Bible or church,what does the bible say

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is one thing to disagree, but another thing entirely to say that Muslims do not know or care about the truth because of some “agenda.”

As the Bible was written by Jews and Christians, and Muslims regard the Bible to be a (corrupted) revelation of God, yes, I’d say that Muslims do care what Christians have to say.

You said it right here, they do not care about the Truth. The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth. The Muslims say that the Bible is corrupted but they offer no proof of such a thing. They disagree with it because it does not say what they want it to say so they say it was corrupted. That is not the Truth.

Incidentally, if you think that “caring about the truth” is the same as “caring about one other group’s belief on the truth,” then I have a book on semantics to sell you…

We, as Catholics, believe that we have the fullness of the Truth. I so sorry if you do not agree with that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No more uncharitable than his comment of believing the Gospel more than me or his other comment on the scriptures.

[bold emphasis added]

The (so-called) Gospels of Thomas and Judas are garbage and not true Gospels.

A Koranist, one who believes in the Quran alone, you do not believe in the Hadith collections. So I apologize for calling you a Muslim as I believe that those who follow the faith of Islam would not consider you one.

So if you follow the Quran alone then how can you follow the Gospel too?

There is nothing uncharitable in saying that one trusts the bible more than any human. One would hope that most people would agree with that. As to the Gospels of Thomas and Judas. He said nothing uncharitible there either. They are legitimate in that they are real and ancient. The represent the belief system of a very powerful type of Christianity that did not prevail in the end. There is value in all ancient documents to scholars and to those of us who actually want to learn about that period of history. That you dismiss them as garbage doesn’t make them such and merely reflects your opinion and rather limited vision of learning.

As I said, you make an assumption about someones faith, you denigrate that faith. and that has nothing to do with what you complain about the comment anyway.

Your prejudice was showing and I pointed it out.

And I am not Muslim. Where you got that idea I have no clue.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Are you saying Muslim care about what a Christian have to say, I have a beach lot in Kansas and its for sell. Let me know it you like you like beach

I have no idea your age, but I cannot sincerely believe you mean this. Unless you’ve never heard of the civil rights movement you cannot be serious. You cannot attack a whole people as a class. That is like saying that all African Americans, all Latinos, all Italians etc. This would be the most base and public sort of bigotry. No doubt you misspoke, since you clearly would not publically acknowledge such bigotry. Please be more careful lest someone think you really are so hateful. I’m most sure you are not meaning to sound like you came off.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thank you Bill.

I do not think it is uncharitable to point out the truth. It is a fact that Muslims will view our Holy Scriptures differently.

Also, other Christians will sometimes view them differently. Non-Catholic Christians will try to cut the Church out of it as many of them believe in Sola Scriptura which means that the Church must be cut out.

But it is a fact that the Bible is a product of the Church. The Church met in an ecumenical council and guided by the Holy Spirit determined the Canon of Holy Scripture, by doing so they determined what books were inspired and what books were not.

So koranist’s comment that the Gospels of Thomas and Judas are as inspired as the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is plain false in the view of a Catholic.

koranist must remember that this is a Catholic forum and what we know as the Truth he might disagree with but that does not change our view or make it wrong.

Are you an actual religious?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There is nothing uncharitable in saying that one trusts the bible more than any human. One would hope that most people would agree with that. As to the Gospels of Thomas and Judas. He said nothing uncharitible there either. . The represent the belief system of a very powerful type of Christianity that did not prevail in the end. There is value in all ancient documents to scholars and to those of us who actually want to learn about that period of history. That you dismiss them as garbage doesn’t make them such and merely reflects your opinion and rather limited vision of learning.

As I said, you make an assumption about someones faith, you denigrate that faith. and that has nothing to do with what you complain about the comment anyway.

Your prejudice was showing and I pointed it out.

And I am not Muslim. Where you got that idea I have no clue.

SpiritMeadow,

Your self-righteous, self-appointed politically-correct sense of superiority over anyone who disagrees with you is stunning. You come in here day after day, a liberal Episcopalian, shocked and appauled that Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible, that the official canon of Scripture we hold dear is superior to the pagan tripe of the gnostic heretics, and you slam everyone as a racist, a bigot, intolerant, or ignorant. You think youself so charitable, classy, and polished. You believe yourself to be the judge of what’s appropriate and tacky. You feel yourself put on this forum to bring justice, dignity, and civility. It’s hilarious. You blast people mercilessly and in a mean spirit yourself.

Take this rather sweet little quote:
**merely reflects your opinion and rather limited vision of learning. **

How condescending and nasty!

And this quote is fascinating as well:
They are legitimate in that they are real and ancient

So gnostic and heretical “gospels” that contradict the faith and paint a nauseatingly inaccurate and false Christ are “legitimate” just because they’re “real and ancient?” Aren’t you an attorney? I’d expect more from you…

So the only qualification for legitimacy from you is that something be ancient and real…hmmm. So the Koran, Rig Veda, Dhammapada, and other pagan texts are legitimate to you that preach idolatry, reincarnation, or in the case of the Koran–a vehement hostility to Christianity that depicts Christ as judging Christians straight to hell on judgment day?

There is value in all ancient documents to scholars and to those of us who actually want to learn about that period of history

Absolutely. These are valuable historically and in understanding heresy and the idiocy of these false Christians, sure. I’ve read them and the entire Nag Hammadi texts. They are valuable historically. The poster never said that. He called them “garbage.” He’s right, theologically. They are garbage from our religious point of view. But then as an Episcopalian you have nothing in your ‘theology’ that is heretical, evil, or sinful. It’s a fruit salad of buddhist bishops, gay and adultering priests, priestesses, no ability to excommunicate, pro-abortion extremists, and an anything-goes theology. Well, that’s largely what the gnostics believed. No wonder you find such value in gnostic ‘gospels.’

I still fail to understand your purpose in CAF, Spirit. Your sense of superiority and that politically-correct thought police mentality you have isn’t going to change any minds. It’s pure antagonism and anger you bring. Why don’t you go to Christian Forums and all those other forums that are much more liberal and comforting for you? I would NEVER go to a Jehova’s Witness, Mormon, or Baptist forum being a Catholic? Why would I? I don’t want to antagonize them. They have the right to their beliefs. I come here to CAF because I’m Catholic. If protestants want a civil, thoughtful, open-minded (to our faith as well!!) dialogue and don’t want to be dictators and preach their own condescending gospel, I’m all for it.

 

[ricko]

Jesus came as a Teacher and a Saviour. The teaching He started 2,000 years ago continues to this day through the Church He established which later came to be known as the Catholic Church.

He never wrote anything Himself nor did He command that anything be written.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What did Jesus Christ come down from heaven to found? Was it the Bible?
Or was it a teaching Church?

In the terms posed, the question is inapplicable. The authors of the books did not address it. There was no reason to do so. The question takes for granted that the whole Bible was available for use by individuals; which is close to the truth in the some ways, but far from it in others.​

FWIW, it is is not logically necessity to choose one or other. But that is another story

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Are you an actual religious?

Not that I owe you an answer or that you deserve one but yes I am an actual religious.

Now that I have said that I am adding you to my ignore list so do not bother responding to me as I will no longer see your posts.

SpiritMeadow,

Your self-righteous, self-appointed politically-correct sense of superiority over anyone who disagrees with you is stunning. You come in here day after day, a liberal Episcopalian, shocked and appauled that Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible, that the official canon of Scripture we hold dear is superior to the pagan tripe of the gnostic heretics, and you slam everyone as a racist, a bigot, intolerant, or ignorant. You think youself so charitable, classy, and polished. You believe yourself to be the judge of what’s appropriate and tacky. You feel yourself put on this forum to bring justice, dignity, and civility. It’s hilarious. You blast people mercilessly and in a mean spirit yourself.

Take this rather sweet little quote:
**merely reflects your opinion and rather limited vision of learning. **

How condescending and nasty!

And this quote is fascinating as well:
They are legitimate in that they are real and ancient

So gnostic and heretical “gospels” that contradict the faith and paint a nauseatingly inaccurate and false Christ are “legitimate” just because they’re “real and ancient?” Aren’t you an attorney? I’d expect more from you…

So the only qualification for legitimacy from you is that something be ancient and real…hmmm. So the Koran, Rig Veda, Dhammapada, and other pagan texts are legitimate to you that preach idolatry, reincarnation, or in the case of the Koran–a vehement hostility to Christianity that depicts Christ as judging Christians straight to hell on judgment day?

There is value in all ancient documents to scholars and to those of us who actually want to learn about that period of history

Absolutely. These are valuable historically and in understanding heresy and the idiocy of these false Christians, sure. I’ve read them and the entire Nag Hammadi texts. They are valuable historically. The poster never said that. He called them “garbage.” He’s right, theologically. They are garbage from our religious point of view. But then as an Episcopalian you have nothing in your ‘theology’ that is heretical, evil, or sinful. It’s a fruit salad of buddhist bishops, gay and adultering priests, priestesses, no ability to excommunicate, pro-abortion extremists, and an anything-goes theology. Well, that’s largely what the gnostics believed. No wonder you find such value in gnostic ‘gospels.’

I still fail to understand your purpose in CAF, Spirit. Your sense of superiority and that politically-correct thought police mentality you have isn’t going to change any minds. It’s pure antagonism and anger you bring. Why don’t you go to Christian Forums and all those other forums that are much more liberal and comforting for you? I would NEVER go to a Jehova’s Witness, Mormon, or Baptist forum being a Catholic? Why would I? I don’t want to antagonize them. They have the right to their beliefs. I come here to CAF because I’m Catholic. If protestants want a civil, thoughtful, open-minded (to our faith as well!!) dialogue and don’t want to be dictators and preach their own condescending gospel, I’m all for it.

Ditto and Amen!

 

[Erich]

Neither, Jesus came to reform Judaism. His followers continued to worship in the temple in Jerusalem as Jesus followers after his death. Many of Paul’s earliest converts were not true pagans but God worshipers (pagans who followed Judaism in many ways). He taught in the synagogues. The Jesus followers were thrown out by the Jews after the fall of the temple in 70 CE. People began meeting then exclusively in homes.

Actually, there is abundant evidence from patristic sources that not only were Christians frequenting the synagogues quite often, but that it was the church leadership that strove to keep Christians away from the synagogue and not the Jews who were excluding them. Such protest from the church Fathers demonstrates the receptivity of the synagogues to Christians.

It was then that the Gospels were written, and they simply attested to a fact then, an existing church. It is well known that the Gospel writers played with the oral traditions of what Jesus said and did to accomplish their theological purposes. Any look at the synoptics tells this as Luke and Matthew used Mark’s stories but redefined them for their own purposes.

Actually, at least three of the Gospels were written long before then. Matthew was written first, then Luke, then Mark (though Mark was published before Luke), and all three were written prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The theory that Mark’s gospel was written first and later refined by Matthew and Luke was unheard of prior to the 19th century.

From The Authors of the Gospels:

Matthew in 16: 1-12 attacks the Pharisees and Sadducees four times in a long passage. In the related passage in Mark 8: 11–27, we see the mention of the Pharisees reduced and there is no mention of the Sadducees. If Matthew had written second, why would he double the references to the Pharisees and insert the phrase and the Sadducees four times? We need to remember that by AD 85 the Sadducees had ceased to exist.

Why would Matthew (17: 24-7) in 85 AD be preoccupied with the half- shekel Temple tax which had ceased to exist fifteen years earlier?

Comparing the two stories in Matthew 15: 1-2 and 15: 21, with Mark 7: 2-4 and 7: 28, we see Mark finding it necessary to explain the act of washing and the nationality of a Canaanite. Matthew writing for Palestinians had no need to do this. If Matthew was writing in 85 AD for a mainly Gentile readership, and basing his Gospel on Mark`s Gospel, why did he leave out the helpful explanations provided by Mark?

Matthews Gospel is full of examples claiming Christ fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies (e.g. 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 27:9). He reports the rending of the Temple veil (27: 51), yet does not record the fulfilment of Christs biggest prophesy – The destruction of the Temple.

There’s plenty more information in the referenced link, too much to fit here.

I can see why people believe he started a church

Complete the following sentence:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my ______, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

a) church
b) bible
c) father’s house with many rooms
d) fence

but to suggest he came to earth to create a bible is rather odd, since he wrote nothing nor instructed anyone to write anything.

Well, we are told in John 8:1-11 that He did write something, in the sand, but you’re right… Jesus told the Eleven to teach, and to baptize.

 

[a_priori]

Jesus came to preach and his disciples preached and spread the word and that formed the scriptures. Without the scriptures there is no Chruch. Jesus was not a protestant or a catholic, these are interpretations and doctrines. There were followers of Jesus who passed on the scriptures but there were many sects that came along. Its the scriptures that must be looked at.

"Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27

 

[Eleve]

Complete the following sentence:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my ______, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

a) church
b) bible
c) father’s house with many rooms
d) fence

I think this would be a case of refuting someone who is agreeing with you.

You said it right here, they do not care about the Truth. The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth. The Muslims say that the Bible is corrupted but they offer no proof of such a thing. They disagree with it because it does not say what they want it to say so they say it was corrupted. That is not the Truth.

When you say that Muslims don’t care about the truth (and with a little “t,” to boot), you end up saying that Muslims are willfully and deliberately ignorant. And calling people dumb is, well, as SpiritMeadow said, uncharitable.

Absolutely. These are valuable historically and in understanding heresy and the idiocy of these false Christians, sure. I’ve read them and the entire Nag Hammadi texts. They are valuable historically.

I’m pretty sure this historical value is the same type of legitimacy that SpiritMeadow was talking about in the previous quote.

In other news, it’s deliciously but painfully ironic to see somebody throw a whole bunch of insults at somebody else for being self-righteous and condescending.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

Your self-righteous, self-appointed politically-correct sense of superiority over anyone who disagrees with you is stunning. You come in here day after day, a liberal Episcopalian, shocked and appauled that Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible, that the official canon of Scripture we hold dear is superior to the pagan tripe of the gnostic heretics, and you slam everyone as a racist, a bigot, intolerant, or ignorant. You think youself so charitable, classy, and polished. You believe yourself to be the judge of what’s appropriate and tacky. You feel yourself put on this forum to bring justice, dignity, and civility. It’s hilarious. You blast people mercilessly and in a mean spirit yourself.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

con’t gurneyhalleck reply

Absolutely. These are valuable historically and in understanding heresy and the idiocy of these false Christians, sure. I’ve read them and the entire Nag Hammadi texts. They are valuable historically. The poster never said that. He called them “garbage.” He’s right, theologically. They are garbage from our religious point of view. But then as an Episcopalian you have nothing in your ‘theology’ that is heretical, evil, or sinful. It’s a fruit salad of buddhist bishops, gay and adultering priests, priestesses, no ability to excommunicate, pro-abortion extremists, and an anything-goes theology. Well, that’s largely what the gnostics believed. No wonder you find such value in gnostic ‘gospels.’

You quote a sentence and say it is correct, then go off on your tangent, I never spoke further than the sentence you agreed to. The poster did not qualify his statement as to only their theological value. They may be so from your point of view and my own as well.
Your abject anger at TEC is now reappearing. Again, I am sorry that you felt abandoned by your church. That you don’t agree with it is apparent. I would hope that your anger might dissipate as you find yourself where you feel more comfortable. And actually the gnostics don’t believe any of the things you have said, nor do their writings address them. And of course I didn’t say what value I placed on these writings. You seem intent on doing that for me.

I still fail to understand your purpose in CAF, Spirit. Your sense of superiority and that politically-correct thought police mentality you have isn’t going to change any minds. It’s pure antagonism and anger you bring. Why don’t you go to Christian Forums and all those other forums that are much more liberal and comforting for you? I would NEVER go to a Jehova’s Witness, Mormon, or Baptist forum being a Catholic? Why would I? I don’t want to antagonize them. They have the right to their beliefs. I come here to CAF because I’m Catholic. If protestants want a civil, thoughtful, open-minded (to our faith as well!!) dialogue and don’t want to be dictators and preach their own condescending gospel, I’m all for it.

You opinion is noted. Blessings to you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Actually, at least three of the Gospels were written long before then. Matthew was written first, then Luke, then Mark (though Mark was published before Luke), and all three were written prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The theory that Mark’s gospel was written first and later refined by Matthew and Luke was unheard of prior to the 19th century.

I recognize that among the serious conservative element in Chistendom, Matthew continues to be the preferred “first” gospel, however the majority opinion among scholars remains that Mark was first, written in the early 70’s, followed by Luke and Matthew written in the 80-85 period and then John written in 90-100 CE.

Whether that turns out in the end to be the correct analysis or not is of course still be discussed. If the better evidence turns out otherwise, then the majority will follow the evidence. So far, it is a minority view and has not persuaded the rank and file scholarly community.