Christian Unity?

[fishinFamily]

The words of man versus the Word of God. May the reader decide.

Who decided the Bible was the word of God? I’m not disputing that it is…. But who did?

[digthemup]

Who decided the Bible was the word of God? I’m not disputing that it is…. But who did?

At the time of Jesus and the apostles, the question of what constitutes ‘the Scriptures’ was basically settled of what Christians call the Old Testament containing the same material as the Hebrew Bible – the Scriptures of Jesus's day, which He taught from many of times. The Hebrew Bible contains 24 scrolls. The Christian OT divides several of these up, giving us a total of 39 books.
Notice how Jesus refers to the Scriptures as ‘the Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17) or ‘the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’ (Luke 24:44).

The early church recognized what was ‘God-inspired Scripture’. A key part of this was whether the texts had been written by an apostle or someone very closely associated with apostles (Mark and Luke). We don’t know who wrote Hebrews, but its contents are in line with the apostles’ teaching. The early church sensed God’s authority in these 66 texts and not others.
Much more important, however, is that the Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of these texts also confirmed to the church that they had divine authority. The 66 books of the Bible are the word of God, not because some church council decided they were, but because the Holy Spirit guided the church to treasure them above all other writings and to accept the authority of God himself speaking through them.

BTW, during the European Reformation, Martin Luther included the apocryphal books between the Old and New Testaments, though he did not include them in the table of contents and gave them the title ‘Apocrypha'. These Books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are 'useful and good to read’ according to Luther.

[fishinFamily]

At the time of Jesus and the apostles, the question of what constitutes ‘the Scriptures’ was basically settled of what Christians call the Old Testament containing the same material as the Hebrew Bible – the Scriptures of Jesus's day, which He taught from many of times. The Hebrew Bible contains 24 scrolls. The Christian OT divides several of these up, giving us a total of 39 books.
Notice how Jesus refers to the Scriptures as ‘the Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17) or ‘the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’ (Luke 24:44).

The early church recognized what was ‘God-inspired Scripture’. A key part of this was whether the texts had been written by an apostle or someone very closely associated with apostles (Mark and Luke). We don’t know who wrote Hebrews, but its contents are in line with the apostles’ teaching. The early church sensed God’s authority in these 66 texts and not others.
Much more important, however, is that the Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of these texts also confirmed to the church that they had divine authority. The 66 books of the Bible are the word of God, not because some church council decided they were, but because the Holy Spirit guided the church to treasure them above all other writings and to accept the authority of God himself speaking through them.

BTW, during the European Reformation, Martin Luther included the apocryphal books between the Old and New Testaments, though he did not include them in the table of contents and gave them the title ‘Apocrypha'. These Books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are 'useful and good to read’ according to Luther.

That sounds like a beautiful Tradition.

[titanxt]

Traditions are good unless they are the chronic practicing of heretical behaviors or beliefs that stand in direct opposition of God’s Word.

[digthemup]

That sounds like a beautiful Tradition.

It is sad to hear that you believe that which Jesus and the apostles taught is tradition, for if the very words from the mouth of Jesus Christ, God in human form, are not God inspired, I am speechless.
This is the very reason why unity cannot ever come until Christ returns to unite us.

[fishinFamily]

It is sad to hear that you believe that which Jesus and the apostles taught is tradition, for if the very words from the mouth of Jesus Christ, God in human form, are not God inspired, I am speechless.
This is the very reason why unity cannot ever come until Christ returns to unite us.

It is of course the Sacred Tradition:

Sacred tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next ...

[digthemup]

It is of course the Sacred Tradition:

Sacred tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next ...

I hope you don't mind my curiosity, but where did you derive the above statement?

[fishinFamily]

I hope you don't mind my curiosity, but where did you derive the above statement?

Of course I don’t mind. And to be honest I googled it (to make sure I got it right) and can’t find it again to cite it.

Here is the definition from the Catechism:

Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.

[fishinFamily]

This is the very reason why unity cannot ever come until Christ returns to unite us.

The original question was should we be united , not can we be united. But for those that want to know what Unity could look like I hope you will take the time to read about Brother Roger Schutz - he was a Protestant and founded the ecumenical community of Taizé in France. This is from an article on him:
”He never left the Protestantism into which he was born. But, says the German cardinal, Brother Roger gradually "enriched" his faith with the pillars of the Catholic faith, particularly the role of Mary in salvation history, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the "the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome." In 1980, Brother Roger told a meeting of young adult Christians that “I have found my own Christian identity by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the Mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone".

I had the honor to go to Taizé and meet Brother Roger nearly 30 years ago when I was in high school. I think it was then that the seeds of desire for Christian Unity were planted in my soul.

[GPtimes2]

The original question was should we be united , not can we be united. But for those that want to know what Unity could look like I hope you will take the time to read about Brother Roger Schutz - he was a Protestant and founded the ecumenical community of Taizé in France. This is from an article on him:
”He never left the Protestantism into which he was born. But, says the German cardinal, Brother Roger gradually "enriched" his faith with the pillars of the Catholic faith, particularly the role of Mary in salvation history, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the "the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome." In 1980, Brother Roger told a meeting of young adult Christians that “I have found my own Christian identity by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the Mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone".

I had the honor to go to Taizé and meet Brother Roger nearly 30 years ago when I was in high school. I think it was then that the seeds of desire for Christian Unity were planted in my soul.

Just for some trivia-

List of converts to Catholicism - Wikipedia

List of former Catholics - Wikipedia

[fishinFamily]

Just for some trivia-

List of converts to Catholicism - Wikipedia

List of former Catholics - Wikipedia

Interesting trivia. Though I’m dubious of the source and not sure I understand the point being made….