The Bible was created by man

If you've never seen our copy of the Gutenberg Bible on campus, go check it out sometime. It's quite impressive and one of UT's greatest treasures.
 
Chop said:
If you've never seen our copy of the Gutenberg Bible on campus, go check it out sometime. It's quite impressive and one of UT's greatest treasures.
Click to expand...
Yes! A great beautiful treasure! Grateful for the Catholic monasteries and Monks who through the centuries meticulously preserved the texts for the Christian world until Gutenberg could put it to print. A must see!
 
The Gutenberg Bible clearly resulted in a change in the structure of the Church. Once numerous Bibles were printed it got to the point that each parish, and ultimately each family, could read the Bible for themselves---without the requirement of an institutional clerical interpretive lens to see it through. This obviously spurred on the Reformation.

Aside from the historical and religious aspects of it, the illumination within this treasure is beautiful. Some examples.

(you won't find this in the Bibles in the hotel room drawers)

upload_2024-1-8_15-26-51.jpeg

upload_2024-1-8_15-27-2.jpeg

gutenberg-bible-book_sq.jpeg

images

images
 
The initial big controversy in the wake of the Gutenberg Bible was whether it was ok to print the Bible in some language other than Latin Vulgate.

While Jesus and the 12 Disciples probably also spoke Latin, their main languages were probably Aramaic and Hebrew.
 
Most of the world had no other means to receive the Word of God than by the preservation and voice of the Church. The Church was there before the New Testament so Jesus, in His infinite wisdom, established Her to canonize the NT scriptures for all the Christian world. Even after Gutenberg most of the world was poor or illiterate, so meticulous means continued to safe guard the Bible. If one hasn’t seen the Gutenberg bible, forget Disneyland, go to UT museum
 
Last edited:
Chop said:
The initial big controversy in the wake of the Gutenberg Bible was whether it was ok to print the Bible in some language other than Latin Vulgate.

While Jesus and the 12 Disciples probably also spoke Latin, their main languages were probably Aramaic and Hebrew.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that translation into multiple languages was as much a catalyst for the Reformation as the printing press. I would say translation into understandable languages was first priority and printing was second. Printing accelerated distribution but the commoner wouldn't be able to understand it without the translation. See Wycliffe and Tyndale.
 
LonghornCatholic said:
Most of the world had no other means to receive the Word of God than by the preservation and voice of the Church. The Church was there before the New Testament so Jesus, in His infinite wisdom, established Her to canonize the NT scriptures for all the Christian world. Even after Gutenberg most of the world was poor or illiterate, so meticulous means continued to safe guard the Bible. If one hasn’t seen the Gutenberg bible, forget Disneyland, go to UT museum
Click to expand...

Reading about canonization, the Church (which didn't exist) and the churches (which did exist) didn't guide or create the canon. What you see in the history is that isolated churches collected for themselves the same Bible more or less the same. There wasn't a central authority or a unified effort to determine what books were included and which weren't. A few books were debated for a while but the discussion took place among bishops who were equal to one another. The only person who took the lead was the Holy Spirit, not "the Church".
 
Nice try. Christ did not leave us a canon - but the Holy Scriptures clearly teach us He left us a Church, a living breathing Church, at that. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written (guided by the Holy Spirit) by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon, or list of books, of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the world. The Bible is not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is not a Holy Spirit inspired table of contents in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the CHURCH, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. This was certainly doable, after all, His Church is the pillar and bulwark (fortified wall) of Truth, as St Paul teaches us 1 Tim 3:16-17
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome (historical FACT) which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus (historical fact) promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393 Fact) and Carthage (397 Fact), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.

Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther. By the way, Luther thanked Rome for the scriptures though he disagreed with Her on other matters.
 
Last edited:
The different churches compared notes over time. But there wasn't a centralized authority dictating what books were included. Councils affirmed what was already being practiced by the churches. I've read way more about it than what can be written on Hornfans.
 
I’ve read and researched tons as well, and it doesn’t take but less than a paragraph to provide historical evidence, citations, councils, names, etc. to your claims. I’m happy to take it from there, so don’t fret. Since no original manuscripts exist, Catholic monasteries and monks preserved those sacred writings, but certainly open your proof otherwise. I’ll need sources.
 
I really enjoyed this formal Protestant/ Catholic debate. Dr White has been challenging folks to debate for a long time. I remember a time when he was so bigoted he wouldn’t extend his hand to shake the hand of a Catholic opponent. He’s come a long way. The young gentleman who answered the challenge did a great job imo. Had never heard of him.
 
LonghornCatholic said:
Nice try. Christ did not leave us a canon - but the Holy Scriptures clearly teach us He left us a Church, a living breathing Church, at that. The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written (guided by the Holy Spirit) by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon, or list of books, of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the world. The Bible is not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is not a Holy Spirit inspired table of contents in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the CHURCH, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. This was certainly doable, after all, His Church is the pillar and bulwark (fortified wall) of Truth, as St Paul teaches us 1 Tim 3:16-17
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome (historical FACT) which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus (historical fact) promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393 Fact) and Carthage (397 Fact), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.

Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther. By the way, Luther thanked Rome for the scriptures though he disagreed with Her on other matters.
Click to expand...
It would have been informative if they had a reporter at the council where the Cannon was set to record the discussions and debates. Maybe it's buried somewhere deep in the Vatican archives.
 
The intense desire to maintain unity in His Church expressed by Jesus, coupled with historical reality, is the strongest argument in favor of Catholic/Orthodox instead of Protestantism. While I have no problems at all with the Nicene Creed (as stated by the Orthodox Church and now as admitted by the Catholic Church--the filoque issue resolved in favor of the Orthodox view per the previous Pope I think), I have all sorts of issues with the way the Catholics do things. Nonetheless, I have been close to becoming Catholic (or more likely Orthodox--which I think is now in communion with the Roman Catholic Church) based on Jesus' unity prayers alone. Go through those sometime--it has to be very, very, very important for that much "red" ink language in the Bible.

Martin Luther was right in most of his theses nailed to that door. In fact, many Catholic scholars today will openly admit that. He didn't set out to split up the RC Church, but rather to fix some problems caused, in large part, by Borgia Popes. The decision later on to make a formal split was Earth-shattering.
 
“The Bible was Created by Man . . . “

but was inspired by the Almighty. It’s really not that complicated.

There was a beginning before us, yet we still pretend to be gods. . .to pretend to know what came before and to pretend to know what will come after.

HE saves those who accept HIM as alpha and omega - the one true GOD who said, “I am who am.” The ONE who said, “I am who sent me to you.”

HE asks something so simple: “love one another as I have loved you.”

Do so, and death will be no more. So don’t sorrow or weep, for HE will wipe away all tears and you will come home.
 
I’m reading The Shroud of Jesus by Dr Gilbert Lavoie. Forget everything you think you know about the shroud and read the book. Don't want to ruin the claims, but can’t recommend it enough.
 
LC,

We need to talk. In the late 70s, the Catholic church allowed a small group (3 I believe) of professionals to examine the Shroud. One of them was a devout Catholic who performed experiments on cadavers for years hoping to just see the Shroud. When invited, he told me his "secret" and how he could prove it was a fake. Indeed, he went with the idea of proving it was a fake. I knew nothing about the Shroud but was fascinated by his findings. Shortly thereafter he left Houston for a more prestigious job. Not sure if he is still alive because the last time we visited was early 80s.
 
Yes, it’s been too long, we need to catch up soon. I know the shroud survived a fire so the had some modern repairs, but would like to discuss. Agree, fascinating subject.
 
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Shroud was real.

On the other hand, when some church claims to have a splinter of the "actual true cross"............................

There were hucksters in the Middle Ages making fortunes selling little chunks of wood.
 
LC,

There are several factors that the 3 physician/scientists that the Cathholic Church allowed to exam it back in 79 or 89 found. My friend was a devout Catholic and spent his whole life experimenting on cadavers. He told me he was going to prove it was fake. When he returned, his first words were, "It is real".

Details to follow when you have time.
 
We had a gentleman who has spent his entire professional life studying the Shroud and the research around it at our church a couple months ago for a presentation, primarily focused on the 1978 study. I felt like I knew a decent amount about it but my mind was blown after he was through covering the facts and conclusions from the team, most of whom were not Catholic and some of whom weren't Christian. If you go in and review - with an open mind holding no bias in either direction - I would find it extremely hard to believe you would walk away thinking it was fake.

LC - one of the topics covered was the body position and manner in which the image was left that supported exactly what you said regarding ascension.

It is real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top