W
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
Panoikei, wow you just blew my mind. I am ashamed to say i know nothing about the protestant religion, my Parents were such strict Catholics, forgive me but i though everyone was. Then later in life i saw the differences. and only recently found a need to learn more about my faith in order to defend it. But the part about Luthers last prayer to the BLessed Mother, and confession, how can protestants now not believe in the church. Could you show me where you found that i would love to read up on it. I am speechless. never heard that one. love it though.
P
panoikei
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cag/viewpost.gif
You know you just made me think of something, sorry for going off thread for a second, but how do they explain away the faith alone, because if i am correct the book of James is in their bible.
I was listening to Catholic Radio the other day coming home. That’s why my previous Protesting faith rejects faith only doctrine.
Originally Posted by rinnie forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cag/viewpost.gif
You know you just made me think of something, sorry for going off thread for a second, but how do they explain away the faith alone, because if i am correct the book of James is in their bible.
I was listening to Catholic Radio the other day coming home. That’s why my previous Protesting faith rejects faith only doctrine.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Hi BibleSteve, long thread here which I skimmed, but apologies if someone has addressed this:
a. While on earth, we are still attached to sin.
b. Heaven is incompatible with any nature of sin, and we will not be prone to sin there.
c. So how will our nature get from a to b when we die?
a. While on earth, we are still attached to sin.
b. Heaven is incompatible with any nature of sin, and we will not be prone to sin there.
c. So how will our nature get from a to b when we die?
W
whizkid43
Guest
rinnie,
if you podcast you can listen to these, if you don’t podcast you can listen online…
podcast.catholictelevision.org/totf.php
C
cascherman
Guest
I want to see a discussion from this on what Catholic teaching is contradictory to scripture, not what is not explicitly taught in scripture.
R
rinnie
Guest
Thankx i know nothing about this but i know my kids do. I will have him explain to me what i have to do and then if i need anything get it for me. or like you said download it for me thankx. Very interesting. Im sure we have to have Catholic Radio somewhere too. Just never thought of it. Oh, just had a thought, my husband and kids think i am becomming a religious nut. I think they think i am going to start wearing long dresses, and carry the bible everywhere i go. Oh well let em sweat.
W
whizkid43
Guest
yeah same here with my wife and kids with one exception. my 13 yo daughter (who is going back to Church with me) She thinks I’m enlightened
We can tag team the rest of the family in time 
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
The Synod of Jamnia setting the canon theory is pretty well discounted now. It was popularized in the 1800’s basically by one man. I don’t know why people keep looking to it. There’s really no evidence it even really considered the question of canon for most of the Bible. Get some recent references and you will find that it really looks like the canon was set back in Jeremiah’s day.
I don’t know what you base your idea that the Jewish canon included the intertestimental books. I know of no evidence they were ever used in the synagogs.
As far as Luther, he gave an explanation of the word only a long time ago. It had to do with the way German was spoken at the time, you don’t need it in most languages.
As for the books Luther included, what he did was follow with the Roman Catholic Church of the day. It is true he questioned books, though if you read him instead of those who write about him, he clearly states that it was a personal thing. His bible follows the order of a Latin transaltion that came out between the time of his New Testament and complete Bibles, and treats the books like the Vulgate, the Glossa ordinaria and really the learned among the Catholic Church treated them at the time. That’s why you don’t see the canon of scripture as a big debate with Luther, there really was no disagreement. The Catholic Church even agrees with the questioning, if they did not, they would not call so many books the Deuterocanon, which really is a statement that those books were questioned.
As for the King James Bible, the Apocrypha was always in a separate section, I don’t have a clue where you got the idea that at first it didn’t. Even if it followed the Vulgate’s order, it still would have had the separate section since the Vulgate had three books in an appendix. But in any case, it never did follow the Vulgate in order, though it did agree with the Vulgate as to what was and what wasn’t authoritative scripture.
You can hunt and there’s a 1611 KJV “He” Bible, the absolute first edition available for viewing online. You can see it exactly as it was produced, complete with the Apocrypha in a separate section.
JJ
S
sneakers
Guest
Marked to read later
V
VWcrazy
Guest
Proof? Links?
H
holy_wood
Guest
The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray
http://www.catholic.com/images/1x1trans.gif
Many myths are believed not because they are true but simply because people want to believe them. But wishful thinking is a poor substitute for truth. It is always preferable to dig deep and discover the facts and not believe things only because you want them to be true.
For instance, it is popular in some Protestant circles to claim that the Jews had a closed canon of Scripture in the first century A.D. and that the early Christians accepted this final Jewish collection of inspired writings as final and binding upon the Church. Generally, the Council of Jabneh (usually referred to in Catholic literature as Jamnia) is assumed as the “proof” for this assertion. At the “Council of Jabneh,” you see, the Jewish rabbis supposedly got together—something like an ecumenical council in the Catholic Church—to lay down specific criteria for inspired Scripture and to finally define and close the Old Testament canon.
Is this true? First, we will look at how various authors defend the Protestant exclusion of seven books based on a flawed understanding of the so-called “Council of Jabneh.” Second, did the members of this “council” actually discuss the limit of the Old Testament canon, and third, if so, did they have the authority to close the canon? Fourth, did they actually compile a final list of accepted writings, and, fifth—and importantly—if such a decision had been made, would the Christians be bound by that decision? We will conclude with the teaching of the Catholic Church and why we can trust it.
Let’s clarify a few terms. The canon of Scripture refers to the final collection of inspired books included in the Bible. The Catholic Bible contains seven books that do not appear in the Protestant Old Testament. These seven writings are called the deuterocanonicals or the Second Law. Protestants usually call these writings the Apocrypha (meaning hidden), books they consider outside the canon. These seven writings include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch, along with additional passages in Daniel and Esther. Before the time of Christ, these writings were included in the Jewish Greek Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture—but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text.
The Jewish Canon
The vast majority of Jews in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. lived outside of Israel. They were called the diaspora, those dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Many had become Hellenized—that is, they had taken on the Greco-Roman culture, including the Greek language. The Septuagint, containing the deuterocanonical books, was the main Bible used by these Jews of the diaspora.
Most non-Christian Jews of the first century A.D. considered the Church to be a heretical and misinformed Jewish cult, probably similar to the way Christians look at the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses of today. In the first century, several decades after the life of Christ, the majority of early Christians were Gentiles, and they used the Greek Septuagint as their Old Testament, following the example of the Greek-speaking Jews, including Jesus and the apostles (note 1, sidebar, page 25)…
continue’d at catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
P
panoikei
Guest
Thanks. Been thinking about this. I have yet to recite it exact. I throw it out there as I’ve heard it many times. It seems different ways. But it makes sense. I bought a KJV bible yesterday with the “Apocripha”. Ought to turn a few heads when I read it in my next bible class visiting in-laws.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
Which version? It’s interesting that unlike a Catholic edition the KJV with Apocrypha has all the books normally inculded in the Vulgate including the appendix.
The 1611 would read like this:
Mat 19:1-6 KJV-1611
(1) And it came to passe, that when Iesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coastes of Iudea, beyond Iordane:
(2) And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there.
(3) The Pharisees also came vnto him, tempting him, and saying vnto him, Is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife for euery cause?
(4) And hee answered, and said vnto them, Haue ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female?
(5) And said, For this cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and shall cleaue to his wife: and they twaine shalbe one flesh.
(6) Wherefore they are no more twaine, but one flesh. What therefore God hath ioyned together, let not man put asunder.
The 1768 like this:
Mat 19:1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
Mat 19:2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
JJ
The 1611 would read like this:
Mat 19:1-6 KJV-1611
(1) And it came to passe, that when Iesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coastes of Iudea, beyond Iordane:
(2) And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there.
(3) The Pharisees also came vnto him, tempting him, and saying vnto him, Is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife for euery cause?
(4) And hee answered, and said vnto them, Haue ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female?
(5) And said, For this cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and shall cleaue to his wife: and they twaine shalbe one flesh.
(6) Wherefore they are no more twaine, but one flesh. What therefore God hath ioyned together, let not man put asunder.
The 1768 like this:
Mat 19:1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
Mat 19:2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
JJ
G
Gara3987
Guest
One Biblical reason Sola Scriptura is incorrect is, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” [II Thess. 2:14]
“Traditions”… See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.
Code:
The proof lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds exactly to the exact religion established by Christ. Now the Christian religion is that religion which—-
Code:
Was founded by Christ personally; -
Code:
Has existed continuously since the time of Christ; -
Code:
Is Catholic or universal, in accordance with Christ's command to go to all the world and teach all nations; -
Code:
Demands that all her members admit the same doctrine; -
Code:
Exercises divine authority over her subjects, since Christ said that if a man would not hear the Church he would be as the heathen.
-
Code:
To have been founded by Christ personally. All other Churches disappear as you go back through history. Christ said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." There are many claimants to the honor of being Christ's Church. But among all non-Catholic Churches, we find one built on a John Wesley; another on a Martin Luther; another on a Mrs. Eddy, etc. But the Catholic Church alone can possibly claim to have been built on Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and one-time Bishop of Rome. -
Code:
To have existed in all the centuries since Christ. -
Code:
That every one of her members admits exactly the same essential doctrines. -
Code:
To be Catholic or universal. -
Code:
To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.
“And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
We must remember that Our Lord said, “I am the Truth.” What is truth? Truth omits error, it is conformity to reality or actuality. He founded his Church and said, “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen”[Matthew 18: 17]. Again He told His Apostles, “he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me”[Luke 10: 16] and, “He that is not with me, is against me.” Would you come to believe that if Our Lord is truly present in the Holy Eucharist, would He be every bit as pleased with the doctrine of those who deny that He is present there?
G
Gara3987
Guest
Whats interesting is what the disputed books are called.
Whatever books of the LXX (a.k.a. Septuagint) that are not part of the Hebrew Bible, the Protestants call Apocrypha, Greek meaning “hidden.” Anything outside of the LXX, Protestants call Pseudepigrapha, meaning “false writings.”
Catholics call the books accepted by the Jews Protocanonical, meaning the “first canon.” The others listed form the Deutero-canonical books, the “second canon”. All the rest they call Apocrypha.
The Orthodox follow suit but have additional books in the list of Deuterocanonicals. Anything not found in the LXX is called Apocrypha.
call Apocrypha.
W
wmscott
Guest
Bible Steve, I am waiting for a reply to post 58. you asked for specifics and when it is supplied you drop off of the radar screen, whats up? 
V
vocatio
Guest
JJ
Actually, the first KJV was in the same order as the Vulgate, with books intact in the same locations, rather inbetween the Old and New Testament.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
A facsimile of the original names and order of the books in the KJV is at dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=36
It shows the Old Testament books, the Apocrypha in betweent he Old and New Testaments and the New Testaments, in their respective orders.
JJ
It shows the Old Testament books, the Apocrypha in betweent he Old and New Testaments and the New Testaments, in their respective orders.
JJ
N
NanaR
Guest
The Church is not an “organization” – it is the living Body of Christ.
Big difference…
Pax,
Ruth
Counting down – just a little over 2 days to go and
I WILL BE CATHOLIC!!!:yup:
- Status