"Catholics hate the Bible!". Sorry, I forgot

[deMontfort]

A Judaizer hmmmmm. I’m smelling the Worldwide Church of God cult again…….

 

[kew_65]

Yeah! He hate it soooo much we read it at every Mass.

 

[rose321]

If God is your Father who is your Mother?

Respectfully opinion only maybe with God there is no gender?

The Ten Commandments seems to make that clear maybe? His Ten Commandments>> mentions not gender either, but Laws given instructions for all mortals to obey and live by?

The story of the woman who married how many husbands, which one will be her husband in the Kingdom, reply was>>they do not marry in the Kingdom, and none would be her husband?

But infinite Wisdom created>>physical > human, fleshly> beings, mortals, that need to reproduce to continue to exist physcially?

One who created all, >>>dies not>>>??>>>> is an Eternal Spiritual Being, having infinite Wisdom>>> does not need to reproduce does he/she or those within Heavenly Host, angels? Need not to reproduce? being maybe>> masculine/feminine>Conscious, thought? >

Our Creator seeks not those of gender does he?>>>for he created all>>I am>> but the Creator>>>>>>>seeks not gender>>>>>> but seeks out the >>>>purity of Love within ones>>>>>>>>hearts, souls and minds?>>>>

Thus 1st Commandment>>>>>>>>Love me with your whole heart, soul and mind? Never was about gender was it?

Peace

 

[71coog]

I think that what most protestants believe is that Catholics generally do not READ the bible but simply depend on what the pope tells us. Which is true for some Catholics but not for all.

 

[Thomas_Dogood]

Acts 10 is not about food or dietary laws being abolished. If you read to verse 28 & in the next chapter you will discover that it was a vision that was symbolic of Gentiles & that God was showing not to call Gentiles unclean (as the Jewish culture, especially Pharisees, in the 1st Centruy did). Peter said twice that he had never let anything unclean enter his mouth.

Acts 10 isn’t about food, it’s about people.

 

[Thomas_Dogood]

It might have been… except that the Trinity is actually embedded in ancient Jewish culture

Daniel Boyarin is a fairly good reference for this subject. He has a great book called “The Jewish Gospels” which is a great read for both this subject as well as the “kosher” subject mentioned by others

 

[adf417]

It might have been… except that the Trinity is actually embedded in ancient Jewish culture

If this were the case the church would not have become largely Aerian in the 4th century.

Daniel Boyarin is a fairly good reference for this subject. He has a great book called “The Jewish Gospels” which is a great read for both this subject as well as the “kosher” subject mentioned by others

Again, by what authority does this guy hold your attention over other references?

Peace!!!

 

[Thomas_Dogood]

Catholicism may not be a Jewish religion, but the “religion” Jesus was a part of & preached was a Jewish one.

To answer your question, yes I am a biblical scholar, but not a “professional” one. You & I (and every student of the Bible) is a biblical scholar by technicality. There will always be a degree of variance among scholars, due to bias as well as the uncertainty of authenticity & dating among texts. I would point to Acts 4:13 where people marveled at Peter & John even though they were laymen.

I can answer the interpretation, reference & authority at the same time. Jesus said in John 7:16 that His message was not His, but that it was from the Father that sent Him. Numbers 23:19 states that God does not change his mind & Malachi 3:6 says God does not change. Therefore, it’s quite simple, what God gave as instructions (Torah) is the same message that Jesus walked & preached. This is how we know we can be free of man-made doctrine or interference in regards to interpretation. We have one Rabbi, and His name is Jesus (Matthew 23:8), preaching what was from God.

Jesus never came to do away with Judaism, He was fighting Phariseeism that had added to & taken away from God’s instructions (Deuteronomy 4:2), and He came to restore what God had originally given.

I never take anyone at their word, I always test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and make sure they align with what the Scripture says.

 

[adf417]

Catholicism may not be a Jewish religion, but the “religion” Jesus was a part of & preached was a Jewish one.

Then why do you report your religion as “Christian”?

To answer your question, yes I am a biblical scholar, but not a “professional” one. You & I (and every student of the Bible) is a biblical scholar by technicality. There will always be a degree of variance among scholars, due to bias as well as the uncertainty of authenticity & dating among texts. I would point to Acts 4:13 where people marveled at Peter & John even though they were laymen.

Our “calling” to be scholars does not mean we are technically scholars.

The variance among scholars is certainly among us but the assumption that it is the norm and accepting to God is very sad for a Christian to promote.

I can answer the interpretation, reference & authority at the same time. Jesus said in John 7:16 that His message was not His, but that it was from the Father that sent Him. Numbers 23:19 states that God does not change his mind & Malachi 3:6 says God does not change. Therefore, it’s quite simple, what God gave as instructions (Torah) is the same message that Jesus walked & preached. This is how we know we can be free of man-made doctrine or interference in regards to interpretation. We have one Rabbi, and His name is Jesus (Matthew 23:8), preaching what was from God.

Agree! Very Cathoic! Along with these good bible quotes I would also point out God gave us a church - Mt 16:18 and it is the pillar and foundation of truth - 1 Tim 3:15.

Jesus never came to do away with Judaism, He was fighting Phariseeism that had added to & taken away from God’s instructions (Deuteronomy 4:2), and He came to restore what God had originally given.

I never take anyone at their word, I always test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and make sure they align with what the Scripture says.

I agree with this also. As a matter of fact i don’t know any bible reading “Christian”, however you want to define this term, including Catholicism, that doesn’t find your proof texts as truth and consistant with their own interpretations. Therefore this confirms my original question about interpretation still remains.

Peace!!!

 

[Pup7]

It might have been… except that the Trinity is actually embedded in ancient Jewish culture

Daniel Boyarin is a fairly good reference for this subject. He has a great book called “The Jewish Gospels” which is a great read for both this subject as well as the “kosher” subject mentioned by others

The concept of the Trinity is not in the Bible. Anywhere. Not on one page, not in one verse.

Comment stands as minted.

 

[Gorgias]

The concept of the Trinity is not in the Bible. Anywhere. Not on one page, not in one verse.

I’ll grant you that the word ‘Trinity’ isn’t there… but the concept? Nah… I think you’re mistaken: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19).

I’d argue that this is pretty clearly an example of the concept of the Trinity being explicitly referenced, even if the term or a definition of it does not appear in Scripture, per se.

 

[Pup7]

The concept of the Trinity is not in the Bible. Where does it say that God is three in one? It doesn’t.

At least, not that I’m aware. And that is what I meant.

 

[Gorgias]

The concept of the Trinity is not in the Bible. Where does it say that God is three in one? It doesn’t.

“[Jesus said], ‘The Father and I are one.’” (John 10:30)

“[Jesus said], ‘the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name’” (John 14:26)

“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:9)

“do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” (Eph 4:30)

You’re right in that there’s not an explicit statement about the Trinity. However, Jesus identifies the relationship between Himself and the Father, and there are plenty of references in the NT identifying the “Holy Spirit” as the “Spirit of God”. So, I still maintain that the concept of the Trinity is not foreign to the New Testament!

 

[Pup7]

I stand by the assertion that the concept of the Trinity is nowhere in the Bible. I feel fairly certain you know I meant explicitly. It’s not.

The only quote there that comes close is from John 10:30. And that’s not Trinitarian in nature in the least.

 

[Gorgias]

I stand by the assertion that the concept of the Trinity is nowhere in the Bible. I feel fairly certain you know I meant explicitly. It’s not.

Not as “Hey – the Trinity is One! It’s the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!”

But, it’s clear that there’s something going on, especially in the commission to baptize.

The only quote there that comes close is from John 10:30. And that’s not Trinitarian in nature in the least.

Yeah, but if one quote says “Father = Son”, and another quote says both “Spirit = God” and “Spirit = Christ”, then you gotta admit… it’s pretty difficult to say “but, it’s not in there!!!”

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

I stand by the assertion that the concept of the Trinity is nowhere in the Bible. I feel fairly certain you know I meant explicitly. It’s not.

Not as “Hey – the Trinity is One! It’s the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!”

But, it’s clear that there’s something going on, especially in the commission to baptize.

The only quote there that comes close is from John 10:30. And that’s not Trinitarian in nature in the least.

Yeah, but if one quote says “Father = Son”, and another quote says both “Spirit = God” and “Spirit = Christ”, then you gotta admit… it’s pretty difficult to say “but, it’s not in there!!!”

Not difficult to say in the least.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Don’t forget about John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

And Couple it with John 15:26

““When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15:26‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

And Rev 21:1-2

“Then the angel showed me the river of life-giving water, sparkling like crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of its street. On either side of the river grew the tree of life that produces fruit twelve times a year, once each month; the leaves of the trees serve as medicine for the nations.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭22:1-2‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

But, not explicit though all the elements are there.

 

[Pup7]

Again, as I said, it’s not explicit. It never has been explicit.

That was my one and only complete point here. And I’ve been completely misunderstood by leaps and bounds.

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as taught is not in the NT, anywhere.

It just isn’t. I’m not refuting it, though that seems to be the perception. It’s just not there.

 

[Gorgias]

That was my one and only complete point here. And I’ve been completely misunderstood by leaps and bounds.

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as taught is not in the NT, anywhere.

Nah. You can claim “that’s not what I meant”, but clearly – and we’ve pointed it out to you – that’s not what you said.

We agree that “the formal doctrine isn’t taught,” but your claim – that the concept isn’t present in the NT – is clearly false. If you want to hang your hat on something that’s true, while winking and trying to claim something that’s false… well, that’s up to you.

Not difficult to say in the least.

Agreed. Not difficult to say. Just difficult to defend.

 

[Pup7]

It’s difficult to defend that the Trinity isn’t taught as we know it in the Bible?

No, it isn’t. It’s not there. You can say “the elements” are, and you’re correct. But the Trinity as we believe just isn’t.