Catholics Wrote the Bible?

[SSScout]

#522.It is a sad Reflection, that many Men hardly have any Religion at all; and most Men have none of their own: For that which is the Religion of their Education, and not of their Judgment, is the Religion of Another, and not Theirs.

 

William Penn, "Some Fruits of Solitude"

[BadenP]

Merlyn

Funny that you claim to know anything about theology, being an atheist I doubt you ever studied it. It is religious doctrines aka religion not theology that tells others how and what to believe, theology is the study of all religious beliefs from ancient tribal beliefs to modern day religions with no preference given to any one. But then again I would not expect you to understand that.

 

Religious freedom allows you to believe what you want to or nothing at all, much like yourself, it is not a license to ramrod a belief down someones elses throat, that would be a theocracy which the USA is not.

 

I am really surprised at you Merlyn I thought you were much more informed than perhaps you really are.

[John-in-KC]

Funny,

 

I thought the Old Testament was written by Hebrews across a few millenia.

 

I thought the New Testament, as settled at various councils by the 4th Century AD, was written by 1st century AD men of the Lord, including John, an apostle, Paul, an apostle (although a special case as defined in Acts), Peter, an Apostle, Luke, a physician...

 

... all under the authority and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

That these men are members of the catholic (small c, not denominated) Church militant I will not dispute. If anyone claims them strictly for the denominated capital C I will dispute it all day. It took centuries for the organizational church to develop.

[NWScouter]

If check most biblical scholars you when find that the earliest writing in the New Testament are the epistles, Romans etc. (Pauls), Johns, Peters, James, Jude and Hebrews, the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) in the late first century, Mark being the first about 70 AD. Synoptic meaning of one eye, as these three gospel have similar accounts of events. In fact almost exactly the same wording. There is a well accepted theory that there was ome source used by all called the Q document.

 

The Gospel of John (my favorite), is thought to have been written about the turn of the first century. It in my mind deals with ideas more than the others and accounts that other do not mention.

It is interesting that Matthew and Luke recount the nativity, while Mark starts with the ministry of John the Baptist when Jesus was about 30. John only mentions the nativity by saying the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and discusses the nature of Jesus and places Him through out eternity In the beginning was the Word and the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God the true light that enlightens everyman. In all to me a meatier gospel that takes a little more digging.

 

In recent fiction, most notably The De Vinci Code, has brought forward lost gospels that they claim proves a vast conspiracy to suppress some truth that will shake up the world. They are not in the cannon of New Testament because of decisions laid down in the early councils that produced such catholic (note small c) and ecumenical creeds the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian. Those 'discovered gosples" tended to be Gnostic, or reflect other beliefs on the nature of Christ, instead of the creeds' (wholly man and wholly God) and the Trinity (true God from true God of one Being with the Father.).

 

The Old Testament cannon generally follows the Septuagint, an Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures done about 200 BC in Alexandra by seventy Jewish scholars , hence its name and its abbreviation LXX. About 400 AD, Jerome translated the whole Bible into Latin, it became to called the Vulgate. He compare the LXX to the Hebrew text in use at the time and removed parts and the church came up with a cannon of the Old Testament.

 

When Luther translated the Bible into German he retained all of the books in the Vulgate. It was later that Protestant groups set some books of the Old Testament as "deuterocanonical" or "apocryphal".

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day. (I copied the last bit from Wikipedia)

 

[NWScouter]

BadenP,

 

You can't make an assumption that because Merlyn is an atheist that he has not studied theology. He may have studied before he became an atheist, or when he was an atheist. You can't know what he has studied. I know I have read and studied many religious beliefs not my own. In fact i have written papers on them. One I wrote I wrote was on the Marburg Colloquy where Luther debate Zwingli on the nature onf the Eucharist. Now I'm a Lutheran but I have studied the theology of the Reformed faiths as I have of the Roman Catholic, Islam, Buddhist, and Mormon.

 

Merlyn may be better informed on theology than a great numbers of Christians, as surveys have shown a great deal of ignorance by Christians of biblical and theological knowledge.

[packsaddle]

I add that an atheist is not restricted from the study of any topic he chooses. If anything, an atheist might feel freer to choose topics of studies than someone who feels bound by their faith. An atheist might not WANT to study some topics but they are as free to do so as anyone else.

This principle can be applied to any other way of thinking. For example, I absolutely reject creationism but I have studied those ideas thoroughly and carefully. It's the principal reason I reject them...because I have a very good understanding of them. For that matter, I suspect that there are some Catholics who are quite studied in Judaism or Islam.

[BadenP]

See Merlyn you even have a fan base in this forum, lol. I said I rather doubted not he never did and since he did not rebute my claim I must assume it is a valid one, and yes pack anyone is free to study anything they want to that is the American way.

 

NW, there were many scripture books that did not make the cut by the early church authority for various reasons, that did not necessarily make them invalid just not in line with the new church hierarchy which had been created after Constantines adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire. Later in the middle ages the now Roman Catholic Church made even more selective changes with the scriptures creating the Douay-Rheims Bible used up until the 1960's and Vatican II when the church revised the Bible once again eliminating the Douay Rheims used for hundreds of years. So you see men did alter the "Word of God" to serve their own purposes over the centuries, especially the Catholic Church.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BadenP, I'm using theology along the lines of this dictionary definition: "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity."

 

The word theology means the study of god, which is not the same as the study of religions.

 

Religious freedom allows you to believe what you want to or nothing at all, much like yourself, it is not a license to ramrod a belief down someones elses throat, that would be a theocracy which the USA is not.

 

BadenP, here's what you wrote to Ripmod:

Sorry ripmod but your theology is as faulty as your facts from the through brainwashing you have received from that heretical religious tradition you belong to. You are free to believe what you like but do not tell others what or how to believe, in this country we have something called religious freedom

 

Ripmod was only exercising his religious freedom; your admonishment was basically trying to limit HIS religious freedom by telling him not to exercise it, which is hypocritical.

[BadenP]

Actually Merlyn theology really means the study of gods and the systems of worship people have used over time, but if you had studied theology you would have known that too. Ripmod is free to express his OPINIONS as is anyone else here but telling him not to try to shove it down others throats is because that is a violation of their religious freedom, that is not hypocrisy except maybe in your own mind.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Actually Merlyn theology really means the study of gods and the systems of worship people have used over time, but if you had studied theology you would have known that too.

 

BadenP, I already told you what definition I'm using. You can use your own.

 

Ripmod is free to express his OPINIONS as is anyone else here but telling him not to try to shove it down others throats is because that is a violation of their religious freedom, that is not hypocrisy except maybe in your own mind.

 

BadenP, he WAS expressing his opinions. You seem to have some secret definition of "shove it down others throats" which allows you to condemn someone for voicing their opinion in a way that you don't like. That's just too bad for you. And yes, I will call you hypocritical for doing so, because you are also "shoving it down others' throats". Yeah, YOU get to state your opinion, but you'll whine about how other people are violating religious freedom if they dare to state THEIR opinion...

[packsaddle]

Merlyn LeRoy is OK but I am a bigger fan of Peabody. He even adopted a little boy, Sherman. Their view of history sometimes reminds me of things I've read in these threads.

[scoutldr]

Well, the Troll accomplished his mission...hit and run.

[BadenP]

Merlyn I have NEVER condemned anyone for expressing their opinions even when I totally disagreed with them, so as you are so fond of saying,"quit trying to put words into my mouth".

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Merlyn I have NEVER condemned anyone for expressing their opinions

 

Again, here's what you wrote to Ripmod:

You are free to believe what you like but do not tell others what or how to believe, in this country we have something called religious freedom.

 

He merely expressed his opinion; you implied he couldn't do that without infringing on people's religious freedom. That's ridiculous.

[BadenP]

You know what Merlyn scoutldr is right on in his assessment of you, you ARE nothing but a Troll and one of the worst kind. Well I am through feeding the troll, namely you, you are not worth the trouble.