Attending a Protestant Bible Study/History Class

  • Thread starter Thread starter lozeerose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lozeerose

Guest
Here’s the deal, my wife, who is not a Catholic, is attending a Bible study/history class at her Baptist church. I knew that she was attending this class on Sunday mornings but she just let me in on the details of the class.

She’s been going for the last 3 weeks and I’ve asked how things are going, etc to make conversation because we never talk religion in our house. Anyway, she told me that they are going over the formation of the Canon and what makes certain book canonical and others not. Obviously this cause my ears to perk up and I asked if her invitation for me to attend with her was still on the table (it is a young couples group).

Now I was clear with my reasons:

  1. *]Learn their side of the Canon story.
    *]Defend the Church.
    *]Ensure proper history and context.
    *]Challenge.
    *]Evangelize.

    Last week they discussed the “Apocryphal” books, including the Deuterocanon and this week (and those following) they are planning on going over these books. Not sure what the context is yet.

    My primary question is, should I attend this class? My faith is strong and I am fairly knowledgeable (no pro apologist or bible scholar) of these subjects.

    Does anyone have any brief but solid resources concerning the individual books of the Deuterocanon, etc.

    Thanks and God bless.
 
lozeerose said:
Here’s the deal, my wife, who is not a Catholic, is attending a Bible study/history class at her Baptist church. I knew that she was attending this class on Sunday mornings but she just let me in on the details of the class.

She’s been going for the last 3 weeks and I’ve asked how things are going, etc to make conversation because we never talk religion in our house. Anyway, she told me that they are going over the formation of the Canon and what makes certain book canonical and others not. Obviously this cause my ears to perk up and I asked if her invitation for me to attend with her was still on the table (it is a young couples group).

Now I was clear with my reasons:

  1. *]Learn their side of the Canon story.
    *]Defend the Church.
    *]Ensure proper history and context.
    *]Challenge.
    *]Evangelize.

    Last week they discussed the “Apocryphal” books, including the Deuterocanon and this week (and those following) they are planning on going over these books. Not sure what the context is yet.

    My primary question is, should I attend this class? My faith is strong and I am fairly knowledgeable (no pro apologist or bible scholar) of these subjects.

    Does anyone have any brief but solid resources concerning the individual books of the Deuterocanon, etc.

    Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...

  1. Recipe for disaster.

    This can only bring acrimony and distrust to your marriage. I am also in a mixed marriage with an Evangelical Protestant (low Anglican). I have long ago learned to keep religion out of our marriage.

    If you attend and use it as an opportunity to support the Church’s view, it will only lead to discord and acrimony at home.

    I know the CAF zealots will have my hide for saying the above, but I can almost guarantee it will drive a wedge between you and your wife.
 
What OraLabora said.

Plus, you have a snowball’s chance in hell of scoring any points with Baptists at a Baptist Bible study. I was them for 20 years. I’m telling you, they’re operating under different rules than you are. The leader already determined the “right” answer, and the followers will go along with whatever he says over what you say because he’s following the rules, and you’re not.
 
scottm said:
The leader already determined the “right” answer, and the followers will go along with whatever he says over what you say because he’s following the rules, and you’re not.
Click to expand...
Strangely, I get that sense any time I discuss the Bible, theology and the Church whenever I am at their “home court.”
 
They wont admit they are wrong, even in blatant evidence.

Prepare for the church to be attacked as pagan and un-biblical.
 
You should go if you can be charitable, kind, patient and diplomatic. Everyone should like you. Nobody wants to hear their religion is wrong. Hear is my favorites on the subject:

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html (not exactly ear tickling to Protestants)

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM a classic.

©2002, “Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals”: A Response to 11 ‘reasons’ that the Deuterocanonicals Should be Thrown Out of the Bible…by Matt1618.
This is a great resource, but keep in mind the author is addressing one who is hostile, and it comes across as being condescending. matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html
 
Since unity in faith is what binds us together, and especially in the Sacrament of Matrimony, here’s an even more difficult task for you: Allow your joy-filled faith life to attract your wife home to the one true Church. Our faith is centered on the Holy Eucharist - during communion and at adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Mixed marriages always leave something out, and there is a sense of a certain emptiness in the relationship. I cannot imagine leaving religion out of our daily conversations. But, our mixed marriage was much easier to solve: I was unbaptized and had no affiliation, so conversion for me was simply saying “yes”.
 
lozeerose said:
Strangely, I get that sense any time I discuss the Bible, theology and the Church whenever I am at their “home court.”
Click to expand...
Every protestant feels the same way about such discussions with Catholics. Go to the event to learn their perspective, because that’s what it’s about. To do otherwise would be like me going to an RCIA just to to tell the instructor he or she is wrong on Marian devotion, Eucharistic adoration, etc. If you want to present your perspective, ask to do so and do so only with permission. It’s not a comparative religion seminar and to be blunt it’s possible no one there will be the least bit interested in your perspectives. If you approach this with the attitude that “I’ll show those protestants where they went wrong” you may be shocked by the reception.
 
Hi lozeerose,

Yes you should attend, and go equipped with facts that they cannot refute. I once attended what was supposed to be a non-denominational Bible study group and over time its agenda became: Catholic bashing and undermining anything Catholic regardless of facts. It actually helped me to become a more knowledgeable Catholic because I learned about history and facts in order to present the truth to them. The leader (a Baptist man by the way) was vehemanently opposed to any facts though, so be prepared for that just in case.

Here are some facts:

Before anything was ever written the stories of God were transmitted orally for centuries. The people of God had no written language then.

The Pentatuch (The “Law” or “Teachings”, also called the Torah by Jewish people) were first written around 1.300 by Moses. He wrote the Commandments, but other teachings were still oral and committed to memory. Moses was “Educated in all the learning of the Egyptians” Acts 7:22, and in Ex 24:4 “Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord”, (These were pertaining to laws and ordinances of God - not all the five books of the Pentatuch, for Moses was busy leading the people through the desert and never entered foot into the Promised land.)

Among the oldest parts of the Bible (first written) were the Psalms, written by King David, around 1000 - 900 BC). Later parts of the Bible were written over a period of hundreds of years by various authors who were inspired by God: the Writings (Ketuvim) and the Prophets (Nevi’im).

After the dispersion of the Jews, the Hebrew language became almost non-existent: Only the Priests knew the Hebrew language, and when they read in the Temple from the Torah, someone had to translate what the Priest read aloud into the vernacular language: Greek. (That was the commom language spoken then, and these “Greek” Jews were known as Hellenistic Jews.) Under Pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolemy Philidelphus, were commissioned 70 Jewish scholars (Scribes) who carefully translated the Hebrew into the Greek written language so the Jewish people could have access to their Scriptures in the language they understood now. This was later to be known as the Septuagint, or simply LXX, which means “seventy” in Greek.

to be continued…
 
continued:

This is the version of the Scriptures that all Jews used for centuries and of which even Jesus and the Apostles quoted from. When Jesus read Scripture in Temple (as the New Testament records) it was from the Septuagint that He read from. There are numerous quotes from the Septuagint mentioned in the New Testament, that the Protestants won’t find in the butchered version of the Old Testament because they have discarded seven books and several chapters and verses from the Old Testament in the Reformation period.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Septuagint was the only written Scripture and the New Testament, the “Good News of Jesus Christ” (Gospel), was transmitted ORALLY. It was proclaimed aloud to all and there was no New Testament yet that was written. About 20 years after the death/resurrection of Jesus, Paul’s letters were the first words written, about 50 AD. Mark’s gospel was the first Gospel written (around 65 AD), Matthew’s was the second, (around 80 AD), Luke’s gospel was the third, written around 80 - 85 AD, and John’s gospel was written around 90 - 100 AD, with his book of Revelation being the last book of the Bible ever written. Jesus also spoke Aramaic, and parts of the New Testament were written in Aramaic. Koine Greek was the language then, and is not the same Greek spoken or written today, just as Old English and Middle English are not the same as today’s written and spoken English.

Now, during this time, many converts to Christianity was occuring, (not only Gentile converts but many Jewish converts as well - recall in Acts during Pentecost, there were about 6000 converts from Judaism to Christianity in one day alone!!). Around 70 AD the Temple was destroyed and all religious artifacts taken away never to be heard of again, and this was essential for Jewish Temple worship. With no Temple, there was no sacrifice anymore, nor were the Temple Priests able to perform their services anymore. So, around 100 AD a group of rabbis, who vehemenently opposed Christians (were “enemies of Christianity” - see Acts 5:17-19), Sadducees who did not believe in life after death, the resurrection or angels, gathered in a small ancient town (Jamnia, see Jabneh) and there they rendered a whole new version of the Old Testament. They removed those books from the Septuagint that pointed to the divinity of Christ, life after death, praying for the dead (as found in Maccabees), and one translator, Aquilla, even changed the word “virgin” (parthenos) in Isaiah 7:14 and rendered it to read “a young woman” (neanis) shall conceive, thereby changing the prophecy of Jesus’ virginal birth. This butchered “bible” is known as the Jamnian canon (or the Palestinian canon), and took several hundred years to complete fully. During this time another Talmud was being made, and is more extensive today, and known as the Babylonian canon, so even among Jewish peoples, there are various sects and beliefs now. They are not united and some believe in angels, life after death and so on, whereas others do not. This altered Bible has seven books missing:
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees
  • Wisdom
  • Sirach
  • Baruch
Some chapters of the book of Daniel were discarded along with some verses here and there from the old testament.

All these books/chapters and verses/words were in the Septuagint, and to this day, this is what the Catholic Church continues to use as its Old Testament - the same one the early Jewish people used and the same one Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted from.

The Holy Spirit was no longer guiding the Temple Priests - this Holy Spirit was promised by Christ to guide the Church, His beloved Bride, to all truth, so the rabbis of Jamnia had no authority to change the Scripture of the Septuagint, nor did they have the authority to deem any books part or not part of any canon of Scripture.

to be continued…
 
continued:

So, for centuries the letters of Paul and the other Apostles and their followers were circulated and copied and used as part of the teachings, and read during Mass. Mass is a word that comes from the Latin: missa = to be sent. And Jesus “sent” His Apostles into the world to spread the good news, and “do this in remembrance of me” - the Eucharist, which has never changed and always remain doctrine since Jesus is the one who established this sacrament. Even though the original manuscripts do not exist, we have the original manuscripts of the Apostolic Fathers (those who were taught by and ordained by the Apostles, such as St Clement of Rome who was consecrated by St Peter, and St Ignatius who was a student of St John) who collectively quote the almost the entire New Testament in their letters!

Around 367 AD the Books of the New Testament were put together, and in 419 AD, they were officially promulgated by Pope Boniface at the Second Council of Carthage. OT = 46 books (Septuagint), NT = 27 books for a total of 73 books.

During this time the common language (the vernacular) was becoming Latin, and therefore the Greek was no longer being understood by the masses of people. St. Jerome was a very learned man, knowing Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic among other languages, and he took the original manuscripts of the Scriptures (Old and New), for they still existed then, and carefully and painstakingly translated from the originals, into the Latin language. Jewish Scribes even visited him in the desert because of his knowledge. This is the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible that is still in existence today and is still one of the official versions of the Bible. (the Septuagint is the official Old Testament of the Church). It was completed 426 AD.

The first English (Saxon) Bible was translated by a monk: Caedmus in the 7th century (600’s AD).

The Bible was translated into many languages – of which some countries (Germany for example) first were introduced to a written language of their own. Before these priests./monks came, they had no written language. Every Church had at least one complete Bible.

For about 1500 years there was no question of the validity of the canon of the Bible or that the Catholic Church was the true Church - the Bride - of Christ. Then along came some men who thought they knew better than the Apostles, better than the Church, and even in some cases, more than Jesus! Luther wanted to get rid of several parts of the New Testament - such as the Book of James (which he called an “epistle of straw” - you can read his own words in the books he wrote), and he even wanted to get rid of the book of Revelation. He did manage to change Romans 3:28, and added the word “alone” which changed the passage and along with that change of his, came a new and dangerous doctrine: by Faith Alone. That is why he especially hated the book of James for in this book James tells us we are not saved by faith alone! We are saved by works, for “faith without works is no faith at all, but is dead”.

The Reformers (no doubt in their continued ignorance) then took the Hebrew Bible - that butchered version, and used it for their own bible, discarding the Holy words of the canon of the Septuagint. So that is why the Protestant Bibles are lacking and missing such important books - they turned their Bible into one that was rendered by the Jewish rabbis, as described in the N.T. as “enemies of Christianity”.

During this time the Catholic Church was persecuted by the supporters of the Reformation and in France, since Latin was no longer the vernacular language, and (Middle) English was, the Church was the first to translate the Bible into Middle English: The Douay-Rheims Bible, 1582, completed 1609/10. The King James Version of the Bible (written by King James who had no authority from God) was translated in 1611, AFTER the Catholic Church had already translated the Bible into English!! This KJV had only 66 books, not the complete 73 books.

Because of the questioning of the Catholic doctrines (which the Protestants also discarded - they don’t have the seven sacraments, some only have two, if that), and the questioning of the Bible, in 1546 at the Council of Trent, the Canon of the O.T. and N.T. was definitely fixed, (even though it was already officially promulgated - it became Doctrine), and the Nicene Creed (which was already known as the proclamation of Faith since the 300’s AD) was also accepted officially (as Doctrine) as the basis of Catholic Faith, as well as the seven sacraments (since Protestants rejected these).

So, there you have it. Hope this helps and good luck and God’s blessings to you! I’ll pray that all goes well and you reach hearts and minds so they can turn to the Truth! 👍
 
CEM5 you are leaving out a key factor. He is asking about attending with his wife in his wife’s faith group.

Because his wife is a baptized Christian, his is a sacramental marriage.

I think in this case, preservation of a sacramental marriage trumps any points one may gain by making converts (the chances of succeeding are negligible IMHO, at a Baptist Bible study).

Any attempt to argue religion in his wife’s presence will be courting marital disaster.

Believe me. I am speaking from my own personal experience.
 
Do not go. Evangelize your wife at home, but I would not accept her invitation and embarass her at her church. A very good reference is Steve Ray - Google for his web site. He was a former Baptist and he has some great CD’s for your wife - at home.

I would simply put the idea to her, regarding the “whom” as to authorization of the Canons, which were the early church fathers, which were ALL catholic. Therefore, the entire bible is catholic - even the books they removed. Let her go to her church with those thoughts.
 
Reference early Church Father writings, she should see it’s Catholic teachings.
 
OraLabora said:
CEM5 you are leaving out a key factor. He is asking about attending with his wife in his wife’s faith group.

Because his wife is a baptized Christian, his is a sacramental marriage.

I think in this case, preservation of a sacramental marriage trumps any points one may gain by making converts (the chances of succeeding are negligible IMHO, at a Baptist Bible study).

Any attempt to argue religion in his wife’s presence will be courting marital disaster.

Believe me. I am speaking from my own personal experience.
Click to expand...
Hi OraLabora,

read again my first post of the three: I had told him to go. I speak from experience. It is our Christian duty to proclaim the truth, and then if they refuse to listen, he can leave them in their ignorance as the Scriptures tell us to do. He can stand before God in the end with a clear conscience for he had tried.

Having a Sacramental marriage is NEVER a means to avoid truth. He has a Catholic duty to educate his wife, in a loving and kind manner, and if she is truly sincere in her Christian love of Christ and His truth, she will be open to hearing the truth.

If you saw your spouse doing something that would harm her physically would you not intercede? So why would the soul and the spiritual be less important than the physical?

blessings,
 
CEM5 said:
Hi OraLabora,

read again my first post of the three: I had told him to go. I speak from experience. It is our Christian duty to proclaim the truth, and then if they refuse to listen, he can leave them in their ignorance as the Scriptures tell us to do. He can stand before God in the end with a clear conscience for he had tried.

Having a Sacramental marriage is NEVER a means to avoid truth. He has a Catholic duty to educate his wife, in a loving and kind manner, and if she is truly sincere in her Christian love of Christ and His truth, she will be open to hearing the truth.

If you saw your spouse doing something that would harm her physically would you not intercede? So why would the soul and the spiritual be less important than the physical?

blessings,
Click to expand...
Yes but that teaching should be done at home, and very, very gently. Not by embarrassing her in front of a group.

The very best way to evangelize is to lead a life of example. That’s the Benedictine way and I am a Benedictine Oblate. Let them discover the serenity in you. Eventually they will come to you to try to learn its secret.

I know if I tried what you are suggesting with my wife, I’d be in deep trouble.
 
Hi OraLabora,

You make a good point: It would not be beneficial if he should inadvertently embarass his wife. I am a wife, and, yes, it’s never good to embarass a wife! haha! :blushing:

I agree that he should, gently and with love, provide his wife with the facts, at home first. Better that she should hear and learn the truth before going to this class, and it would be beneficial if he went as well, to observe, quietly, so that in the privacy of their home, they could discuss any differences they heard at this class.

He should point out diplomatically as well, that Jesus bestowed His Holy Spirit upon the Church, one Church only, not thousands and thousands of churches, and that Church would be guided to all truth and the gates of hell would never prevail. That included deciding which books were inspired and which ones weren’t. Who would she trust? The rabbis of the first century AD who were zealous enemies of Christianity and had no authority anymore from God to decide the canon of Scripture, which the Protestants then used as their source of Old Testament or would she trust the words of Christ, and those of the Bible that in Revelation state: Rev 22:19 “if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” And this is what the Protestants did in the Middle Ages.

blessings,🙂
 
CEM5 said:
or would she trust the words of Christ, and those of the Bible that in Revelation state: Rev 22:19 “if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
Click to expand...
I of course understand the point you’re trying to make here, but, be careful!

2 Tim 3:16-17 (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”) is a typical “proof-text” for sola scriptura. But if this passage proves anything, it proves too much! 2 Tim 3:14-15 states, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” What Scriptures would Timothy have known from infancy? Why, just the Old Testament, of course!

Similarly, Rev 22:19 only warns about taking away “from the words of the book of this prophecy” (i.e. from the book of Revelation). Remember that “bible” is a plural noun… the word comes to us from the Latin (and Greek) biblia, which is the plural of biblion, “book”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top