T
Tietjen
Guest
Oh, because as Catholics we have 3 means to determine Truth. We have Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. All 3 agree that Homosexuality is wrong. Case closed.
Do Protestant Churches twist what Scripture says to fit their interpretation of the Bible?
- Status
T
Tietjen
Guest
I’ll bite bro. what in 1 John 5 are you suggesting that Catholics added?
B
brkn1
Guest
Jesus can be closer than the imagined real presence that some assume. Once the Holy Spirit indwells a saved person, Jesus will also spiritually indwell that person through the Holy Spirit. That is what is meant by being “in Christ” as He is in us.Okay, let’s try this nice and slow so that those “big boys” who never learned how to ride a bike can understand.
This will be my final attempt at getting you to answer. As a "mama’s boy, I am not allowed to play with those who avoid and circumvent the Truth. My mama wouldn’t approve and since she’s THE queen, I had better listen.
- What is your position on the Real Presence talked about in John 6?
- The primacy of Peter found in Mt 16?
- Mary’s position as depicted in Rev 11:19 - 12:2? We can of course discuss other things relating to Mary, but I’d like to hear your “take” on this one first.
Peter has no more primacy than any other apostle. Peter confirmed this fact in (1 Peter 5:1): " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am ALSO an elder,…". Peter would be lying if he was the “pope”, unless all elders are also popes.
Mary is not that woman you assume in Revelation. That woman is the nation Israel as described in Joseph’s dream. Mary was part of that nation Israel before Pentecost, but that does not make her the woman described. The RCC wants to make Mary into a “divine queen” mediatrix, so they need to imagine that it is only Mary in those verses.
Does your mama being “THE queen” make you a little prince?
My belief in my Lord Jesus Christ, Who is my King and Saviour, is what makes me a part of the “royal priesthood” that Peter mentions in (1 Peter 2:9). I prefer that over being a little prince any day.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Comma Johanneum
http://www.kraftfoods.com/koolaid/koolspace/images/icon-aim-01.gif
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Christianity Portal
The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation. In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print):
5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and for this reason some Christians are resistant to the elimination of the Comma from modern Biblical translations. Nonetheless, nearly all recent translations have removed this clause, as it does not appear in older copies of the Epistle and it is not present in the passage as quoted by any of the early Church Fathers, who would have had plenty of reason to quote it in their Trinitarian debates (for example, with the Arians), had it existed then. Most Churches now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the Comma is not an original part of the Epistle of John.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.
bible.org/page.php?page_id=1186
R
ralphinal
Guest
Thanks. More specifically, I hope for an answer from non-Catholic posters.
T
Tietjen
Guest
So, am I to understand that you support the Comma Johanneum or are you suggesting that the Catholic Church supports it? Because if you are attempting to say that the Church supports it, you are incorrect. On 13 January 1897, the Holy Office decreed that Catholic theologians could not “with safety” deny or call into doubt the Comma’s authenticity. Pope Leo XIII approved this decision two days later, though his approval was not in forma specifica; that is, Leo XIII did not invest his full papal authority in the matter, leaving the decree with the ordinary authority possessed by the Holy Office. Three decades later, on 2 June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated “Nova Vulgata” edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma, nor does the English-language New American Bible.
H
Hisalone
Guest
LOL if you say so… have another glass of kool-aid brother.
There was a time the Catholic Church not only supported it but insisted upon it.
S
sandusky
Guest
Each one will stay with his own in interpretation; IOW, mine is correct.
Scripture calls homosexuality sin.
E
estesbob
Guest
Which highlights perfectly the fatal flaw of sola scriptura-it is not only based on ones personal interpretation of Scripture but also dependent on the version of Scripture they choose to use.
Since the Doctrine of the Trinity had been recognized by the Church long before the Comma crept into Scripture it is totally irelevant as to whether the Church supported it or not. In fact the only people I see defending the Comma are protestants who are challenged to find where Scripture mentions the Trinity(a must for those who adhere to Sola Scriptura)
S
sandusky
Guest
Explains how that’s, IYO, the fatal flaw of sola scriptura.
ISTM that you maintain that those who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity did so without the use of the scripture; is that correct?
If so, what do they cite as the sources they used to formulate the definition of the Trinity?
E
estesbob
Guest
[/QUOTE]
H
Hisalone
Guest
What it highlights is that the Catholic Church has changed its teachings over the years to the point of even corrupting scripture in order to make her case.
What it highlights is that the Catholic Church teaches today things it did not teach earlier, doctrines and dogmas rise and fall, there is no unbroken l;ine from the apostles to the present day.
Pre Reformation many accused Rome of doctoring their teachings to fit their own purposes. Rome has always denied this charge here is clear evidence this charge is correct.
S
sandusky
Guest
Who determines whether or a not a translation is correct, or incorrect?
What reason would you give for Protestant churches, churches which reject the RC claims to tradition and infallible magisterium, agreeing with the definition of the Trinity by the early church?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Then, in theory, there can be over 2 billion denominations, if everyone decided everything according to themselves alone. There have to be some basics that cannot be interpreted differently that classic Christianity interprets them. Period. For example, Jesus died on the cross or Jesus is God.
I agree 100%, but you should read that thread. The pro-homosexual acts side say as long as you love your neighbor, anything goes. They say that Jesus lifted the ban when he made that the second commandment (love thy neighbor as thyself). How can you show them they are incorrect when they have that as their interpretation?
In other words, as long as it is mine, I am right in it.
E
estesbob
Guest
They didnt change any teachings at all. They taught the doctrine of Trinity before the Comma was put in and after it was taken out. All they did was acknowledge a translation problem-which happens everytime a new translation of Scriptue comes out.
What doctrines do they teach today that they have not taught all along? Do you disagree with the Doctrine of the Trinity??? Did the “reformation” reject the Doctrine of the Trinity? Did the “reformers” change the Comma ?Isnt it in the King James version protestants hold so dear?
E
estesbob
Guest
[/QUOTE]
P
PerryJ
Guest
This is not a Catholic issue. It is a Protestant issue. How can Protestants support something that is not in the Bible? Sola Scriptura does not allow it. They also can not add to the Bible because this would be adding man’s interpretation to the Bible. So how does a Protestant support a non-biblical belief. It would appeat that a Protestant has two core beliefs conflicting with one another. Sola Scriptura or the Trinity.
E
estesbob
Guest
This is an unusual discussion because it is usually Protestants who are swearing to the validity of the Comma to prove that Scripture explicily mentions the Trinity, which it doea not.
S
sandusky
Guest
Or more.
That’s “orthodoxy.”
Where is the thread?
No—one is only in the right when He is speaking what God is saying.
S
sandusky
Guest
Your answers do not address my questions; will you try again, please?
- Status