J
- Status
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
The two translations I gave; the Peshito, and the Itala Biblia were translated by Christians who were not considered “Catholic”. This is evident fromt the writings of Augustine:
Therefore, those people who were responsible for translating the Bible into latin and greek in the 2nd century were not aligned with “one holy and apostolic church”, and apparently Eusubius did not see that lack of “exclusiveness” as a problem in the the 2nd century.
It seems then, that there were churches in the 2nd century that were not Catholic, and it also seems that Eusubius did not consider himself “Catholic” according to the present use of the term.
John
www.gideonsword.net
Yes, we are talking about different language translations. But that statement was also a rebuttal to the statement that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. Beside those two translations in the 2nd century, there was also the Targum, which was an Aramaic translation.
The two translations I gave; the Peshito, and the Itala Biblia were translated by Christians who were not considered “Catholic”. This is evident fromt the writings of Augustine:
These quotes were not from a Bible that was given to us by Catholics, as the next quote by Augustine alludes…
It seems that from the time of Eusubius, to the time of Augustine there arose a type of “exclusiveness” pertaining to the “church” that Augustine attempted to retain. This allusion to “exclusiveness” did not seem to exist in the time of Eusubius… if it did Eusubius would not have quoted from those translations.
Therefore, those people who were responsible for translating the Bible into latin and greek in the 2nd century were not aligned with “one holy and apostolic church”, and apparently Eusubius did not see that lack of “exclusiveness” as a problem in the the 2nd century.
It seems then, that there were churches in the 2nd century that were not Catholic, and it also seems that Eusubius did not consider himself “Catholic” according to the present use of the term.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Notworthy,
As Churches, we, as those were then, assemblies of likeminded Christians who understand the nature of Christ’s church as spiritual and not yet united.
John
www.gideonsword.net
That is somewhat divergent from what I said, I said that there have been Christians (and therefore churches) since the time of Christ that are Baptist in “distinctives”. These are Christians who understood (as most Baptists of today), that the “true Church” that Christ founded is not a visible one, but invisible and not yet united.
As Churches, we, as those were then, assemblies of likeminded Christians who understand the nature of Christ’s church as spiritual and not yet united.
John
www.gideonsword.net
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I apologize for mis-quoting you. That certainly was not my intent.
OK, but didn’t all these churches teach “Salvation through Baptism”, except maybe for the gnostics. This would seem to be a fundamental hurdle that Baptists would have to overcome in order to claim kinship with these churches.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
jeremy,
Although scientifically not even the seed that produced Levi was in existence when Melchizedec met Abraham, this verse states that Levi was in his loins. So, to speak scientifically, the only way to justify this statement concerning Levi is that the potential for the existence of Levi existed in the DNA of Abraham.
So, given the fact that Levi did not exist… only the image of Levi existed in the DNA of Abraham, this verse could only mean that there was symbolic significance that Melchizedec met Abraham as the father of Levi.
The symbolic significance of this verse is further justified concerning Jesus. Although Jesus did not have an earthly father, and cannot be considered to be “in the loins of Abraham” at this time… Jesus did have an earthly mother. Jesus was of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7), and Jesus flesh contained the DNA of his mother Mary. Speaking in terms of science, the image of Jesus was present in the loins of Abraham… but we would never be justified in saying that Jesus paid tithes to Melchizedec.
But, this verse is not speaking scientifically, but symbolically, by the inferrance of a lineage of “fathers”, and completely excluding the lineage of “mothers”.
John
www.gideonsword.net
What basis do you have scripturally to impose justification on your children… don’t get me wrong… If I could for my children I would, and save them from the possibility of hell, but what joy could one have being justified if that justification was imposed on them… such as the angels?
No, we were discussing Jacob and Esau, and I did not misread that passage.
You’re right Jeremy, I did say that in post #168. Here is the original post…
I did misquote that statement. But my argument is still the same.
Although scientifically not even the seed that produced Levi was in existence when Melchizedec met Abraham, this verse states that Levi was in his loins. So, to speak scientifically, the only way to justify this statement concerning Levi is that the potential for the existence of Levi existed in the DNA of Abraham.
So, given the fact that Levi did not exist… only the image of Levi existed in the DNA of Abraham, this verse could only mean that there was symbolic significance that Melchizedec met Abraham as the father of Levi.
The symbolic significance of this verse is further justified concerning Jesus. Although Jesus did not have an earthly father, and cannot be considered to be “in the loins of Abraham” at this time… Jesus did have an earthly mother. Jesus was of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7), and Jesus flesh contained the DNA of his mother Mary. Speaking in terms of science, the image of Jesus was present in the loins of Abraham… but we would never be justified in saying that Jesus paid tithes to Melchizedec.
But, this verse is not speaking scientifically, but symbolically, by the inferrance of a lineage of “fathers”, and completely excluding the lineage of “mothers”.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
mikeledes,
John
www.gideonsword.net
That is not a clear indication of a continuous indwelling, neither does it substantiate your claim that John was regenerated from his mother’s womb.
Apparently so, John the Baptist was. And so were many of the Old Testament prophets. Although they had the power of God on them, they were not necessarily regenerated. Like I said before, what about Sampson, and Jonah? They were used by God, and obviously had God’s power on thier lives, but they were not necessarily willing servants, neither were they always aware of the Spirit of God working in them. The Old Testament prophets cannot be compared with New Testament regeneration.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
mikeledes,
Also, when Ananias came to Saul he said “brother Saul” which indicated not that they were fellow countrymen (because they weren’t), nor that Ananias had a kinship with Saul (because he didn’t), nor that Ananias would have had a fellowship with Saul as a Pharisee (absolutely not), but that Ananias recognized Saul as a new Christian and greeted him as such.
John
www.gideonsword.net
No, Jesus made it clear that the baptism He was referring to was a spiritual one by immediately engaging in a BAPTISMAL ministry. This was BEFORE the resurrection of Christ, so these baptisms could only be “initiative” and “symbolic”. Although John 3 is written in the New Testament, the history is still in the Old Testament.
That’s the same mistake Augustine made when he changed washing in Titus 3:5 to “laver”. Titus 3:5 makes no allusion to water, but only that the action of God’s Holy Spirit in regeneration can be likened to “washing”. Can you also say that Jesus was referring to baptism in John 15:3…
I don’t think so.
First of all, healing is not to be equated with regeneration. Saul was regenerated on the road to Damascus… Christ used blindness to show Saul His power and subsequently Saul submitted to Christ; evident by Saul’s statement “what wilt thou have me to do” (Acts 9:6)
Also, when Ananias came to Saul he said “brother Saul” which indicated not that they were fellow countrymen (because they weren’t), nor that Ananias had a kinship with Saul (because he didn’t), nor that Ananias would have had a fellowship with Saul as a Pharisee (absolutely not), but that Ananias recognized Saul as a new Christian and greeted him as such.
John
www.gideonsword.net
O
Odell
Guest
The problem is John you dont go by those do you. You go by the KJV which has books in it that are not in The Targum or whatever. There were several books but many where not chosen to be put in the bible we have today. and many books we do have are not in the translations you have. Yes there are many books outthere but not all were considered inspired. Guess who decided which were and were not?
Was Augustine Catholic or Baptist?
they were called heritics
Is this whole invisible Church biblical? If you can prove it Ill believe your claim.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Odell (and Eden),
The peshitta is the syriac modern version that dates back to the 5th century. The Peshito, on the other hand is the syriac version of the 2nd century. The Peshito was the translation used by the Syriac speaking church during that time…
John
www.gideonsword.net
I’m not making a connection there. If you’ll read back through the posts you’ll notice I never once called it the “peshitta”, I called it the “peshito”.
The peshitta is the syriac modern version that dates back to the 5th century. The Peshito, on the other hand is the syriac version of the 2nd century. The Peshito was the translation used by the Syriac speaking church during that time…
The connection I am making is that the KJV is a descendant of the “Itala Biblia” (the latin translation). That version was NOT given to us by the Catholic Church (as I have already shown), but was used by those who were very closely related to “Baptists” by their distinctives.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Notworthy,
Historically, although there were “so-called” Christian sects that practiced “salvation through baptism”, there were also Christian sects that taught “salvation by faith”… The Vale Olchan, The Bohemians of the Hercynian Forest, Balthasar Hubmaier, Menno Simons, The Vaudois (before they were absorbed by protestantism), Barthelemy Hector, Felix Manz (evidence of Baptist distinctives in 1521 and martyred in 1527 for not joining Zwingli’s protestantism), and Joan Boucher.
John
www.gideonsword.net
No, these churches didn’t teach “Salvation through Baptism”. Especially if they were adherant to the Byzantine translations that I have pointed out existed since the 2nd century.
Historically, although there were “so-called” Christian sects that practiced “salvation through baptism”, there were also Christian sects that taught “salvation by faith”… The Vale Olchan, The Bohemians of the Hercynian Forest, Balthasar Hubmaier, Menno Simons, The Vaudois (before they were absorbed by protestantism), Barthelemy Hector, Felix Manz (evidence of Baptist distinctives in 1521 and martyred in 1527 for not joining Zwingli’s protestantism), and Joan Boucher.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Odell,
This Church will not be physicaly united until we (as the bride of Christ) are present in the “new Jerusalem” which at that time will be in heaven…
John
www.gideonsword.net
I appreciate you’re need for proof…
We are the body of Christ, not physically as His representatives on earth, but spiritually “in Christ”. We are made the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, who, when we are regenerated baptizes us into that body that is bound together by the Holy Spirit…
Again, we are “baptized” into this body by the Holy Spirit…
As the verse above says, we “have been all made to drink into one Spirit”. This is to say that we are members of this “invisible” body because we are united by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit…
In this sense, the kingdom of Israel was antitypical of the New Testament Church, not being a physical earthly kingdom… but an spiritual kingdom in the Holy Spirit, and in Christ.
This Church will not be physicaly united until we (as the bride of Christ) are present in the “new Jerusalem” which at that time will be in heaven…
The “general assembly” could also be translated “general church” which is contrasted here with the “local church”. This meeting will occur in heaven, and is recorded by John (who entered into eternity when he saw the vision)…
Those who are saved are the bride of Christ, and we will not be united with the bridegroom until He calls us up… the bride is the same as “the church”. This is not meant a physical building, or a heirarchy, or a local congregation, but those who comprise the “body of Christ”.
John
www.gideonsword.net
E
Eden
Guest
The “Peshitta” and “Peshito” are the exact same thing. The terms are used interchangeably to refer to the Syriac version of the Bible. Type in “Peshito” at Wikipedia.org and you will see that I am right. You will be redirected to “Peshitta”.
From another non-Catholic site:
The Designation “Peshito” (“Peshitta”)
The word itself is a feminine form, meaning “simple,” “easy to be understood.” It seems to have been used to distinguish the version from others which are encumbered with marks and signs in the nature of an apparatus criticus. However this may be, the term as a designation of the version has not been found in any Syriac author earlier than the 9th or 10th century.
As regards the Old Testament, the antiquity of the Version is admitted on all hands. The tradition, however, that part of it was translated from Hebrew into Syriac for the benefit of Hiram in the days of Solomon is a myth. That a translation was made by a priest named Assa, or Ezra, whom the king of Assyria sent to Samaria, to instruct the Assyrian colonists mentioned in 2Ki 17, is equally legendary. That the translation of the Old Testament and New Testament was made in connection with the visit of Thaddaeus to Abgar at Edessa belongs also to unreliable tradition. Mark has even been credited in ancient Syriac tradition with translating his own Gospel (written in Latin, according to this account) and the other books of the New Testament into Syriac.
bible-researcher.com/syriac-isbe.html
And from answers.com:
The name 'Peshitta’
The name ‘Peshitta’ is derived from the Syriac mappaqtâ pšîṭtâ, literally meaning ‘simple version’. However, it is also possible to translate pšîṭtâ as ‘common’ (that is, for all people), or ‘straight’, as well as the usual translation as ‘simple’. Syriac is a dialect, or group of dialects, of Eastern Aramaic. It is written in the Syriac alphabet, and is transliterated into the Roman alphabet in a number of ways: Peshitta, Peshittâ, Pshitta, Pšittâ, Pshitto, Fshitto. All of these are acceptable, but ‘Peshitta’ is the most convenient spelling in English.
answers.com/topic/peshitta
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
The words “Peshitta” and “Peshito” do mean exactly the same thing… but the modern version commonly called “Peshitta” is not the same as the 2nd century translation commonly called “Peshito”…
John
www.gideonsword.net
The words “Peshitta” and “Peshito” do mean exactly the same thing… but the modern version commonly called “Peshitta” is not the same as the 2nd century translation commonly called “Peshito”…
Don’t confuse the two just because they share the syriac name “simple version”.
John
www.gideonsword.net
E
Eden
Guest
No, you are wrong.
At least 80% of the King James New Testament is unaltered from Tyndale’s translation.
The King James Version’s Old Testament is based on the Masoretic Text while the New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus as published by Erasmus (a Dutch Catholic).
Some scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the KJV as an inferior English translation of the Bible. They suggest that its value lies in its poetic language at the cost of accuracy in translation. Because of linguistic research and more recently available manuscripts, the KJV is regarded as a poor representation of ancient scripture by such scholars. Many of today’s leading exegetes (Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, Warren Carter, James L. Crenshaw, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and N.T. Wright) do not endorse the KJV for Masters or Doctoral-level exegetical work.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
As far as the “Itala Biblia”, I’ve attempted to research the version which you are claiming is a precursor to the KJV Bible and I can find no scholarly work on the topic, Baptist or otherwise. I even put “Itala Biblia” into Google and found nothing of significance (one of the six results is actually this thread, another of the six is a different Catholic Answers thread):
google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ITala+Biblia%22
E
Eden
Guest
Tynsdale’s version was based on the Textus Receptus published by Erasmus, a Dutch Catholic. And Erasmus was using the Canon set by the Church. There is no way around the fact that the Bible was handed down to you from the Catholic Church.
Even Martin Luther acknowledged his debt to the Church in his Commentary on St. John: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
The quote that you provide and attribute to St. Augustine does not support your claim that non-Catholic Christians created the Peshito and the “Itala Biblia” (if you could please clarify to which version you are referring when using this term, that would be useful).
But again, you are offerring nothing new here. As I stated before the inheritors of the early Syriac versions, including the 2nd century version of which you are most concerned are not Baptists. They were most definitely “Catholic”. After the Great Schism (usually fixed at 1054 A.D.), the Church in that area eventully split into Syriac Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Maronite, Chaldean and Syrian Catholic. But before the Schism, the Syriac churches were all “Catholic”. **Most importantly, the Peshito/Peshitta version has nothing to do with the Baptist religion so I have no idea what your point is in mentioning it. **The Syriac-speaking churches both in the 2nd century and today bear no resemblance to the Baptist faiths. The KJV does not come from the Peshito/Peshitta.
sor.cua.edu/Bible/Translations.html
In no way does anything you have provided support your claim that Baptists got the Bible from anywhere other than the Catholic Church.
It’s very interesting that you would assert that Eusebius was not “Catholic”.
You do not believe in apostolic succession or the papacy. Have you read Eusebius on the topic? Eusebius documented the apostolic succession of the Popes from Peter to Linus to Clement…
“It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing… When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria…Linus …was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there…Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome.” Eusebius*, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325). *
E
Eden
Guest
Speaking of St. Hegesippus, whom you claim along with Eusebius to be non-Catholic, is the following quote from him also a “distinctive of the Baptists”?
“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by** Soter**, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” *Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180). *
The men in bold to whom this refers, were “Bishops of Rome” (AKA “Popes”):
*]St. Peter (32-67)
*]St. Linus (67-76)
*]St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
*]St. Clement I (88-97)
*]St. Evaristus (97-105)
*]St. Alexander I (105-115)
*]St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
*]St. Telesphorus (125-136)
*]St. Hyginus (136-140)
*]St. Pius I (140-155)
*]St. Anicetus(155-166)
*]St. Soter (166-175)
*]St. Eleutherius (175-189)
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
O
Odell
Guest
(Jn17:20-24)
The World has to SEE a unified Church therefore, it must be visible and canot be invisible.
(Mt 5:14) “You are the light of the world A city on a mountain CANOT be HIDDEN.” or you might say it canot be invisible. This verse is not describing an invisble Church.
(Mt 18:15-17)
“Tell the church” - which church? What Church do we tell it to if we are all invisible John?
You Love to use this verse but it does not say what you try to make it say. First of all Jesus says the Spirit of truth will guid us to all truth. It does not say only when we are in heaven. (Jn 16:13) Also in (Jn 14:26) it says “the advocate, the Holy Spirit tha the Father will send in my name he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” And if the bible does not have everything Jesus did or tought where do we get this everything? The Church.
Back to your verse (Heb 12:22) It says **NO YOU HAVE **aproched mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and coundtless angels in festal gathering."
It does not say you will but says YOU HAVE present tense not future. Please explain why you belive this will happen, when obviously it already has. especially when you read (Heb 12:1) Therefore since WE are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses. Hebrews is not talking about a future tense but NOW.
(Eph2:19) “So then you are not longer STRANGERS and sojourners, but you are FELLOW-CITEZENS WITH THE SAINTS, and the house hold of God” This verse says YOU ARE not YOU WILL. we are united now.
www.gideonsword.net
J
jimmy
Guest
These are all post reformation people or groups. The Waldenses were nothing like the baptists. They believed in the true presence in the Eucharist along with many other things that are distinctly Catholic. This is from the confession of faith of waldo.
Here is a little of what the Wldenses taught. This is one group of waldenses speaking about another group of waldenses.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm
E
Eden
Guest
Interesting list:
- Vale Olchon - This is a place in Wales. What’s the connection?
- Bohemians of the Hercynian Forest - This is a group of people in Germany. What’s the connection?
- Balthasar Hubmaier - Originally a Catholic, a priest, then a Protestant follower of Zwingli, before splitting off again into a new sect
- Menno Simons: Was originally a Catholic, being ordained as a priest in 1524 - Later taught that Jesus did not derive His humanity from Mary, the doctrine of “celestial flesh”, “heavenly flesh” or “Incarnational Christology”.
- The Vaudois: Also known as the Waldensians, the Catholic teachings of which Jimmy already posted
- Felix Manz - First a Catholic, then a follower of Zwingli - He was simply another “Protestant”
- Joan Boucher: Another 16th century Protestant - She believed in the idea of Christ’s “celestial flesh” - that he was not “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”.
Here is a Baptist who breaks it down:
This claim of modern Baptists is made in effort to remain apart from any historical connection with the Roman Catholic Church, even if that connection is via the Protestant Reformers. But even that effort is futile, for virtually all of the early Anabaptist leaders themselves came either from Protestantism or from Romanism itself. A brief list of names will suffice to establish this point: Balthasar Hubmaier, a converted Roman Catholic Priest; Hans Denck, Lutheran headmaster of the renowned St. Sebald School in Nuremberg; Menno Simons, a Roman Catholic Priest in Friesland; Thomas Munster, a Roman Catholic? Lutheran? Communist? --scholars debate; Melchior Hoffman, a Lutheran missionary; Wilhelm Reublin, a Roman Catholic Priest; Johannes Brottli, Roman Catholic Priest; George Blaurock, a Roman Catholic Monk; Simon Stumf, Roman Catholic Priest; Conrad Grebel, Zwingli’s protege in Zurich; Felix Manz, Roman Catholic (illegitimate son of a Roman Catholic Priest) and later associate of Zwingli; etc. The list could go on, but the point is clear: Anabaptists do not represent a pure line of believers outside the Roman Church.
biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/ecclesiology/baptism.htm
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
The truth is… The King James Version was translated using many texts
John
www.gideonsword.net
OK, which is it? Is the New Testament based on the Textus Receptus, or was it based on Tyndales translation? Tyndale translated the Bible from the Greek to the English.
The truth is… The King James Version was translated using many texts
- Tyndale’s - Translated from the Greek.
- Coverdale- Was Tyndales proof-reader, translated from the Majority Texts which were translations of the Itala Biblia.
- Matthews Bible - By John Rogers
- The Great Bible of 1538 - Revision of Tyndale’s work.
- The Geneva Bible - The first English Bible to be translated in it’s entirety from the original Biblical languages.
- The Bishop’s Bible - A good translation, but not as scholorly as the Geneva. (This is the version that was the basis for the KJV, althought the other translations were compared)
- And the KJV translators also had the texts in the original biblical languages.
Martin Luther had a biased opinion. Martin Luther’s historocity was tainted with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Luther’s desire was never to “replace” the Catholic Church, but to “reform” it. His introduction to “Luther’s small Catechism” is evidence that he still considered himself Catholic, but without the tyranny of the Pope… So, of course Luther will claim that the Bible came from the Catholics… But, as I have shown, it did not.
John
www.gideonsword.net
- Status