A Historical Dare to Protestants

[benedictus2]

Actually, that is not 100% correct. One of the primary languages was Aramaic, but Jesus was able to speak many languages and did. All one has to do is look at all the diversity of groups Jesus spoke with, not all used Aramaic as the primary language. Also, we know from the day of Pentecost that the Apostles spoke in many languages. This is why the Greek language is so perfect for God to have used for the New Testament because of it’s rich color allows us to more fully understand in our limited human capacity the treasures of His word.

We know Jesus spoke Aramaic from the phrases that the got carried into the gospels such as “Eli, eli, lahma sabachtani”. “Talitha kum”.

Also the fact that Paul called Peter, Cephas, which is a corruption of the word Kepha which is Aramaic for Rock.

Also, do you have proof that Jesus spoke other languages. I am sure He could speak any language becausse He is God but the question is did he speak other languages.

Please show proof that He did.

 

[Seeking12]

Notice how you said “Nice try” and not “Wrong!” when you replied to my Catholic brethren? You know why? its because you know what he said is true. Jesus did speak Aramiac thats a “historical fact”. But why talk history here, no protestant ** dares ** to do it.

Jesus is also called as the Good Shepered but yet HE tells Peter to feed HIS lamb. sigh. Again, if God dosen`t build His church upon man, why did He write a book called the Bible (Which the Catholics compiled by the way) through man?? Also, if God DID start a church which He HIMSELF build with no intervention with man, are you in that church? I told you already, go to my post “History of the Roman Catholic Church”, and we will see if your alleged God-Made Church has history supporting it. But you know what? I am sure you will never post under my thread, or reply accuratly to my post here, because every other denomination other the RCC came AFTER the RCC. And if that is the case, what other church could possible lead its roots back to Peter??? and the Aposltes??? and to Jesus Christ HIMSELF???

Calvinists? no…Baptists?..no…your denomination???..no.

You see brother, its clear, we proove it over and over again. The Roman Catholic Church IS the Church that Jesus Christ established.

***check your christian encyclopida for more information ****

God Bless.

Actually, that is not 100% correct. One of the primary languages was Aramaic, but Jesus was able to speak many languages and did. All one has to do is look at all the diversity of groups Jesus spoke with, not all used Aramaic as the primary language. Also, we know from the day of Pentecost that the Apostles spoke in many languages. This is why the Greek language is so perfect for God to have used for the New Testament because of it’s rich color allows us to more fully understand in our limited human capacity the treasures of His word.

The other statements you made concerning the origin of the Bible is also incorrect or incomplete. For example the Apocrypha was added some 1200 years after the canonization of the Bible (Council of Trent) and 1500 years after the books were written in response to the charges Luther made against the Roman Catholic church concerning a variety of issues such as praying for the dead. By adding 2 Maccabees 12:45-46, Catholics then had support for praying to the dead. The reasons for the late canonization by the Church are suspect at best.

Early church fathers used these books for devotional purposes by denied them as inspired; of note included Origin, Jerome, Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. Also worth noting is the Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. There are also geographical and historical error in the books, that would refute their inspiration.

Does God make mistakes?
Do books inspired by God make mistakes?
Did you know history and archeology have supported the Biblical record?
Do you know, by contrast, that the apocryphal books contain many historical errors?
What does this tell you regarding whether the Apocrypha is inspired by God?

 

[benedictus2]

The other statements you made concerning the origin of the Bible is also incorrect or incomplete. For example the Apocrypha was added some 1200 years after the canonization of the Bible (Council of Trent) and 1500 years after the books were written in response to the charges Luther made against the Roman Catholic church concerning a variety of issues such as praying for the dead. By adding 2 Maccabees 12:45-46, Catholics then had support for praying to the dead. The reasons for the late canonization by the Church are suspect at best.

I think you are wrong there. The council of Trent merely affirmed the canon that was established at Carthage if my memory serves me correct but I will check this out.

The books you’ve marked as Apocryphal were all part of the canon. Before Luther the canon was already established. Luther decided that they should not be included. Who is he to say what should and should not be included. Rather arrogant for one man to decided which books are inspired or not don’t you think? I mean, if he can do it so can you, right? He even tried to get rid of James.

So Luther not only hacked the Body of Christ. He also hacked His Word.

 

[benedictus2]

Do you know, by contrast, that the apocryphal books contain many historical errors?

Andd did you know that the protestant churches are historically in error because none of them can trace their church back to that time in Ceasaria Philippi when Christ said you are Peter and upon this I will build my church?

Did you know that because She is the Church that Christ founded on earth, the Holy Spirit was given to Her to guide her into All truth?

Did you know that we know the canon of the Bible is correct because we believe in Christ’s promise?

 

[Realcatholicgk]

benedictus2:
I think you are wrong there. The council of Trent merely affirmed the canon that was established at Carthage if my memory serves me correct but I will check this out.

The books you’ve marked as Apocryphal were all part of the canon. Before Luther the canon was already established. Luther decided that they should not be included. Who is he to say what should and should not be included. Rather arrogant for one man to decided which books are inspired or not don’t you think? I mean, if he can do it so can you, right? He even tried to get rid of James.

So Luther not only hacked the Body of Christ. He also hacked His Word.

**Hi ben,

AD
51-125 The New Testament books are written.

140 Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.

200 The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

367 The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367
A.D…

382 Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

393 the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

397 The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …

AD787 The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

AD 1238 The system of chapters was introduced by Cardinal Hugo de S. Caro,

1442 AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.

1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

1551 the verse notations were added by Robertus Stephanus, after the advent of printing. **

 

[jblake]

w_stewart;:

Nor does the Bible talk about the books to be included in the Bible.

The pertinent issue here is what books one initially accepts as being canonical. Depending upon that set, between five and sixty books are described as being canonical, within that canon.

Nor does the Bible talk being inspired, infallible, inerrant.

The pertinent issue here is whether the books in which that claim is made, are canonical or not, and then whether that claim applies only to those specific books, or the canon in general.

jonathon

 

[benedictus2]

1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

Thanks sweetheart, I think these are the important points.

 

[benedictus2]

The pertinent issue here is what books one initially accepts as being canonical. Depending upon that set, between five and sixty books are described as being canonical, within that canon.

The pertinent issue here is whether the books in which that claim is made, are canonical or not, and then whether that claim applies only to those specific books, or the canon in general.

jonathon

The pertinent question here is WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHICH IS CANONICAL AND WHICH IS NOT.

The only one who can decide that is the Church because the Scripture was written within her bossom. Before Luther ever was, the Church was there. It is Her book, so the decision is Hers.

 

[jblake]

benedictus2;:

was, the Church was there. It is Her book, so the decision is Hers.

Would that be the German Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, to list churches under the Holy See, whose canons are different, or the Armenian Orthodox Church, or the Syriac Orthodox Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church, to list three churches within Orthodox Christianity that have different canons, or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, as an example of Oriental Orthodox Christianity, or The Church of England, to list a church that is neither Protestant nor Catholic, or the Evangelic Lutheran Church, to list a church that is Protestant. or the Christian Church, to list a church from Restoration Movement Christianity, of the Church of Christ, Scientist, to list a New Age Christianity church, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to list a church that developed from the theology of Joseph Smith?

They all consider different books to be canonical.

jonathon

 

[benedictus2]

Would that be the German Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, to list churches under the Holy See, whose canons are different, or the Armenian Orthodox Church, or the Syriac Orthodox Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church, to list three churches within Orthodox Christianity that have different canons, or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, as an example of Oriental Orthodox Christianity, or The Church of England, to list a church that is neither Protestant nor Catholic, or the Evangelic Lutheran Church, to list a church that is Protestant. or the Christian Church, to list a church from Restoration Movement Christianity, of the Church of Christ, Scientist, to list a New Age Christianity church, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to list a church that developed from the theology of Joseph Smith?

They all consider different books to be canonical.

jonathon

There is only one Catholic Church!

 

[broski234]

I know that this is what you have been taught about this passage, but the language just does not support it. One who is judged with regard to rewards does not need to be “aquitted”. This is a legal term used for a court of law, not a court of rewards. Acquitted means that charges are not held against a person- case dismissed. People that are acquitted a reward. They get excused from punishment reserved for the guilty.

Paul hoped for what he did not see. He ran the race so as not to be disqualified. Those who are disqualified are not eligible for prizes, cd.

Those whose names are “blotted out” of the book of life don;t get rewards either.

Paul was Catholic, and his writings represent the Catholic faith. There is no contradiction between the Scripture, and what Paul passed on to those he ordained as Catholic bishops and priests. The “difference” is your perception. When the eye is sound, the whole body is full of light.

Well said:thumbsup:

 

[broski234]

I have the Holy Spirit inside me and when I hear solid teachers teach Scripture, it resonates as the illumination of the Spirit. It is wonderful and yet routine!

If the Holy Spirit is guiding you, then you must be infallible right?

 

[Seeking12]

We know Jesus spoke Aramaic from the phrases that the got carried into the gospels such as “Eli, eli, lahma sabachtani”. “Talitha kum”.

Also the fact that Paul called Peter, Cephas, which is a corruption of the word Kepha which is Aramaic for Rock.

Also, do you have proof that Jesus spoke other languages. I am sure He could speak any language becausse He is God but the question is did he speak other languages.

Please show proof that He did.

If that is the logic you use, then all we can say is that Jesus spoke Aramaic a couple of times, but we have no proof that He spoke it more than that; do we?

Although we cannot prove; it is almost certain that He also spoke Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

Upper class Jews learned Hebrew as a literary and liturgical language. Many others, even those from the lower classes - like a carpenter, for example – learned Hebrew so that they might be able to read and understand the Torah (the Mosaic Law) in its original language.

One text from the biblical gospels strongly suggests that Jesus had learned Hebrew as a second language. In Luke 4 Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, where he read a section from the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:16-19). It is almost certain that this scroll was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic.

Scholars have shown that the region in which Jesus grew up was a multi-cultural and multi-lingual area. Many Greek-speaking Gentiles lived around Nazareth, especially in the large city of Sepphoris that lay within reasonable walking distance from Jesus’ hometown. Since Jesus worked as a carpenter prior to beginning his messianic ministry, it’s quite likely that he would have interacted with people from Sepphoris, and therefore he may have known at least enough Greek to get by in business.

Several times throughout the New Testament gospels Jesus converses with someone who spoke Greek as a primary language, and who may not have known Aramaic. See, for example, Jesus’ dialogue with the Roman centurion in Matthew 8:5-13. Of course it’s possible that there was a translator present, but unlikely and is not recorded for us.

Perhaps the most striking example of this sort of dialogue happens during the passion of Jesus as he interacts with Pontius Pilate. All four New Testament gospels record this conversation, with John providing the most extensive account (see John 18). It is unlikely that Jesus knew enough Latin to converse in the official tongue of the Roman empire. And it’s equally unlikely that Pontius Pilate knew Aramaic. He was not the sort of gracious governor who would have made the effort to learn the tongue of his subject people, that’s for certain. So it’s possible that Jesus and Pilate used Greek in order to communicate. Of course it’s also possible that they used an interpreter.

 

[Seeking12]

I know that this is what you have been taught about this passage, but the language just does not support it. One who is judged with regard to rewards does not need to be “aquitted”. This is a legal term used for a court of law, not a court of rewards. Acquitted means that charges are not held against a person- case dismissed. People that are acquitted a reward. They get excused from punishment reserved for the guilty.

Paul hoped for what he did not see. He ran the race so as not to be disqualified. Those who are disqualified are not eligible for prizes, cd.

Those whose names are “blotted out” of the book of life don;t get rewards either.

Paul was Catholic, and his writings represent the Catholic faith. There is no contradiction between the Scripture, and what Paul passed on to those he ordained as Catholic bishops and priests. The “difference” is your perception. When the eye is sound, the whole body is full of light.

There is no place in Scripture that states someone can be blotted out of the Book of Life. Is this a Catholic teaching? Doesn’t the Book of Life contain the names of the elect predestined before the foundation of the world?

 

[MariaG]

I noticed that more than one poster has just said that no Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture - interesting that no one has mentioned the part I also said in that post about how no doctrine can be independent of scripture.

There are other threads to discuss those kinds of differences, but my point is that the Bible doesn’t make “history” a criteria for truth.

I was on a very long thread a few years ago. It went at it from a slightly different angle. It was basically trying to show something from Sacred Tradition that was completely independent from scripture. Guess what? The Protestant was the one who couldn’t find anything that was independent of scripture.

Which doctrine of the Catholic Church would you like to discuss on a different thread that you feel is independent of scripture?

 

[MariaG]

YOU can have any doctrine YOU want. We will judge it based on God’s word through the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and you won’t understand, but I don’t think its written anywhere that that matters.

We? And what about those who through the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit actually came to the Catholic Church? Those like me who can claim, ironically or not, that they were led to the CAtholic Church through the Holy Spirit and scripture alone? No studies with Catholics, just me.

Will you claim I don’t understand either?

 

[selah603]

I havent had a chance to read all the postings in this great thread.So please forgive me if you I am repetitive. This will be short enough that hopefully that won’t happen!!

I converted to Catholicism almost 9 years ago. It was a personal journey with no one “evangelizing” me. I started reading Scripture closely (I had taught Bible studies for years) and started reading the early fathers… the Lord kept knocking away every one of those Protestant objections (ie Mary, the Pope, purgatory, etc)
It was frightening because I had always been anti-Catholic (the church-not the people) and His apparent calling scared me! One time I had an epiphany and realized without a doubt that the Blessed Sacrament really is the body of Jesus, I was a goner.

This being said, I think that this thread can be summed quite succinctly.

The Church did not come from the Bible
The Bible came from the Church.

The traditions (the magisterium) and the Scriptures give the full picture of what, as the Church, we know. Without the Catholic church, there would have been no preservation of the scriptures, clear definitions of the Trinity (the word isnt in the Bible). How did Christianity grow, through all first centuries in spite of persecution, and death when there was no Bible? It was because of the apostolic teaching that was spread throughout the ancient world.

After having a fundamentalist, evangelical non-denominational background, where the creed was whatever the pastor happened to believe, I found my home in the RCC. It has been the most glorious decision I have ever done in spite of losing friends and having my mother enraged (THAT’s another story!!)

God bless everyone that is seeking and may we all never stop seeking His presence.

Pam

 

[Michael_Francis]

Over the 1,000 point limit and closed.