Posted on 04/04/2015 1:59:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a canonical collection of texts sacred in Judaism and Christianity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible]
Thanks, I did not know that. Still no eucharist in there?
Thank you for making my point. From your quoted authority:
The Bible means "a canonical collection of texts sacred in Judaism and Christianity".Tà biblía means "the books".
At no point in the Scriptures does the Greek term tà biblía refer to "a canonical collection of texts sacred in Judaism and Christianity."
Etymology does not control definition. To assume that it does, is called the "Genetic" or "Etymological" Fallacy (LINKS)
If etymology controlled definition, it would be wrong to use the word "biblios" or "Bible" to refer to any artifact not made of papyrus: the remote origin of the word.
Nope! God in the form of a cracker is idolatry.
Twist the words to try an suit all you want. The “words of God were entrusted to the Jews” not the Catholics. So says scripture.
But the Jews were entrusted with the Old Testament. The New Testament was entrusted to the Church.
Tagline.
You actually have no defense for the Etymological Fallacy.
The fact that the Catholic Church tries to usurp the position of the apostles is simply fantasy. The lineage of popes is built on fallacy. The Catholic Church leadership doesn't even qualify per Paul's criteria for becoming bishops. How Catholics fall for the lies of the Catholic Church is beyond me. For those truly wanting to follow Christ it is paramount that they leave that religion.
The word Bible comes from the Greek word "Biblos," which is translated "book." The original manuscripts of the Bible were kept in the synagogues. Those who had custody of the manuscripts first used the Greek word to describe the collection, which later became known as "the Book." [http://www.allabouttruth.org/where-did-the-word-bible-come-from-faq.htm]
If by "Bible" you mean "a canonical collection of texts sacred in Judaism and Christianity" ---- this is the definition YOU quoted --- this is not the same word or meaning as "biblos."
The key word in the definition of "Bible" is "canonical." The Jews had a number of different accepted lists, some of which included only the Pentateuch, some of which were in LXX Greek and included such books as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees (this was the collection used by Jesus and quoted by the Apostolic-era writers of the New Testament); some of the Jewish collections even included 3 and 4 Maccabees, Enoch, Jubilees, and other now-excluded texts.
The Jewish Canon adopted by Protestants at the time of the Reformation, the Masoretic Text, is now considered the authoritative Hebrew text; however, it was not finalized until the 9th century A.D.
So, as for "canonical"? The word "biblos" in the Scriptures never refers exclusively to the collection of Jewish (or Christian) canonical texts. Its meaning is much wider and much vaguer: it means, simply, "the books."
The word "Bible" -- or ANY related word meaning a "collection of canonical texts" --- is not found in the Bible.
A person persistent about clarifying the accurate definitions, should not be accused of "twisting words."
Would you like to define the identifying "marks" of the True Ekklesia, according to your view? Would you maintain that it would have to have no Sacraments, no Eucharist/Mass/Liturgy, no hierarchical structure, no regard for Sacred Tradition, no reliance upon a chain of Apostolic Succession, and having exclusive reliance on a 66-book "Bible"?
Is that about it? Anything else that would be a mark of the true "ekklesia"?? I need you to clarify and define this by your own point of view.
And then: would you care to name one ekklesia (identified by city or bishop) which existed in, say, the first millennium A.D., which meets these criteria?
.
>> “Do they even know who assembled the Bible?” <<
.
Yes we definitely know who assembled the Bible, and we also know who burned as much of it as he and his armies could find.
The Hebrews, known in the scriptures that Yeshua read constantly as the “People for my name” wrote and assembled all of the Bible in his language, before Constantine and his cult set out to eradicate it, and Yehova’s People for His Name.
No amount of catholic falsehood will ever be able to change that fact.
.
.
>> “God also used Judas to establish His will. Should we list some of the others? Like Harod or Pontius Pilate? Maybe Balaam’s donkey?” <<
.
CB, you left out the one most like the catholic church: Haman! The pre-cursor to the final Antichrist.
.
The early church, at least as we see in Acts, did not have much of what the roman catholic church claims today.
In the early church there was:
1) No pope or hierarchy (cardinals, primates, etc) as seen in the rcc today
2) People met in houses, not the buildings we have today
3) No apostolic succession as defined by the rcc.
4) No separation between clergy and laity as seen in the rcc today. All believers had a role to play in the life of the early church.
5) There was baptism, but it was not a means of salvation but rather a confirmation of salvation.
6) Communion/Eucharist was present, but was not a means of salvation, but a remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus.
7) No worship of Mary or praying to Mary. No praying to departed believers. No statues of Mary, etc. All was focused on Jesus as it should be today.
8) No "sacred" tradition as defined by the rcc. Was there oral teaching? Yes. No one denies that. But it was based on Scripture.
9) Was there a 66 book called the Bible? Not at that point in the life of the early church. Though by 67 AD we did have all of Paul's writings circulating around the early churches. We know copies were being made and circulated. We're talking right after Pentecost so a lot of reliance was on teachings from the OT, and what the Holy Spirit was imparting to the church. See comment on Paul's writings above.
The need for a written word did became a necessity for the church though as the Apostles died off and with the encroachment of false teachings influencing the church.
10) A message of salvation through faith in Jesus and not works. Though there was an expectation that in following Jesus a believer would adhere to His teachings and life.
11) No penance or indulgences
12) No liturgy as defined by the rcc today.
I could keep going on, but you get the idea.
How did you get that block on your head permanently anyway? I liked the airbag better.
Now for the second part of the question:
Can you substantiate that any "ekklesia" in the first Millennium A.D. met these criteria? Anywhere? In what is now Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, the Balkans, Italy, France, Spain, the British Isles, Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine, or anyplace else?
A name, a time, a place, a text --- historic evidence --- is what I'm looking for.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question in detail. It's approximately what I thought you would say. (See? I know you, dear CynicalBear!)
Now for the second part of the question:
Can you substantiate that any "ekklesia" in the first Millennium A.D. met these criteria? Anywhere? In what is now Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, the Balkans, Italy, France, Spain, the British Isles, Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine, or anyplace else?
A name, a time, a place, a text --- historic evidence --- is what I'm looking for.
Simple answer is it was the early church.
The real question is can the rcc point to the early church and substantiate what it does?
For fun, let's keep this limited to Acts and Paul's writings. Those are texts we all agree on.
LOL! No, the "real" question --- the one that's on the table now --- is the one I asked:
Can you substantiate that any "ekklesia" in the first Millennium A.D. met these criteria? Anywhere? In what is now Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, the Balkans, Italy, France, Spain, the British Isles, Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine, or anyplace else?A name, a time, a place, a text --- historic evidence --- is what I'm looking for.
That should be easy to answer.
Now, as for your question: it's a very legitimate one, and I'll take it next. You're in the queue.
As it's baseball season....batter up!
.
I figured you’d have a really intelligent response, and you’re really movin on up!
We’ll be reassigning you from blocks to large crayons soon.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.