Bible Passages that just sound too Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
Curious brought up an interesting topic about some Biblical passage that sound very Catholic.

I only want to discuss the Catholicity of the passages, and no Protestant rebuttals, which always can be refuted.

To my list, these are the following passages that sound too Catholic.

Matthew 16:18 - Jesus build his Church upon Peter

John 20:23 - Jesus gives the Apostles to forgive sins

John 6:22-59 - Jesus commandment to us to eat his flesh and blood.

Luke 1:28, Luke 1:42-56, Luke 2:35, Mary.

1 Corinthians 11:17-33 Abuses of the Lord’s Supper…

I know there other Biblical Passages which I will not state, and leave it to the others.
 
All of them

Catholic Doctrinal Concordance
God, One and True God’s nature, Trinity, and Jesus
God’s Creatures Mary, Man, Angels, Saints, and the devil
God’s Remedies Grace, The Church, Scripture, and Sacraments
God’s Gifts Faith, Hope, Love, and Prayer
The Last Things Death, Purgatory, Heaven, and Hell
Additional Topics Apologetics, and topics of dispute with
other Christians
Links Great Catholic links
infpage.com/concordance/
 
The ones mentioned sound good to me. However, I have to say that the entire Bible sounds Catholic to me. It is, after all, a Catholic book.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Curious brought up an interesting topic about some Biblical passage that sound very Catholic.

I only want to discuss the Catholicity of the passages, and no Protestant rebuttals, which always can be refuted.

To my list, these are the following passages that sound too Catholic.

Matthew 16:18 - Jesus build his Church upon Peter

John 20:23 - Jesus gives the Apostles to forgive sins

John 6:22-59 - Jesus commandment to us to eat his flesh and blood.

Luke 1:28, Luke 1:42-56, Luke 2:35, Mary.

1 Corinthians 11:17-33 Abuses of the Lord’s Supper…

I know there other Biblical Passages which I will not state, and leave it to the others.
Click to expand...
Also,
Col 1:24 “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,”

It speaks of the redemptive value of suffering.

Catholic Catechism…

*"The sick person before God
1502The man of the Old Testament lives his sickness in the presence of God. It is before God that he laments his illness, and it is of God, Master of life and death, that he implores healing. Illness becomes a way to conversion; God’s forgiveness initiates the healing*. It is the experience of Israel that illness is mysteriously linked to sin and evil, and that faithfulness to God according to his law restores life: “For I am the Lord, your healer.” The prophet intuits that suffering can also have a redemptive meaning for the sins of others. Finally Isaiah announces that God will usher in a time for Zion when he will pardon every offense and heal every illness."*
 
JimG said:
The ones mentioned sound good to me. However, I have to say that the entire Bible sounds Catholic to me. It is, after all, a Catholic book.
Click to expand...
If it is truly a Catholic book, then why does Catholic teaching so often not correspond with scripture and on occasion oppose it?
 
ronnok20 said:
If it is truly a Catholic book, then why does Catholic teaching so often not correspond with scripture and on occasion oppose it?
Click to expand...
Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.
greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED
The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611 is 113. Of this number, 102 are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:

Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1:30
Mat 27:43 Wisdom 2:15-16
Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15
Luke 14:13 Tobit 4:7
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34 Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7

bible-researcher.com/canon10.html
apostate.com/religion/bible-versions.html

Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Many people ask why the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church has more books in it than the typical Protestant Bible. These “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books are Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Judith, I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and additional chapters of Daniel and Esther. The most religiously important of the books are Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, while the most historically important is 1st Maccabees.
The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian church did not. apostate.com/2.0/english-bible-versions

The Maccabean Revolt began in 168-167 B.C. when the Romans expelled Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt, a man who began to vent his rage upon the Jews. He massacred vast numbers of Jews on their Sabbath day, took many captive, erected a fortress on Mt. Zion, and attempted to abolish all vestiges of Jewish worship and practice. The Temple was dedicated to the false god Zeus, and upon the newly erected altar a pig was sacrificed! (The apocryphal book of Maccabees, apparently quoting Daniel 11:31, calls this act the “abomination of desolation.”) heraldmag.org/2002/02so_7.htm

The Reformation Attack on the Bible. The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society),
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
 
Why did The CC reject some Aporcrypha books Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*

*A reader says: “Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13.”
 
Why the Apocrypha Isn’t in the King James Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.:bible1:
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the Christian church.
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954
 
Wasn’t the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:

“As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)…”

Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition) states:

In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche…
Now concerning the apocrypha it states,

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene [sic].
 
guys we are getting off the subject of the original posts. perhaps we could start threads on the seperate issues that we are bringing up on this thread.
 
To get back on TOPIC :rolleyes:

Let us begin with the follow passages.

Luke 24:1-35 seems very Catholic to me. There is the breaking of the bread, and giving thanks…

The Book of Revelation as Scott Hahn pointed out in his book, The Lamb’s Supper also resemble a Mass.
 
truthnlight said:
True
Click to expand...
There is already a thread discussing the Deutrocanonical Books

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=139171&highlight=Deutrocanonical

and another one on

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=160067&page=3&highlight=Deutrocanonical

This thread is to find Scripture passages in the Bible that sound very Catholic… It is not a debating thread. The intent of this thread is not to debate.

We have too many of those already and often they are always in disagreements.

For once, we need to overlook at the difference and seek what unites us.
 
Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation

Pick a verse from any of these books because according to luther they are not protastant and not inspired books -just can’t figure out why they protastants keep using the apocolypse to make false preditions…
 
The original post listed 5 Bible passages that sound “too Catholic.” I would agree as to the first four. However, there is nothing uniquely Catholic about 1 Corinthians 11:17-33. This passage is often read or quoted during Protestant communion services, metaphorically of course as to the body and the blood.

I would add two more verses that sound too Catholic to be heard often in Protestant congregations: 1 Peter 3:21 (baptism now saves you) and Mark 16:16 (he who believes and has been baptized . . . .). As for the latter verse, the two most popular Protestant Bibles–the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible–have placed Mark 16:9-20 in brackets with a footnote that says this does not appear in the oldest and best manuscripts. This seems to suit them quite well, probably because of this verse on the necessity of baptism, so they assume it is not part of Mark’s writing and never read it.
 
Jesus said, “no one enters onto the father except through me”. Now there is a verse that sounds anything but Catholic. How about in Romans, “it is your faith that saves you”. There is another verse that certainly does not rest with Catholic doctrine.
 
ronnok20 said:
Jesus said, “no one enters onto the father except through me”. Now there is a verse that sounds anything but Catholic. How about in Romans, “it is your faith that saves you”. There is another verse that certainly does not rest with Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
Ephesians 5
23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ
 
Jesus said, “no one enters onto the father except through me”. Now there is a verse that sounds anything but Catholic. How about in Romans, “it is your faith that saves you”. There is another verse that certainly does not rest with Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
That probably belongs in the “Bible Passages that Sound too Protestant” thread. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top