Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[benhur]

I haven’t heard that question much. I think just once, and that implied that presbyterus does mean priest.

Hi P

Understand the connection of priest /presbyter. An unfortunate chose of words/translation. Just like our word “love” does not differentiate between phileo, agape, and eros, all different . Presbyterus and heirus are different.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Greetings.

This is probably worthy of it’s own thread.

But let’s take a brief look at it.

Catholic Church(Latin Rite where the Pope’s office resides) has had the same scriptures since the end of the 4th century

The Eastern Churches still, to this day, do not have a universally agreed upon Canon.

Protestant reformers removed or discredited 7 books that were considered scripture and read in Church for over a thousand years… and wanted to toss out others like James, Jude and Revelation. And cant agree on much doctrinaly within their own ranks.

Only one of these 3 branches has been remarkably consistent, especially with the canon. I’d say Catholics are not taking much of a leap of faith in trusting in the Church, that is, was, and continues to be, guided by the Holy Spirit and a promise from Jesus Christ.

Sounds like you do not believe in OSAS. Thank God for that because it’s a horrible and dangerous doctrine

Good post.

Agree CC more consistent, unchanged than say P canon.(do not know about O’s). Still the rationale behind P canon (OT) has Catholic foundation writers (Jerome) and Hebrew foundation.

I also do not think much about saying reformers wanted to toss books out. They did not toss any NT book out. Book prefaces matched much of Jeromes and other Catholics.

But I agree to parts of OSAS, and disagree with those who only “hope” in eternal life , which is biblical, and not *“know” *of their salvation, which is also biblical.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The Church spent a great deal of time and effort protecting our faith, yet seems to get no credit for this from her many critics.

hi La,

“Kind of agree. If you love the book, you love how we got it, and thru whom we got it. Gotta love the foundation” from post #502

Blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is wonderful that all Christians are considered to be part of the Church as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. Either that is the official stance of the Catholic Church or it isn’t. Would you mind confirming it with some supporting documentation?

As a descendant of former heretics I would like to know what we as protestant groups have done or changed in the last 500 years that now gives us the privilege of being part of the Church.

Thanks.

See if this helps?

Catechism of the Catholic Church = CCC

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

845** To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood**.334

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

partly , , as in other places/forms.

Fair enough. But I’d guess that it was internet forums and the like. Not sure what kind of conclusion one could draw from that. (Notwithstanding the large number of Protestants who have made statements like “Aha! A Catholic on [fill in name of blog or forum] said Blank”, as though proving something. )

 

[Michael68]

Fair enough. But I’d guess that it was internet forums and the like. Not sure what kind of conclusion one could draw from that. (Notwithstanding the large number of Protestants who have made statements like “Aha! A Catholic on [fill in name of blog or forum] said Blank”, as though proving something. )

Internet “Christian” forum for the most part are hostile to Catholics

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Good post.

Agree CC more consistent, unchanged than say P canon.(do not know about O’s). Still the rationale behind P canon (OT) has Catholic foundation writers (Jerome) and Hebrew foundation.

I also do not think much about saying reformers wanted to toss books out. They did not toss any NT book out. Book prefaces matched much of Jeromes and other Catholics.

But I agree to parts of OSAS, and disagree with those who only “hope” in eternal life , which is biblical, and not *“know” *of their salvation, which is also biblical.

Blessings

Good morning.

Agree on Jerome, he clearly objected to the disputed books.

In regards to the Jews, the ones who mattered(the apostles) were using the Septuagint which contains said books. The ones who rejected our Lord used it as well until about the year 100 AD. The dead sea scrolls are a testament to this.

Election is biblical. But i dont like the message osas sends which contradicts Jesus message that we must bear our cross daily. And Calvinism in general paints a picture of a god who creates people for the sole purpose of tossing them into hell. Horrible doctrine and not sure how any sincere Christian can subscribe to it.

Pax

 

[YADA]

Good morning.

Agree on Jerome, he clearly objected to the disputed books.

…
Pax

And yes Jerome - translating from the Holy Land from the Hebrew texts did express his concerns and opinions …but Jerome ultimately deferred to the Church …he did not follow his own path in translating the Hebrew books by exclusively to those found in the Septuagint.

And biblical scholarship of the quotations of Hebrew texts in the New Testament illustrate their origin in the Septuagint …

Archaeological evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the Hebrew version of some of the disputed books - the existence of which many denied … And also the existence of some of the books in Israel in the Greek when many denied those were available or used in Israel…

Both of which - to my mind indicates that Jerome was correct to defer to the Church

 

[Lenten_ashes]

And yes Jerome - translating from the Holy Land from the Hebrew texts did express his concerns and opinions …but Jerome ultimately deferred to the Church …he did not follow his own path in translating the Hebrew books by exclusively to those found in the Septuagint.

And biblical scholarship of the quotations of Hebrew texts in the New Testament illustrate their origin in the Septuagint …

Archaeological evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the Hebrew version of some of the disputed books - the existence of which many denied … And also the existence of some of the books in Israel in the Greek when many denied those were available or used in Israel…

Both of which - to my mind indicates that Jerome was correct to defer to the Church

Yeah thankfully he didn’t think he was bigger than the Church…and ultimately goes down in history as one of the greatest patristic saints ever. Luther could have painted a much diffetent picture for himself had he deferred as well.

 

[YADA]

Yeah thankfully he didn’t think he was bigger than the Church…and ultimately goes down in history as one of the greatest patristic saints ever. Luther could have painted a much diffetent picture for himself had he deferred as well.

Yes

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi rc,

Well what did they do in OT regarding canon, even teaching? Did they allow variances in teaching ?

The priestly duties is another thing in OT and seems to differ in NT, hence the term priest (heirus) rarely used.(presbyterus is not the same as heirus)

Blessings

In response to post 518 and 522

The presbyters recorded acting in the capacity of priest administering sacraments in the anointing of the sick, is the same office Catholic priest minister today unchanged. See James 5:13…

FYI;

CCC 1590 St. Paul said to his disciple Timothy: “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim 1:6), and “If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.” (1 Tim 3:1) To Titus he said: “This is why I left you in Crete, that you amend what was defective, **and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). **

CCC 1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.

CCC 1554 "The divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests, and deacons."32 Catholic doctrine, expressed in the liturgy, the Magisterium, and the constant practice of the Church, recognizes that **there are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate **. The diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons. Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders:

The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.

They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or “presbyter.”
catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned

 

[benhur]

Good morning.

Agree on Jerome, he clearly objected to the disputed books.

In regards to the Jews, the ones who mattered(the apostles) were using the Septuagint which contains said books. The ones who rejected our Lord used it as well until about the year 100 AD. The dead sea scrolls are a testament to this.

Election is biblical. But i dont like the message osas sends which contradicts Jesus message that we must bear our cross daily. And Calvinism in general paints a picture of a god who creates people for the sole purpose of tossing them into hell. Horrible doctrine and not sure how any sincere Christian can subscribe to it.

Pax

whole other topic is the Septuagint. Not sure Jews read from it at Synagogue. All its books were not equal. Just like Clements letter to Corinth was held high by some, but was not canon. evidenceforchristianity.org/did-the-jews-use-the-greek-septuagint-even-though-it-contained-the-uncanonical-apocrypha/

As far as Scrolls, they had much writing that was not biblical, so not sure that because three of the 6-8 apocryphal books were in them that it settles the issue. They had legal, interpretive, poetical writings as well and no one considers them as "inspired’.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

whole other topic is the Septuagint. Not sure Jews read from it at Synagogue. All its books were not equal.

Blessings

Greetings.

I’d say 100% chance they were reading from it since many Jews in that era were not even speaking Hebrew at that time:

The Septuagint was the first translation of the Hebrew Bible; and was made in the third century B.C. by Jewish scribes, who were direct descendents of those trained in Ezra’s Great Synagogue of Jerusalem. They were complete experts in the text, being very well versed in Hebrew and Greek.

This translation became very popular among Jews in the first two centuries before Christ because many Jews in those days did not understand Hebrew. Their ancestors had left Israel centuries before, and generation after generation gradually lost the ability to read the Scriptures in Hebrew.

Many of the Jews in Jesus’ day used the Septuagint as their Bible. Quite naturally, the early Christians also used the Septuagint in their meetings and for personal reading; and many of the New Testament apostles quoted it when they wrote the Gospels and Epistles in Greek. What is most fascinating is that the order of the books in the Septuagint is the same order in our Bibles today, and not like the Hebrew scrolls. So this means that:

Jesus Primarily Used a Translation

Jesus and the Apostles: studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the Bible of their day, the Septuagint. Since Matthew wrote primarily to convince the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed their promised Messiah, it follows as a matter of course that his Gospel is saturated with the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Matthew, He uses the Hebrew text only 10% of the time, but the Greek LXX translation—90% of the time!

Amazingly, Jesus and Paul used the LXX as their primary Bible. It was just like the Bible each of us holds in our hands, not the original Hebrew Old Testament, but a translation of the Hebrew into Greek. But it was based on exactly the same original and inspired words, and reads just like the Bible we hold in our hands today.

biblestudytools.com/bible-study/tips/what-bible-did-jesus-use-11638841.html

 

[benhur]

Greetings.

I’d say 100% chance they were reading from it since many Jews in that era were not even speaking Hebrew at that time:

well Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than greek. The debate is heavy and not sure LXX was used. Some even say al three were used, hebrew greek Aramaic. Some say only Moses’s books were translated. Others say Origen formulated the greek old testament. So not sure but prefer to think Greek was not read in Jerusalem and vicinity synagogues. Where there could have been greek , we only find Hebrew in dead sea scrolls.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

But why? Did they have a council ? What formality was used in discernment , and by whom, which tribe etc. ?

Maybe such ‘‘looseness’’ is stronger than stricter formality(council/formal magisterium) , seeing how it was *not *disputed.

Blessings

They also did not preach or practice that Scripture was the sole rule of faith.

I don’t think your argument helps Sola Scripture or Protestant rejection of Church authority (visible and universal).

I am merely saying that I don’t have the knowledge of how Judaism knew what was Scripture and what was not. But I am pretty sure they knew it. What they read in the synagogue was regarded as Scripture.

Are you implying there was disputes about what was and what was not Scripture? Do you believe there was an equivalent divided group in Judaism as there is in Christianity over the body of Scripture?

 

[dawid]

It is wonderful that all Christians are considered to be part of the Church as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. Either that is the official stance of the Catholic Church or it isn’t. Would you mind confirming it with some supporting documentation?

As a descendant of former heretics I would like to know what we as protestant groups have done or changed in the last 500 years that now gives us the privilege of being part of the Church.

Thanks.

Dear Wannano it is part of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church that all Christians are considered to be part of the Church. See: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

When a validly baptised person joins the Catholic Church, there is no baptism but only Confirmation.

You will see the reasoning for the membership of our separated bretheren in the Catechism.

Several protestant denominations share the same baptism certificate with the Catholic Church where I live.

I trust this answers your question.

 

[dawid]

I am merely saying that I don’t have the knowledge of how Judaism knew what was Scripture and what was not. But I am pretty sure they knew it. What they read in the synagogue was regarded as Scripture.

As Jesus said, there was the “Chair of Moses” which was the standard for authority.
Moses received Divine revelation and put it to writing.
He (and his successors) had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.

 

[dawid]

well Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than greek. The debate is heavy and not sure LXX was used. Some even say al three were used, hebrew greek Aramaic. Some say only Moses’s books were translated. Others say Origen formulated the greek old testament. So not sure but prefer to think Greek was not read in Jerusalem and vicinity synagogues. Where there could have been greek , we only find Hebrew in dead sea scrolls.

Blessings

Dear benhur
Hebrew Scripture was originally in Hebrew. After the Greek empire expanded, Greek became the language and the Scripture was translated to Greek.
You will find that about two thirds of Jesus’ and the apostle’s quotes are in the Deuterocanonicals.

The Dead sea scrolls would therefore be in Hebrew.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

well Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than greek. The debate is heavy and not sure LXX was used. Some even say al three were used, hebrew greek Aramaic. Some say only Moses’s books were translated. Others say Origen formulated the greek old testament. So not sure but prefer to think Greek was not read in Jerusalem and vicinity synagogues. Where there could have been greek , we only find Hebrew in dead sea scrolls.

Blessings

All 3 may have been used in synagogues. Jerusalem was sort of a metropolitan area for tha era with several languages spoken.

But i dont think it’s coincidence that Jesus kept quoting from LXX, or that other Jews(early Christians) preferred it as well.

Greek is a more specficic language so harder to mis interpret something. I think you can say love like 5 differrnt ways. So i get the rational behind the Greek scripture LXX movement which obviously carried over into the NT.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Dear benhur
Hebrew Scripture was originally in Hebrew. After the Greek empire expanded, Greek became the language and the Scripture was translated to Greek.
You will find that about two thirds of Jesus’ and the apostle’s quotes are in the Deuterocanonicals.

The Dead sea scrolls would therefore be in Hebrew.

People claim Jesus doesn’t quote from the disputed books. But some of the things he said, you see the same concept in them just not word for word.

Theire are other OT books excepted by everyone that there are no quotes from like Esther. So that cant be the criteria or justification for removing books…