A question for all Protestants

[chessmane4e5]

"This reads as follows in the Vulgate, “There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.” The “Three Heavenly Witnesses,” as the first sentence is called, is first found in the Latin (fourth century) and does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifteenth century. It is probably a marginal gloss that found its way into the text.

Are you saying that it shouldn’t be in the bible?

I am just repeating what is in my Bible, which is the Ignatius Bible.

I have read some stuff about the Douay-Rheims that makes me wonder.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp
catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

 

[joe370]

I am just repeating what is in my Bible, which is the Ignatius Bible.

I have read some stuff about the Douay-Rheims that makes me wonder.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Chessmane4e5, perhaps it’s similar to the ending of the gospel of Mark. It occurred to me last night, the reason that I overlooked is because it is not in my New Jerusalem bible.

 

[jericho777]

My bible says something different and has the following note.

"This reads as follows in the Vulgate, “There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.” The “Three Heavenly Witnesses,” as the first sentence is called, is first found in the Latin (fourth century) and does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifteenth century. It is probably a marginal gloss that found its way into the text.

Ignatius Bible

Isn’t the latin vulgate the official text the CC used?

 

[raggetyann]

Hello, it matters not who was first and who was last because with Christ the first come last and the last come first.
NOW you ask if there was any interpretation at all in the bible sorry to darken your day :
Gen:5,12,16,18 Gen:40-8 Gen:41:11 42:43
Judges:7:15, Proverbs"1: 6. Ecc:8:1,Dan:2:4,5,6,7,9,16,24,25,26,30,36,45.
Dan:4:18,19,24.Dan:5:12,15,16,17,26. Dan:7:16.1st Cor:12:10, 14:28 14:26.Acts:4:36
Not to mention a few more where there are interpretations. raggetyann

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Hey Jericho, I totally stand corrected. Man, how did I overlook that one. Good job and thanks so much. A person could read the bible a thousand times and discover something new.

I believe this verse was added.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Isn’t the latin vulgate the official text the CC used?

The latin Vulgate is the official, which was translated by St Jerome.

So when looking at other translations, the Vulgate should be checked for accuracy/translator interpretation. This is evident when you look at the NAB (which is on the Vatican Website as the English translation) which is translated as "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” Luke 1:28.

I had someone in another thread trying to use this as evidence that the Bible does not say “Full of Grace”, so Catholics are wrong about Mary. Well, if you look at the Vulgate (and the other language translation) they all say “Full of Grace”. Why does the NAB say “Favored One”? I don’t know, I didn’t translate it

 

[raggetyann]

Hello, as far as the blessed Mother i believe we don’t need to argue with the fact that if you are favored you are under grace and if you had the Lord God in you like she did you’d be full of grace also. This lady, Mother, blessed person was indeed full of grace and was and is with Christ today. I don’t need a brick to fall on my head to know that. As far as scripture i wish i had a copy of the very first bible they ever printed because i do know for a fact allot has been removed from the originals. Things people didn’t agree with and it didn’t go along with the churches doctrine. I know Joseph Smith was a false prophet but he never hid the way he felt he put it right there even though it disagreed with Normal scripture, and made a fool of him in the end, and they have removed allot of their scriptures also. but i care not what they do i care to learn what the original words of the Lord were and the disciples. Or should i just stick to the Torah? Is that the real word of God? Will the real bible please stand up! raggetyann

 

[joe370]

Hi Minny, you said to Randy:

Randy,

I see your point. However, I still wonder if the thinking believers who developed the doctrines and the heresies could be guilty of reducing the faith of Jesus to something that exists in facts, and not in heart-felt love for God. That is the struggle I see. I see people whose mind gets filled with “How can I prove this is right?” when the real truth is to live by the power of God, which was brought to us in Jesus.

How can I know that real truth is limited, only to living by the power of God, which of course goes without saying, but does not tell us how to live by the power of God? Is this the only real truth that must be followed? If that is the case, then why the need for the 27 books of the NT? I should only see one thing when I open my NT, if in fact what you are wondering, is correct:

*“The real truth is to live by the power of God, which was brought to us in Jesus.” *

And, as a further question, (again and I am sorry for that), are there some doctrinal issues that don’t need to be settled? I mean, let the truth be with God in heaven, and here on earth we concern ourselves with our lives, our attitudes, our actions, our spirit. Is there a place for that?
Just wondering…

So, are you saying: faith in Christ necessary. Some doctrinal truth not necessary? What are some of those doctrinal issues that don’t need to be settled? Shouldn’t they be listed in the bible if in fact sola scriptura is to be the Christians final authority??? The way and the truth, (Jesus Christ) - and the spirit of truth, (Holy Spirit) - is forever present (John 14:16) - in Jesus’ church, guiding His church into all truth, (John 16:13) - not some doctrinal truth - wouldn’t you agree?

 

[XinMinny]

Joe.
Interesting reply. I just noticed it today. I’ll give you my thoughts. You can agree or disagree. And, I admit, I am simple in my desire for faith.
Concerning doctrine: As an example: Trinity. What has become doctrine today (and what has been labeled Arian heresy, too, for that matter) seems to me to be the theorizing of men about the things that are written in John 1, Philippians 2, Acts 5, etc. I think it could easily be said that John would not have thought of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this refined way. And, whatever simpler, less developed way he would have thought of the Three was plenty enough to save his soul. What John did think about (lots!!) was love. It’s all through 1 John, for example.
Concerning the 27 books: The emphasis in almost all of them (Romans and Hebrews the exceptions) seems to me to be on how Christians are to behave in the world in which they live.
So, my real question or thought is something like this: We spend lots of mental energy trying to define doctrinal questions that the 12 Apostles would not perhaps have even wondered about. Perhaps our focus would better placed if our efforts and desire were more on how to live with a Godly life and attitude in this world. And, to do so humbly. That’s what I’m wondering. And, then, to take it one step further: Is it possible that God in Heaven is quite nonplussed with all our wonderings about doctrinal points? And, would it please Him more if we were praying about how to have power to overcome our human nature and be a clearer evidence in our lives of His power?
Does that clarify my idea?

Thanks.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

Joe.
Interesting reply. I just noticed it today. I’ll give you my thoughts. You can agree or disagree. And, I admit, I am simple in my desire for faith.
Concerning doctrine: As an example: Trinity. What has become doctrine today (and what has been labeled Arian heresy, too, for that matter) seems to me to be the theorizing of men about the things that are written in John 1, Philippians 2, Acts 5, etc. I think it could easily be said that John would not have thought of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this refined way. And, whatever simpler, less developed way he would have thought of the Three was plenty enough to save his soul. What John did think about (lots!!) was love. It’s all through 1 John, for example.
Concerning the 27 books: The emphasis in almost all of them (Romans and Hebrews the exceptions) seems to me to be on how Christians are to behave in the world in which they live.
So, my real question or thought is something like this: We spend lots of mental energy trying to define doctrinal questions that the 12 Apostles would not perhaps have even wondered about. Perhaps our focus would better placed if our efforts and desire were more on how to live with a Godly life and attitude in this world. And, to do so humbly. That’s what I’m wondering. And, then, to take it one step further: Is it possible that God in Heaven is quite nonplussed with all our wonderings about doctrinal points? And, would it please Him more if we were praying about how to have power to overcome our human nature and be a clearer evidence in our lives of His power?
Does that clarify my idea?

Thanks.

XinMinny - I just want to tell you that I think you make a really good point. I don’t think I’ve ever really thought about this particular point that you wrote: “And, whatever simpler, less developed way he (John) would have thought of the Three was plenty enough to save his soul. What John did think about (lots!!) was love.”

I very much agree with you that God could be perplexed with our wonderings and endless discussions about doctrinal points…I’ve seen soo much bickering about interpretations and who said what and I’ve been a part of that bickering too, and totally felt that my words at times or comments were not at all honoring Him. It very much felt like I was involved in the scene from The Lord of the Rings where men, elves, dwarfs, wizards, and hobbits were involved in a heated discussion about the destroying the ring. How we can get sucked into arguments over trivial matters and not really see the big picture. (Just as an FYI for those reading, I don’t see a heated discussion here in this thread - it’s been informative and pretty civil.)

But XinMinny, I just want to thank you for such a thought provoking statement.

Bottom line is God loves us. We will be accountable for our actions while here on this earth. He could very well say to me when I arrive in heaven, “While you were picking apart doctrine and beliefs online, there was a hungry and cold person outside your window, and you failed to help.” And He will remind me: “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Matthew 25:45

I thank you for bringing this to my attention because I think there is a better way to spend my mental energy and time allotted to me on earth. To you friend, I think I was suppose to read this tonight. Thank you and good night.

 

[tweetymom]

XinMinny - I just want to tell you that I think you make a really good point. I don’t think I’ve ever really thought about this particular point that you wrote: “And, whatever simpler, less developed way he (John) would have thought of the Three was plenty enough to save his soul. What John did think about (lots!!) was love.”

I very much agree with you that God could be perplexed with our wonderings and endless discussions about doctrinal points…I’ve seen soo much bickering about interpretations and who said what and I’ve been a part of that bickering too, and totally felt that my words at times or comments were not at all honoring Him. It very much felt like I was involved in the scene from The Lord of the Rings where men, elves, dwarfs, wizards, and hobbits were involved in a heated discussion about the destroying the ring. How we can get sucked into arguments over trivial matters and not really see the big picture. (Just as an FYI for those reading, I don’t see a heated discussion here in this thread - it’s been informative and pretty civil.)

But XinMinny, I just want to thank you for such a thought provoking statement.

Bottom line is God loves us. We will be accountable for our actions while here on this earth. He could very well say to me when I arrive in heaven, “While you were picking apart doctrine and beliefs online, there was a hungry and cold person outside your window, and you failed to help.” And He will remind me: “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Matthew 25:45

I thank you for bringing this to my attention because I think there is a better way to spend my mental energy and time allotted to me on earth. To you friend, I think I was suppose to read this tonight. Thank you and good night.

I too want to thank the post and also yours. Every one wants to be right and spents so much time trying to prove it that we forget the Gospel is very simple and straight forward. Believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ that He died for our sins and will come again.

 

[larkin31]

The bolded part is where I think you will find the disagreements amongst Non-Catholic Christians.

God bless you Bill

I have read the beginning and the ending (here) of this thread, and have not really seen this point addressed. Although I am a lapsed Protestant (was a Protestant all my upbringing), I can speak fairly well for my denomination’s view of this: the Bible is/was not an infallible document meant to be followed today in every letter of the law. The inconsistencies, scientific and historical inaccuracies, and biases are meant to be considered on by thoughtful, independent, and faithful minds in the evolving quest of believers to find the way to God. The path was not fixed 2000 years ago in the mores and scientific understanding of a more primitive (in some ways) culture, nor were we given these independent minds and hearts simply to adhere to ancient doctrine merely for doctrinal reasons.

So, what exactly is the scriptural basis for the claim of infallibility?

 

[larkin31]

no Catholic takers?

 

[Xavierlives]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

I know I am a bit late to the discussion and I might be rehashing some previously mentioned points (so tell me to shush, if so), but the Bible has quite a bit of concepts that are never fully explained. Because a protestant accepts and uses the word Trinity does not necessarily mean they adhere to the Catholic teaching. The protestant could have been taught their denominational understanding (which may or may not come from CC ideas) or they may have read 2 Cor 13:14; Matt. 28:19; Matt. 3:16-17, etc.

As for not accepting the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, purgatory, etc.

They receive communion.
They acknowledge Mary as Jesus’ mother.
They recognize all Christians as saints.

As for purgatory, there is a deep chasm that separates many people on this concept, (and I’d say it is because it was developed from the other two parts of the Catholic Church… the Tradition and the Magisterium, which are rejected.

 

[joe370]

Hey XinMinny…

Joe.
Interesting reply. I just noticed it today. I’ll give you my thoughts. You can agree or disagree. And, I admit, I am simple in my desire for faith.
Concerning doctrine: As an example: Trinity. What has become doctrine today (and what has been labeled Arian heresy, too, for that matter) seems to me to be the theorizing of men about the things that are written in John 1, Philippians 2, Acts 5, etc.

Perhaps what has become the bound/codified holy bible, (in the 4th century) - is nothing more than the theorizing of men about which books should/shouldn’t be included in the holy word of God? After all, some books in the the bible today, didn’t make the cut early on, just as some books not found in the holy bible today, did make the cut when the CC eventually resolved the matter and codified sacred scripture. Or, perhaps the holy spirit guided these men in the 4th century to accurately include/exclude the books found in the bible? Surely the same can be said about the Trinitarian dogma - don’t you think?

I think it could easily be said that John would not have thought of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this refined way.

Well, John did record in his gospel the following:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me.

And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony. 7 So we have these three witnesses - the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree.

The NKJ bible says:

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth…

Sacred Tradition was the benchmark, (used by the CC) - for determining which books would be included/excluded, and it was this same tradition that helped these men decide that the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit were one. Of course the whole process was enabled by the Holy spirit just as the apostles were enabled in Acts 2 to do things that were humanly impossible The holy spirit will be with the church of Matthew 16 until the end of time - right? Would the apostles have a problem with the word Trinity? Of course not. Would they have a problem with the Arian heresy? Of course.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

And, whatever simpler, less developed way he would have thought of the Three was plenty enough to save his soul.

Agreed, however, the reason why the teaching was developed/clarified, was due to the fact that people, from within the CC, were claiming that Jesus was not God…that He was just a man with the indwelling of the spirit of God only, and I guarantee you that this would have been unacceptable to the apostles. They were teaching that Jesus was not assumed bodily, into heaven.

What John did think about (lots!!) was love. It’s all through 1 John, for example.
Concerning the 27 books: The emphasis in almost all of them (Romans and Hebrews the exceptions) seems to me to be on how Christians are to behave in the world in which they live.

Ageed! John talks about love, for God is love, and love/charity is the key to everything, but without the development/clarification of what became known as the Trinity, Christians outside the CC might not believe that Jesus was in fact God, just as the Eucharistic teaching was watered down to a mere symbol, and that doctrine is totally biblical. Can you imagine believing that Jesus is not God?

So, my real question or thought is something like this: We spend lots of mental energy trying to define doctrinal questions that the 12 Apostles would not perhaps have even wondered about.

They would have if Arius and company, belonged to their church, in the 1st century! Actually, I am pretty sure that all Christians are in full agreement regarding the Trinity - right?

Perhaps our focus would better placed if our efforts and desire were more on how to live with a Godly life and attitude in this world. And, to do so humbly.

Couldn’t agree more! Of course, without defocussing from doctrinal truth, such as the Eucharist. The bible tells us that this doctrine very important, just as important as love/charity.

That’s what I’m wondering. And, then, to take it one step further: Is it possible that God in Heaven is quite nonplussed with all our wonderings about doctrinal points? And, would it please Him more if we were praying about how to have power to overcome our human nature and be a clearer evidence in our lives of His power?
Does that clarify my idea?

Sure, God no doubt, is nonplussed with all our wondering about doctrinal points? However, I truly believe that God wants us to stop wondering, (and we can) - by simply finding the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the Holy spirit into all truth. What Jesus is probably nonplussed about is the fact that men fractured His Mystical Body, (both the CC, and the Protestant leaders that spearheaded the reformation are responsible) - the church, which has led to the man-made doctrine called sola scriptura via individual interpretation, that would have been, without doubt, an outrageous heretical doctrine to the apostles, which of course has led to all the doctrinal division and disunity in the Protestant churches. Of course that’s just my opinion. I don’t believe that Jesus would want us to disregard his doctrinal truths for the sake of unity. I believe that God would want us to find the church of Matthew 16 where all truth can be found, regarding the teachings that Jesus reveal to His church, protected and safeguarded by the ever presence of the Holy spirit, working in the backdrop. But that’s just me…

 

[XinMinny]

Joe,
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
I put this up this evening as a new thread, because I am feeling guilty of thread hijack.
I find your thoughts interesting. I have a few questions. Please feel free to post an answer to me directly, or put it in the new thread, which is called, “Simple Early Days.”
My first question for you is: Exactly what is Arian heresy? My impression, and I would admit to not having been schooled in the matter at all, is that the Arian heresy was not a denial that the Father, Son and Spirit are all God. But, rather, that they are all not exactly equal. I need some help to understand that apparently.
And, just to put in my 2 cents, I think that is a justifiable position. Jesus seemed to defer both his works and his teachings to the Father. And, the Spirit didn’t come until Jesus asked the Father to send the Spirit. So, it seems possible to conclude that the HS is subject to the Father and Son. I bring this up not for argument at all, but simply to try to understand. And, I might add, if I am correct about Arius, I wonder if that kind of discussion might be ‘unprofitable’ in exactly the way I have been trying to think about. In other words, perhaps the exact description is beyond man, and it is not so important for us to argue about…
Anyway, it seems more respectful to the OPer to move this to the other thread…

Thanks again,
X in Minny