if they did not willingly cooperate with Him?

When one becomes a genuine Christian, the Holy Spirit works in that person both to will and to desire.

Php. 2: 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

So man really does not receive any credit for what God has wrought in him. Thus, there really does not need to be any cooperation on man's part because what He does is by God's Spirit.

In any case, we can conclude that none of the writers of the Bible belonged to any denomination.
---e.lee7537 on 4/2/13


What we often hear is that the Roman Catholic church due to its succession from the Apostle Peter were the ones that had the authority to decide what books would be in the Bible.
---e.lee7537 on 4/1/13


This is a great question since most Evangelical fundamentalists reverence the bible as an idol!
God did not give Adam an "owner's manual" like you get when you buy a new appliance!
A Few oral instructions was all that was necessary.
The standard Christian bible is made up of 66 books by various and sundry writers, some even unknown!
Not all bibles in use today have 66 books,some have more some less!
---1st_cliff on 4/1/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


I'm finding that what matters is how God has me understand what He has written, and how He does it with us the way He knows He means His words.
---willie_c: on 4/1/13


To call someone "merely an instrument" is to degrade that person and reduce him or her to an object.

Should this be done to ANYONE whom God chooses for His work?

It cannot be denied that God works through people. The people whom God used to assemble the Bible were those whom God especially loved, and who loved Him and were willing to die for Him in return.

Can you really call such men mere instruments, as if they did not willingly cooperate with Him?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/1/13


The New Testament canon was pretty much finalized by the bishops of the Western Church in the fourth century. But some of the Eastern churches did not accept the book of Revelation for a long time after that. You decide whether the hand of God was in those decisions.
---Love.wins on 4/1/13


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.