73 Book Bible...How Important?

[Ernie07]

Too kind! Dr. David Anders illuminated me as to why there are so many bible Christian trolls - Luther placed all importance on belief alone - one’s behavior did not really matter. Thus, you can curse, belittle, lie about and otherwise act un-Christian, as long as you “believe” in Christ. Nonsense, of course.

On YouTube, I have now chosen to interact with other Catholics only. That way, we place the faith before all, but without arguing.

I haven’t studied Martin Luther deeply, but I don’t believe that he taught that behavior didn’t matter. But, I could be wrong. I haven’t talked to one Protestant that believes that they can sin all they want. Almost all of them have told me that their good behavior is just evidence that their faith is “real”. Whether their behavior has anything to do with their salvation is where we differ.

It’s “nonsense” to us Catholics, but not nonsense at all to any Protestant that I’ve spoken to. The people I’ve had the privilege of speaking with all love the Lord very much. They are very spiritual people that believe deeply in their faith…maybe that’s why they’re confident in speaking to me. But, conversing with them can be very frustrating. It is for this very reason that I’ve become such a big proponent of asking them what Bible are they using or who believed as they believe as an initial strategy to deflect their questioning of my faith to areas where I have a significant advantage.

Talk to you later.

-Ernie-

 

[po18guy]

Ernie, if you can, give a listen to Dr. Anders on Called to Communion. It’s on Catholic radio as well as YouTube - both live-streamed as well as video. He knows Luther well. ML said that one could sin continuously and that would not affect justification. In our age, even Ephrem Zimbalist Jr. on TBN has said that sin does not separate us from God’s salvation. Ugh.

It’s really bad.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ernie07:

Man, what a great article! The defense of our 73 book Bible in response to 5 myths…awesome! Thank you for providing that link, but I wish you would have told me about it a few months ago so that I wouldn’t have had to do the many hours of research I did on this topic!! LOL!

Isn’t it strange?
This morning I was trying to remember which of the 7 books of the Bible were considered “uninspired” by Protestants. I am always appalled to think that they would cut Wisdom and Sirach, two books I am VERY fond of, especially Sirach. I also remembered Tobit and I & II Machabees, but I couldn’t recall the other two. In my googling, I found that article, which I thought would interest you, and at the same time answered my question about the two remaining books (Judith and Baruch.) I didn’t realize they even knocked out one of the prophets!

I have a book by Thomas Stapleton, the 16th century English Catholic apologist, who with rapier deftness slices through all the baloney excuses of the Reformers for downgrading those seven inspired books to the “Apocrypha.”

 

[PJM]

Its Lent, 40 days of penance in the imitation of Jesus Christ during His 40 days in the wilderness.

To set the scene…
Jesus is fasting. Forty long days and forty long nights. And Jesus was hungry.
The devil rocks up and tempts Jesus to eat and reveal Himself. The devil says if you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.

Jesus replies
It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’"

So more books = more words = a very good thing.

Thank you,

This is but one of the misunderstood passages that Jesus TRIES to share

GBY

 

[PJM]

Speaking of those 7 books, and their importance, I found this article helpful.

REALLY GOOD:thumbsup:

Thanks and GBY

 

[Tex_Alberta]

As a former protestant…I want the whole bible the Church gave us. Anything less…is less.

 

[Usagi]

I think the reason we focus on the smaller canon when we argue with Protestants is that it’s the one they accept. If we can demonstrate distinctive Catholic teachings from “their” Bible, and therefore get them thinking that the Catholic Church may be all she claims to be, then accepting the larger canon comes easily after that.

Starting off with, “Okay, first you have to accept these extra sources as valid evidence” seems like the harder path to the goal.

If I am a hard-nosed skeptic about UFOs, I am more likely to look at evidence that already meets my standards for what counts as evidence. If the UFOlogist bases his whole argument on a source I don’t accept (say, the words of some gal who claims to be channeling alien messages), he’s not going to get anywhere fast, because he has to persuade me of the validity of that before he even gets to the thing he actually wanted to talk about.

 

[po18guy]

I haven’t studied Martin Luther deeply, but I don’t believe that he taught that behavior didn’t matter. But, I could be wrong. I haven’t talked to one Protestant that believes that they can sin all they want. Almost all of them have told me that their good behavior is just evidence that their faith is “real”. -Ernie-

One of the prominent figures, caught in the middle, during the very inception of the reformation, was Desiderius Erasmus, whom Luther greatly admired. Within the first seven years of that movement, here is what he wrote to Luther’s lieutenant, Philipp Melanchthon, regarding it:

“I know nothing of your church; at the very least it contains people who will, I fear, overturn the whole system and drive the princes into using force to restrain good men and bad alike. The gospel, the word of God, faith, Christ, and Holy Spirit – these words are always on their lips; look at their lives and they speak quite another language.”

And later on, to another:

“You declaim bitterly against the luxury of priests, the ambition of bishops, the tyranny of the Roman Pontiff, and the babbling of the sophists; against our prayers, fasts, and Masses; and you are not content to retrench the abuses that may be in these things, but must needs abolish them entirely…
Look around on this ‘Evangelical’ generation,[46] and observe whether amongst them less indulgence is given to luxury, lust, or avarice, than amongst those whom you so detest. Show me any one person who by that Gospel has been reclaimed from drunkenness to sobriety, from fury and passion to meekness, from avarice to liberality, from reviling to well-speaking, from wantonness to modesty. I will show you a great many who have become worse through following it…The solemn prayers of the Church are abolished, but now there are very many who never pray at all…
I have never entered their conventicles, but I have sometimes seen them returning from their sermons, the countenances of all of them displaying rage, and wonderful ferocity, as though they were animated by the evil spirit…
Who ever beheld in their meetings any one of them shedding tears, smiting his breast, or grieving for his sins ?.. Confession to the priest is abolished, but very few now confess to God…”

As the reformation began to degrade the faith, he wrote to Luther himself: “We are dealing with this: Would a stable mind depart from the opinion handed down by so many men famous for holiness and miracles, depart from the decisions of the Church, and commit our souls to the faith of someone like you who has sprung up just now with a few followers, although the leading men of your flock do not agree either with you or among themselves – indeed though you do not even agree with yourself, since in this same Assertion[48] you say one thing in the beginning and something else later on, recanting what you said before.” And:

“You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture.”

To which, when Luther realized that Erasmus would not support him, spoke thus of him:

"called Erasmus a “viper,” “liar,” and “the very mouth and organ of Satan.”

Erasmus supported the seven Sacraments and the Deuterocanonical books even before Trent:

Erasmus took a stand against Luther’s teaching by asserting the unwritten Sacred Tradition as just as valid a source of revelation as the Bible, by enumerating the Deuterocanonical books in the canon of the Bible and by acknowledging seven sacraments.

Clearly, Martin Luther began as unstable, and simply spun off the hook as his power and influence increased - a sad time in human history.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Thank you,

This is but one of the misunderstood passages that Jesus TRIES to share

GBY

Jesus doesnt try anything. He just does it. Rolls up His sleeves and gets to work. He knows His job and has a wonderful work ethic. !

The words Jesus spoke
"Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.”
biblehub.com/matthew/4-4.htm
Are very simple to understand.

And guess where else this topic comes up?
Think 40 years, wilderness, manna from Heaven…
biblehub.com/deuteronomy/8-2.htm
I must thank my Priests, in their Homilies, for such thorough grounding in their teachings of Scripture.

How do you believe this to be misunderstood?

So, more books = more words= a very good thing

 

[PJM]

One of the prominent figures, caught in the middle, during the very inception of the reformation, was Desiderius Erasmus, whom Luther greatly admired. Within the first seven years of that movement, here is what he wrote to Luther’s lieutenant, Philipp Melanchthon, regarding it: And later on, to another: As the reformation began to degrade the faith, he wrote to Luther himself: “We are dealing with this: Would a stable mind depart from the opinion handed down by so many men famous for holiness and miracles, depart from the decisions of the Church, and commit our souls to the faith of someone like you who has sprung up just now with a few followers, although the leading men of your flock do not agree either with you or among themselves – indeed though you do not even agree with yourself, since in this same Assertion[48] you say one thing in the beginning and something else later on, recanting what you said before.” And: To which, when Luther realized that Erasmus would not support him, spoke thus of him: Erasmus supported the seven Sacraments and the Deuterocanonical books even before Trent: Clearly, Martin Luther began as unstable, and simply spun off the hook as his power and influence increased - a sad time in human history.

Very well done!

Thanks

Can you share for the source for these quotes? I’d like to read more

GBY

 

[PJM]

Jesus doesnt try anything. He just does it. Rolls up His sleeves and gets to work. He knows His job and has a wonderful work ethic. !

The words Jesus spoke
"Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.”
biblehub.com/matthew/4-4.htm
Are very simple to understand.

And guess where else this topic comes up?
Think 40 years, wilderness, manna from Heaven…
biblehub.com/deuteronomy/8-2.htm
I must thank my Priests, in their Homilies, for such thorough grounding in their teachings of Scripture.

How do you believe this to be misunderstood?

So, more books = more words= a very good thing

NOT commonly by fellow Catholics

GBY

Patrick

 

[Ernie07]

I think the reason we focus on the smaller canon when we argue with Protestants is that it’s the one they accept. If we can demonstrate distinctive Catholic teachings from “their” Bible, and therefore get them thinking that the Catholic Church may be all she claims to be, then accepting the larger canon comes easily after that.

Starting off with, “Okay, first you have to accept these extra sources as valid evidence” seems like the harder path to the goal.

I guess I’m not saying that they have to accept these extra sources as much as I’m saying that we should come to an agreement on what constitutes the real Bible. I would think that if they’re Bible-only Christians then they would be ultra focused on ensuring that the Bible they are using is the real one. The discussion I’m speaking to is more of a “seed planting” exercise that may not take effect until they’re alone thinking about what they heard. If it causes them to start doing the research for themselves we’ve done our job.

If I am a hard-nosed skeptic about UFOs, I am more likely to look at evidence that already meets my standards for what counts as evidence. If the UFOlogist bases his whole argument on a source I don’t accept (say, the words of some gal who claims to be channeling alien messages), he’s not going to get anywhere fast, because he has to persuade me of the validity of that before he even gets to the thing he actually wanted to talk about.

I love your example and I can see where you’re going…especially if my argument was based on the channeling of alien messages!! Haha! But, my thought is that I’m not really trying to make a Protestant agree with my sources as much as I’m trying to enable them to think about and see the truth. Get them to not take the word of a fellow Protestant, but to test their faith. Test that what they’re being told is the truth. Personal interpretations are hard to argue sometimes, but whether or not they’re using the real Bible isn’t really that difficult and it’s not based on interpretation, but historical facts. I’m not really trying to persuade as much as I’m trying to open your eyes to the truth. What do you think?

Thanks again for your thoughts.

-Ernie-

 

[Roseeurekacross]

PJM

you stated

“This is but one of the misunderstood passages that Jesus TRIES to share”

About this passage
The words Jesus spoke:
"Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.”
biblehub.com/matthew/4-4.htm

Can you please, as asked, explain your stance that this is a misunderstood passage.

This answer of yours
“NOT commonly by fellow Catholics”
Does not explain why you believe that passage to be misunderstood,
or how Our Lord ‘tried’ to share.

As you know , and taken from Pope Francis Homily on the first Sunday of Lent. About the 40 day temptation. And from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14520270#post14520270

“But the devil’s poisonous darts are all ‘blocked’ by Jesus with the shield provided by God’s Word” he said, pointing out that Jesus never uses his own words but only God’s Word, and thus, filled with the force of the Holy Spirit, he victoriously crosses the desert”

This passage was spoken by Jesus as it was a passage from God’s Word, and recorded in the Old Testament by Moses.

How is it a Catholic cannot understand such a simple passage?

 

[po18guy]

Very well done! Thanks Can you share for the source for these quotes? I’d like to read more GBY

Those are from the Wiki on Erasmus, with sources in parentheses. Erasmus should be much better known today than he is. An intellectual who produced a New Testament translation and numerous other works. He took the middle road, decrying the abuses in the Church and agreeing with Luther that reform was needed. As the polemics grew, he was lambasted by both sides. At some point, I would think that his cause should be introduced, as he suffered for doing right, rather than wrong, and remained faithful to the Church through it all.

 

[PJM]

I guess I’m not saying that they have to accept these extra sources as much as I’m saying that we should come to an agreement on what constitutes the real Bible. I would think that if they’re Bible-only Christians then they would be ultra focused on ensuring that the Bible they are using is the real one. The discussion I’m speaking to is more of a “seed planting” exercise that may not take effect until they’re alone thinking about what they heard. If it causes them to start doing the research for themselves we’ve done our job.

Been there, DONE THAT:thumbsup:

GOOGLE “History of the Catholic Bible Canons” for
Who
What
When Where:thumbsup:

I love your example and I can see where you’re going…especially if my argument was based on the channeling of alien messages!! Haha! But, my thought is that I’m not really trying to make a Protestant agree with my sources as much as I’m trying to enable them to think about and see the truth. Get them to not take the word of a fellow Protestant, but to test their faith. Test that what they’re being told is the truth. Personal interpretations are hard to argue sometimes, but whether or not they’re using the real Bible isn’t really that difficult and it’s not based on interpretation, but historical facts. I’m not really trying to persuade as much as I’m trying to open your eyes to the truth. What do you think?

And this is Good and VERY GOOD!

Thanks again for your thoughts.

-Ernie-

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

PJM

you stated

“This is but one of the misunderstood passages that Jesus TRIES to share”

About this passage

The words Jesus spoke:

"Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.”

Can you please, as asked, explain your stance that this is a misunderstood passage.

Sure: But to make sure that this is not just “MY” opinion; here first is Haydock’s Bible Commentary on Mt 4:4

“Ver. 4.

• St. Gregory upon this passage says: if our divine Redeemer, when tempted by the devil, answered in so mild a manner, when he could have buried the wicked tempter in the bottom of hell, ought not man, when he suffers anything from his fellow man, rather to improve it to his advantage, than to resent it to his own ruin. Man consists of soul and body;** his body is supported by bread, his soul by the word of God; hence the saying**

[1]I have hammered on this site repeatedly; what seems to me, to be none, or limited acceptance of its reality: TRUTH can be nothing other than SINGULAR per defined issue. Pope Benedict nailed it when he taught: THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH & MY TRUTH OR THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH.”

[2] I hold my position because of the multiplicity of non-Catholic- Christian churches;
EACH having its own set of faith beliefs. Indeed churches are defined by their self-proclaimed set of beliefs; and it’s this that gives them their identity.

[3] It is denial, overlooking, or ignorance [BLOCKED understanding as a penalty imposed by the Holy Spirit] of the fact of a singular truth per defined issue is the only, as well as the only logical possibility

1Kgs.4: 29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and largeness of mind like the sand on the seashore

Luke.24: 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures

Eph.4: 18 they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart

[4] As truth can only be singular the preponderance of differing Christian faiths means that all but one of them, at least in part, are false.

Nowhere in the bible is there evidence of GOD ever being OK with competing faiths and religions; hence such to varying degrees are displeasing, but still often still used by God
Missing or ignoring the singular tense WORDS of the Inspired Catholic Authors of the NT 2 Tim 3:16-17

**All scripture is inspired by **God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”

examples

Mt 10:1-8
Mt 16:15-19
Jh 17:17-20
Mt 28:19-20
Eph 2:19-20
Eph 4:1-7…. NOT recognizing that each of these is directly, precisely and exclusively intended for the Apostles & their successors [compare Mt 10: 5-8 to Mt 28:19-20], proves my point.

It isn’t just that a great many critical teaching are overlooked; rather more common is the reader inclined to give them their own favorable to their beliefs understanding.

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching: Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”

2Peter 1: 20-21
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

see 2nd. Peter 3: 14-18

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.

2nd. Cor. 4:3-4 “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

Col.2: 8 “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ”

Romans 9: 18 “So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.”

This answer of yours

“NOT commonly by fellow Catholics”
Does not explain why you believe that passage to be misunderstood,
or how Our Lord ‘tried’ to share.

“But the devil’s poisonous darts are all ‘blocked’ by Jesus with the shield provided by God’s Word” he said, pointing out that Jesus never uses his own words but only God’s Word, and thus, filled with the force of the Holy Spirit, he victoriously crosses the desert”

This passage was spoken by Jesus as it was a passage from God’s Word, and recorded in the Old Testament by Moses.

How is it a Catholic cannot understand such a simple passage?

SEEMS I wasn’t clear enough? Because space is limited on this FORUM, I will only ask: Can ALL Catholics explain what I just did? BUT even beyond this; how many “catholics” don’t keep the 3td Commandment; or don’t avail themselves of Sacramental Confession [1 Jn 5:16-17 & Jn 20:19-23]?

My PRIMARY focus here was Protestants, & I added Catholics in fairness as a after though

Luke 11:28
But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.

I’m truly SORRY if I offended you, that was not my intent.

GBY
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Those are from the Wiki on Erasmus, with sources in parentheses. Erasmus should be much better known today than he is. An intellectual who produced a New Testament translation and numerous other works. He took the middle road, decrying the abuses in the Church and agreeing with Luther that reform was needed. As the polemics grew, he was lambasted by both sides. At some point, I would think that his cause should be introduced, as he suffered for doing right, rather than wrong, and remained faithful to the Church through it all.

THANK YOU So very much

Great information

GBY

 

[Roseeurekacross]

PJM

Goodness, thats a lot of copying and pasting. Lots of words. And they arent linking that well or tying into any sort of answer that well. Humbly.

You have not offended me. Why would you think that. Be at peace.

But but but

Can you answer my question, in your own words.

This question

“NOT commonly by fellow Catholics”
Does not explain why you believe that passage to be misunderstood,

For catholics, because you said fellow Catholics.

 

[PJM]

PJM

Goodness, thats a lot of copying and pasting. Lots of words. And they arent linking that well or tying into any sort of answer that well. Humbly.

You have not offended me. Why would you think that. Be at peace.

But but but

Can you answer my question, in your own words.

This question

“NOT commonly by fellow Catholics”
Does not explain why you believe that passage to be misunderstood,

For catholics, because you said fellow Catholics.

THANK YOU

So please ask ME the question again and I’ll TRY to do just that

GBY

Patrick

 

[Ernie07]

[1]I have hammered on this site repeatedly; what seems to me, to be none, or limited acceptance of its reality: TRUTH can be nothing other than SINGULAR per defined issue. Pope Benedict nailed it when he taught: THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH & MY TRUTH OR THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH.”

This particular quote really resonated with me and what drives me as a Catholic. When I nearly left the Catholic faith and began a search for what church I should belong to (including even starting my own church) the verse that stuck out for me was Mt 16:18…and not the Peter part, but the part where Jesus said that He would build His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail over it. That’s the Church I wanted to belong to!!

In the process of trying to find “that Church” I needed a criteria to make my decision. How could I compare existing beliefs and KNOW what was the real truth…and not someone’s version of the truth? Once I did the research and found that there was only one single universal church in the first 800 years of the Church everything changed for me. I now had an objective, rather than subjective, way of determining “that Church”.

Because I trust Jesus and the notion of an unchanging Godly Truth that single universal church HAD to be protected to teach truth as Jesus’ Church. So whatever that Church believed the Church of today must have those same beliefs. That’s how I became a devout Catholic because only the Catholic Church met this criteria. And that Church has believed in a 73 book Bible. For me, it’s as simple as that.

I veered some off the topic of the thread, but I couldn’t help myself!! Haha!

-Ernie-