Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Certainly the New Testament is Catholic. The Old Testament is Jewish and would exist if Christ had never come.
 
That’s true, although it was the Church that preserved and canonized the writings and handed them down to subsequent generations of Christians. We probably can’t know for sure how the OT would have been handled and transmitted as a purely Jewish book, in the absence of the Catholic Church.
 
The article isn’t bold enough. Not only is the Bible a Catholic book, but Christianity is a Catholic faith.
 
Or, you might say, Catholicism is THE Christian faith, the original and continuing.
 
Special said:
the Roman Catholic denomination has removed the 2nd . commandment
not making idols that that we worship. And split the 9th into 2 commandment.
So you can believe differently. On some issue’s.
Click to expand...
Catholics consider making worshipping graven images a violation of the first commandment and therefore, part of it. Catholics count all of this as the first commandment. See

Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC # 2083 - 2140

S.D.Aventists group together “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” with the prohibition against coveting “his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s,” as one commandment, whereas, Catholics count them as two. It should be noted that the numbering of verses is not in the original manuscripts - actually the originals are no longer in existence, but the oldest copies that we have which are copies of copies of copies of the originals, do not have them. Therefore, the numbering of them is not inspired. They were added after the invention of the printing press in order to facilitate that process.

It probably would be a lot easier for a man to forgive his neighbor who just used his brand new lawnmower against his explicit prohibition to do so, than it would be for him to forgive another neighbor who raped his wife. Both sins are evil and wrong, but the second is much more serious (Cf. 1 Jn. 5:16-17), and so Catholics count prohibitions against them as two different commandments.

Notice that we are not talking about stealing. We are talking about inappropriate desires that could lead to borrowing or raping. Would it be easier for the husband to remain living next door to the neighbor who borrowed his lawnmower or remain next to the one who raped his wife ? These are completely two different issues, and thus counted as two different commandments.

See more at

Ten Commandments
 
The OT was inspired the moment is was penned, which was “before” the church was built. And since Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what it was (“It is written,” “Have you not read?,” “the Scripture says,” etc.), although not every Jew believed in the same boundaries of the OT, nonetheless, the canon was something Jesus expected them to recognize. Otherwise, Jesus could not hold them accountable for knowing what it was, but He did. So, the OT canon was not something that was established during the church age, but prior to that:

Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller
 
JohnR77 said:
Catholics consider making worshipping graven images a violation of the first commandment and therefore, part of it. Catholics count all of this as the first commandment.
Click to expand...
Where I believe @Special believes “you shall not covet” is a single commandment is based on the apostle Paul’s epistle to the church of Rome, where he uses it as a single quote to encompass everything Catholics would consider the 9th & 10th Commandments separately (see Romans 7:7; 13:9). As a result, if what Catholics consider the 1st Commandment isn’t separated as two separate commandments (“You shall have no other strange gods before Me” and “You shall not create a graven image”), then you only end up with 9 Commandments instead of 10.
 
I haven’t read the book, but I fully intend to, thank you for sharing
 
RaisedCatholic said:
So, the OT canon was not something that was established during the church age, but prior to that:
Click to expand...
If the OT canon was the only object of this thread your point would be relevant. But sense you consider the canon of Christian scriptures, the Christian bible, much more than the OT, how is your post relevant to the OP and to his follow up post on post #3?

Peace!!!
 
Last edited:
RaisedCatholic said:
As a result, if what Catholics consider the 1st Commandment isn’t separated as two separate commandments (“You shall have no other strange gods before Me” and “You shall not create a graven image”), then you only end up with 9 Commandments instead of 10.
Click to expand...
Deuteronomy has a different list of the Decalogue. That’s the list we use.
 
Thanks JimG.

This quote is from your link. I never would have guessed that it would’ve cost that much.
Wow!

I am guessing that the difference between the Gospels is based on word count. Does anyone have The word count for each Gospel ?

the Gospels would have cost the following in today’s dollars. :
  • Matthew: $2238
  • Mark: $1379
  • Luke: $2377
  • John: $1909
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing. It does look like a good book. I will have to put it on my list.
 
C.Longinus said:
Deuteronomy has a different list of the Decalogue. That’s the list we use.
Click to expand...
It’s the same list as in Exodus. If you look at Deuteronomy, and you blend the first & second commandment into one (“You shall have no other strange gods before Me” and “You shall not create a graven image”), in order to have 10 Commandments, you have to separate the 10th Commandment (“You shall not covet”) into 2 different kinds of “coveting” (“not coveting neighbor’s wife” & “not coveting neighbor’s good”). However, again, Paul lists “not coveting” as a single commandment in his epistle to the Romans.
 
adf417 said:
If the OT canon was the only object of this thread your point would be relevant. But sense you consider the canon of Christian scriptures, the Christian bible, much more than the OT, how is your post relevant to the OP and to his follow up post on post #3?
Click to expand...
JimG said:
That’s true, although it was the Church that preserved and canonized the writings and handed them down to subsequent generations of Christians. We probably can’t know for sure how the OT would have been handled and transmitted as a purely Jewish book, in the absence of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
It’s relevant because the OT canon was inspired the moment it was penned, which was before Jesus built His church, which He held the Jews accountable for knowing what it was. As far as the NT canon, most of it was considered just as inspired as the OT by the mid-first century. Jude stated he received his information by the apostles, and quotes 2 Peter extensively. Peter stated that all of Paul’s epistles are just as inspired as the “rest of the Scriptures.” Paul stated all Scripture is God-breathed & referred to Luke’s writings as “Scripture.” Luke stated he received much of his information by “eyewitnesses” of which Matthew was one, whose writings are “synoptic” to both Luke & Mark. The book of Revelation is self-authoritative, as it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ Who commanded the apostle John to write down what he saw.

As far as the other NT writings, they have the same “God-breathed” criteria the OT & other NT books have: lack of errors & contradictions, authored by an apostle (or a close contemporary of one), written during a period of miracles to validate the author’s (or their contemporaries’) writings, etc. This is why other books written around the same time (like 1 Clement, the Didache, the epistle of Barnabas, etc) are not God-breathed & not in the NT. They were either written too late (second century) or they contained errors & contradictions with previous Scripture, or they were not written by an apostle or one of their contemporaries.

Hope this addresses your comments & how this all relates to the OP.
 
adf417 said:
As was said there you can profess it all you want but it doesn’t make it truth and your primes is misguided. There is a deeper historical aspect you are missing.
Click to expand...
Was there anything disagreeable in what RC wrote in this thread?

(I thought it was well written and informative. Didn’t seem to be very controversial?)
 
Last edited:
TULIPed said:
40.png
adf417:
As was said there you can profess it all you want but it doesn’t make it truth and your primes is misguided. There is a deeper historical aspect you are missing.
Click to expand...
Was there anything disagreeable in what RC wrote in this thread?

(I thought it was well written and informative. Didn’t seem to be very controversial?)
Click to expand...
Nothing disagreeable and very informative - if one doesn’t care to truly consider the entirety of the deeper historical aspect. Other than that its all good!

Peace!!!
 
vern_humphrey said:
Certainly the New Testament is Catholic. The Old Testament is Jewish and would exist if Christ had never come.
Click to expand...
Ummmmm…hold on a second. If taken with a strict materialist kind of historicity you could make this case.

But theologically, which is the fullest sense and meaning of this, this is a non-sequitur. Catholicism takes up the whole of Scripture in Christ. It is all summed up in Christ. The fact that most of the scriptures OT and NT are “Jewish” does not separate them from Christ in any way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top