Bible differences?

[uniChristian]

jimmy:

uniChristians, you don’t like to talk about differences but the problem is that these differences didn’t exist till the reformation. The church taught what it teaches now, for the last 2000 years. No one has any right to reject parts of the faith because it was given to us by Christ.

What does it mean when you say “formally canonized” because I could give you quotes from Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Trullo, and Flourence, which were all before Trent. They all define the canon including the deuterocanonicals. Trent just reaffirmed it.

Jimmy I don’t want to be confrontational and I hope you don’t take offence when I tell you the difference between Catholics and me. In my view of things, and I feel that it is my God given right to worship my Creator in the way he directs me, there are two major differences between the Roman Catholic Church and my faith, Sola Scriptura Vs. Church Tradition. When one makes a statement that “No one has any right to reject parts of the faith because it was given to us by Christ”, it comes across like they are saying they have a one way exclusive track to heaven. I feel that God has given me his Word and I live my life in accordance with it. He promised me the Holy Spirit to guide me and comfort me and I believe that I am in is perfect will according to his Word and his Spirit. I am sorry you disagree but really now, whom do I answer to for my life here on earth, you, the Catholic Church, or God? I don’t think God is going to condemn me for not being Catholic. I appreciate your concern for me but I don’t fit in with organized religion. I am glad you love the Catholic Church and that it works for you, I won’t condemn you if you don’t condemn me. I think Satan loves to see God’s children fighting against one another, instead I will concentrate on the things we have in common. Jesus died for all men regardless of what any religion may say. Jesus is God and was not a created being; He just was, and always was. When a religion claims that it has the exclusive path to God this borders on a cult type practice and I may as well join the Mormons or the J.W.’s. The Roman Catholic Church belongs to Jesus of this I am sure, so do I and of this I am sure. God bless you Brother I hope we can agree to disagree and be Brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[ahimsaman72]

jimmy:

uniChristians, you don’t like to talk about differences but the problem is that these differences didn’t exist till the reformation. The church taught what it teaches now, for the last 2000 years. No one has any right to reject parts of the faith because it was given to us by Christ.

The Orthodox would disagree with your statement above. They would counter-claim that they in fact have not changed, but that it is the Roman Catholic Church that has changed over the years. Protestants are not the only ones who reject part of your Roman faith.

 

[Church_Militant]

"You said"The fact is that they STILL don’t recognize this council: please explain this, I konow it does not pertain to the thread but I am interested why the Church would not recognize the council of Trent? Thanks

This doesn’t refer to Trent Uni…
I was talking about the council of Jamnia…

 

[George2]

Those books are completely accepted by the church and are secondarily canonical, not apocryphal in nature or doctrinally.

Calling them “the apocrypha” is a historical holdover and shows the ignorance of the person using this term.

Protestants are wrong about so many things and their overemphasis on scripture has led them to damn the Catholic church for adding works after others - as if the whole book fell from the sky from the angel Moroni to a cabin in Utah.

My only advice is: the Bible is a good guide to living a good life. It is not a Christian’s sole authority on this planet.

That authority is the Catholic Church because Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would come to guide the community.

He did not say wait 1500 years for a homosexual King James to order one specific translation of many different epistles, gospels, sapiental, proverbial and historical books.

Protestantism is an intellectual deadend. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

It is sooooooooo good to be home.

 

[mtr01]

uniChristian:

I feel that God has given me his Word and I live my life in accordance with it. He promised me the Holy Spirit to guide me and comfort me and I believe that I am in is perfect will according to his Word and his Spirit.

I can appreciate your position, I once felt the same way. However, if I might ask a question. If what you say is true, why then, would our Lord bother with founding a Church?

 

[George2]

That is blasphemy.

Look up the definition of blasphemy.

You call him Lord, Lord, yet you don’t obey or acknowledge Him.

Do you even believed He lived and walked the hills of Palestine?

Do you believe He died for our sins?

Do you believe the Gospels of our Lord as kept in tradition by the Holy Catholic Church?

What kind of Christian asks that question? What do you think he was assembling the apostles to be apart from the disciples - just better Christians, only a mere twelve?

Why did he single out Peter, a simple fisherman and test his faith and call him to feed his flock?

You are blaspheming. Christ did not set in motion an ideology, he set in motion a new covenant and He promised the Holy Spirit, the third person of the triune God to be our advocate and guide.

Our advocate, our guide - we, us… the community.

We don’t have any of Christ’s apostles and friends recording that He promised us a Bible to be our guide, or for there to be no community of believers.

Christ did not disdain the wisdom of scripture, but he came to be the new law and the community of those who believe in Him don’t doubt the validity of He who set this ship of salvation in motion or the ship itself.

Christianity is not a personalist, silent secret struggle. We are called to live with each other and in communion.

All churches are to be in communion with their bishop who is to be in communion with the pope who as bishop of Rome is succesor to Peter.

And your notion of Christianity is…?

 

[uniChristian]

mtr01:

I can appreciate your position, I once felt the same way. However, if I might ask a question. If what you say is true, why then, would our Lord bother with founding a Church?

I will do my best to give you an honest answer. I will use the greatest textbook on Earth, The Holy Bible. This is found in Ephesians and I like to refer to them often. Ephesians 4:1-6. I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

The term body here denotes the word “Church” It is true there is only one Church that Jesus is coming back for and that Church is all born again believers in Christ. You are right when you say that Jesus established a Church on Earth. I believe if you search long enough you will find as I did that this Church includes all born again Christians. John 14:6"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me". I am going to heaven by the grace of God through his shed blood. I have not read any claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Body of Christians on Earth. I would caution you if you think it is, because this would mean that your idea of Christianity is a Cult following of one Church.

 

[Rai]

jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

DaveBj:

James I, scoundrel though he may have been,

If he had been - but that is going rather far, IMO​

had nothing to do with the translation and editing processes of the Bible that bears his name, other than setting the process in motion. The translation and editing processes were accomplished by genuinely pious and learned English churchmen, one of whose goals was to produce a Bible free from the anti-Catholic notes found in previous English Bibles.

I have a replica 1611 KJV, deuterocanonicals and all. It would have made an excellent Catholic Bible as well. Bear in mind that the Church of England at this time was less than a century removed from being fully Catholic.

DaveBj

Thanks for writing that. ​

As for:

Originally Posted by Malachi4U

As for the King James Version what gave a homosexual king the right to edit Gods Scripture to fit his political needs? Should we have a Bill Clinton version or a Pat Robertson version? - the Authorised Version had the same number of books as previous complete Protestant versions. James VI & I did not edit it, if by that is meant that he commissioned any significant changes of meaning to suit his own politics. If approving of a Bible containing the translation of “episkopos” as “bishop” rather than “overseer” is “editing”, then he may be said to have “edited it”; but only in that sense - and if that is editing, then the Reims NT of 1582 also “edited” the text. Not surprisingly, since both the English Church and the Catholic Church are episcopal Churches - which the Puritans tended often not to be. He did not change the Bible to suit his political needs.

It is as much or as little biassed as any other Bible of its time, or long after - any translator has to decide what to do with “episkopos”, and theology was often decisive. One of the gains of interconfessional translation, is that doctrinal bias tends to be drowned by the desire of translators of different confessions working together to find, not the rendering that suits their beliefs, but the rendering that best fits the meaning of the underlying texts so far as this can be ascertained.

James VI & I was acting as a “godly prince” in providing for a better translation of the Bible to be used in the Church. That is the sort of thing a Christian ruler ought to do - he should be a “nursing father” to the Church. His own morals, important as they may be in themselves, are irrelevant to the qualities of the Authorised Version; just as the criminality of a Pope does not stop him being the successor of Apostles, vile as he may be himself. I think it is highly objectionable to dredge up this king’s frailties, real or supposed; and not only because it would, if applied to some Popes, and other bishops, be equally damaging to them. The whole point about God’s grace, is that God takes us as the sinners He sees we are, whatever our failings. One can as well ask, what gives us the right to deal with holy things ? One despairs of a Christianity which is so ungracious as to dig up the failings of those who cannot answer for themselves, as though these failings were never found among Catholics, and as though our freedom from one fault we might notice in another Christian, guaranteed us freedom from all other faults also. After recent events among us, accusations of moral turpitude against other Christians are not that convincing. ##