If the Bible was first discovered in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea...

[Twilight Hue]

The original was a compilation of selected sections of the Tanakh to make the OT and various fragments and stories about Jesus to make the NT. It was not compiled until late in the 300s, the catholic bible was not compiled until around 80 years later.

There is no complete original to compare with, so the catholic book, although the earliest complete bible, may or may not be accurate to the original.

I guess the core question really is how did the Catholics find the Bible? Where and how did they get it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Such a bull**** OP. "...how in the world did they get the Bible if nobody hadn't discovered the Bible yet?" If nobody hadn't? Double negative. The second sentence sounds written to be misunderstood. The run on sentence doesn't even make sense.

It actually makes perfect sense.

I never got a straight answer on how the Catholics acquired the Bible in the Middle Ages. Somebody had to discover It initially, and it seems like nobody knows.

Just about every Google search as to when the Bible was first discovered always goes to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Discovery of arguably the oldest biblical text in 1970 at Ein Gedi.

Nothing at all about how the Catholic Church got the Bible, making them arguably the first ones who discovered it.

Who, where, and when?

 

[Twilight Hue]

If humans descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

We know that answer.

Do you know who first discovered the Bible in the Middle Ages?

 

[ChristineM]

I guess the core question really is how did the Catholics find the Bible? Where and how did they get it?

I am guessing they used the original book as a guide. But like i said there are now no originals to compare

 

[Augustus]

We know that answer.

Do you know who first discovered the Bible in the Middle Ages?

Who first discovered Plato in the 21st century?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Who first discovered Plato in the 21st century?

You're just trolling now.

 

[Augustus]

You're just trolling now.

I'm pointing out that no one "first discovered" the Bible in the Middle Ages as the books had already been "discovered" (i.e. written).

The Bible underwent an organic process of evolution based on what was used by particular churches. Over time these became traditions.

How did some texts become canonical and others not?

Many books, such as the Gospels, were widely agreed to be authentic from the 1st-2nd C

Other texts were widely considered to be apocryphal and not included

Some were disputed, and may still be to this day, reflecting the different Bibles that exist between Catholic, Protestant, Ethiopic, etc Churches

Much of the Bible has been accepted since the days of early Christianity regardless of when any 'official' canonisation took place. The Catholic Church, as with others, chose the books it viewed as most authentic.

 

[Polymath257]

It actually makes perfect sense.

I never got a straight answer on how the Catholics acquired the Bible in the Middle Ages. Somebody had to discover It initially, and it seems like nobody knows.

Just about every Google search as to when the Bible was first discovered always goes to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Discovery of arguably the oldest biblical text in 1970 at Ein Gedi.

Nothing at all about how the Catholic Church got the Bible, making them arguably the first ones who discovered it.

Who, where, and when?

They did 'discover' it. They assembled it. And they did so in the late Roman period, not in the Middle Ages.The Vulgate Bible was assembled by 400AD.

There were many texts that were believed to be reliable by several different Christian traditions. There were some texts that were hotly disputed. But the Bible we have today was largely assembled from texts (books) that were accepted by one tradition (that became Catholicism).

 

[Polymath257]

You're just trolling now.

No, he is making a point. Nobody 'discovered' the Bible in the Middle Ages. They had the Bible since at least 400 AD, well before the Middle Ages. There are different processes fro the choices for the books of the Old Testament and those of the New.

 

[PruePhillip]

It actually makes perfect sense.

I never got a straight answer on how the Catholics acquired the Bible in the Middle Ages. Somebody had to discover It initially, and it seems like nobody knows.

Just about every Google search as to when the Bible was first discovered always goes to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Discovery of arguably the oldest biblical text in 1970 at Ein Gedi.

Nothing at all about how the Catholic Church got the Bible, making them arguably the first ones who discovered it.

Who, where, and when?

The early Catholics came out of the Apostolic church. We think that
the troublesome Diotrephes was one of the first Catholic Bishops.
Diotrephes knew the Old Testament and he would have known the
early Gospels and letters of the Apostles. Several centuries later
these Christian writings were compiled into the bible as we know
it today.
As such no-one "discovered" the bible. The Old Testament was
in wide circulation already, and most Christians would have at
some written scripture of what later became the New Testament.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I guess the core question really is how did the Catholics find the Bible? Where and how did they get it?

It was never "lost". The people who wrote it WERE the early Catholic Church.

 

[PruePhillip]

It was never "lost". The people who wrote it WERE the early Catholic Church.

Already mentioned this. Just one Catholic is thought to be named
in the New Testament. Bishop Diotrephes was mentioned in John's
epistle - he was an arrogant person who apparently disliked the
Apostolic doctrine. Pretty soon we see a new church appearing
which held to holy days, priests, rules and regulations, church
rituals and money. The Catholic church came out of this new
group, and in the end killed many members of these churches.
Including, I suspect, members of the Apostolic Church.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Already mentioned this. Just one Catholic is thought to be named
in the New Testament. Bishop Diotrephes was mentioned in John's
epistle - he was an arrogant person who apparently disliked the
Apostolic doctrine. Pretty soon we see a new church appearing
which held to holy days, priests, rules and regulations, church
rituals and money. The Catholic church came out of this new
group, and in the end killed many members of these churches.
Including, I suspect, members of the Apostolic Church.

Um, Peter is mentioned too, he was a pretty big deal in the NT, iirc.

 

[PruePhillip]

Um, Peter is mentioned too, he was a pretty big deal in the NT, iirc.

Yes, it was Peter who feared greatly for what would happen
to his flock after he died. He said wolves would come in and
not spare the flock. They would make merchandise of them.
That's what happened, actually. Pretty soon there's a church
as rich and powerful as the Roman Empire.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, it was Peter who feared greatly for what would happen
to his flock after he died. He said wolves would come in and
not spare the flock. They would make merchandise of them.
That's what happened, actually. Pretty soon there's a church
as rich and powerful as the Roman Empire.

Peter was the first Catholic Pope; Please take your implied Catholic bashing elsewhere.

 

[PruePhillip]

Peter was the first Catholic Pope; Please take your implied Catholic bashing elsewhere.

There was no Catholic Church when Peter died.
Who do YOU think were the wolves who "spared
not the flock" and "made merchandise" out of
them? It was people who were the precursors
to the main churches of the 2nd Century.

These apostates began doing what the Jews
did - build temples, have priests, create laws,
build rituals, "observe days and months" (ie
holy days) incorporate pagan practices and
beliefs, assume political power and the like.

The apostles sometimes called apostates
"Jews', not because they hated Jews (they
were Jews themselves) but because they
were making Jesus into just another religious
figure.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There was no Catholic Church when Peter died.

Of course there was. Pope Linus succeeded Peter.

Who do YOU think were the wolves who "spared
not the flock" and "made merchandise" out of
them? It was people who were the precursors
to the main churches of the 2nd Century.

These apostates began doing what the Jews
did - build temples, have priests, create laws,
build rituals, "observe days and months" (ie
holy days) incorporate pagan practices and
beliefs, assume political power and the like.

The apostles sometimes called apostates
"Jews', not because they hated Jews (they
were Jews themselves) but because they
were making Jesus into just another religious
figure.

Again, please take your hateful, misinformed Catholic bashing elsewhere.

 

[metis]

The earliest "Catholic" I can figure out was actually in the
New Testament was Diotrephes, the pagan-convert who stood
up to the Apostle John.

You might want to read this: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

It actually makes perfect sense.

Does not make any sense. In fact more nonsense. Do some homework on the history of the Bible.

Actually I gave reasonable brief explanation and you ignored it.

 

[exchemist]

Speaks of the whore which sits on seven hills in Revelation.
I am sure the Catholics, if they wanted to edit the bible, would
have removed that verse.

Why? It seems to be a reference to the Roman Empire (complete with seven emperors etc.), which was in being at the time, of course.