Don't read the bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter pio_s
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris. (The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome 382 A.D. and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.) A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied in February of 405 A.D. with a letter (Consulenti Tibi) confirming and reaffirming the canon given at Hippo and Carthage. The Ecumenical Council of Florence again affirmed the list of inspired books in 1442 A.D., about 100 years before the Council of Trent. The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” by Pope Eugenius IV lists the inspired books, and according to the common teaching of theologians, these documents are infallible states of doctrine. Since there was no urgent challenge or compelling reason why it should, the Ecumenical Council of Florence did not dogmatically pass on the canonicity of the inspired books.

The decrees of the local or regional church councils (Synods) of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, around 400 A.D., were submitted to the “transmarine church” (Rome) and approved by the Popes and are considered official church teachings by official church councils. Although these councils were merely local, and they in themselves did not have universal binding authority, their decrees were submitted to various Popes. After the Popes approved the decrees, they became part of the Ordinary and Universal and Infallible Infallible - As an amateur theologian, I believe this comes under the rubics of infallibly taught doctrine because it is part of the general and universal teaching and understanding of the Church throughout the ages. A parallel to this might be the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. ] teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. [6] The Latin Vulgate (LV) version of the Bible by Saint Jerome was completed about 406 A.D. and included the deuterocanonical books. About 1000 years later, the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

The canon of the Bible was solemnly defined and made dogmatic by the Fourth Session of the Ecumenical Council of Trent of the Catholic Church held in northern Italy 1545-1563 A.D. by the Decree “De Canonicis Scripturis” on April 8th, 1546. Pope Pius IV formally confirmed all of its decrees in 1564 A.D. This put the canonicity of the whole Traditional Bible (LV) beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. The books of the canon were listed individually and agreed with the earlier listing already infallibly taught (for about 1000 years prior to the Council of Trent) by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. [7]
 
The Council of Trent** lists 45 books of the Old Testament **not 46, because like the Traditional Bible (LV) it considers Lamentations part of Jeremiah. It also lists 27 books of the New Testament. This canon is exactly the same as the Traditional Bible (LV) as it was listed for over 1000 years before the Council of Trent. This canon was agreed upon (after much debate) by the earlier popes mentioned and both regional (provincial) and ecumenical official church councils or synods. **Today’s Catholic Bibles usually count a 73-**book canon of Scripture, not 72. This is simply because they number the book of Lamentations separate from Jeremiah. However, once dogmatically defined, there can be no dispute as to the canonicity of the sacred books on the part of Catholics. Here are a few keywords and phrases to help in understanding what the Council of Trent did: reaffirmed, reiterated what had already been taught, dogmatically defined.

Early Protestant reformers of the 16th century like Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin promoted individual judgment and interpretation of the Bible. They rejected outside authority (John 17: 20-23) (Luke 10: 16) that is the Holy Spirit sent upon the Church by Christ to teach and guide the Church as a universal body in matters of faith and morals. In effect, we have Korah’s revolt on a grand scale (Num. 16:2-33) (Jude 1:4-8). Protestant churches then became fragmented into many thousands (well over 20,000) of Protestant denominations and growing. [8] They can have standards of moral behavior that will accommodate almost any lifestyle. They appeal to pride and self, by claiming to be “progressive” or “modern”. They claim “rights” not given by God using appealing terms like “personal choice.” For example, man was not empowered by God to cause abortion, or to use artificial contraceptives. To do so is usurpation of power, an illegal seizure; a wrongful encroachment of and violation of sacred space. It is sin. The early Protestant reformers of the 16th century also adapted a shorter, 66-book canon of Scripture. They have a large chunk of truth but not the fullness of the truth in the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is the Protestant churches that are adopting relatively recent or novel doctrines like justification by faith alone (sola fide) and use of the Bible alone (sola scriptura) as the only source of divine revelation. They eliminated the deuterocanonical books of the Traditional Bible (LV) of the Catholic Church, which had been in use for over 1000 years, and which supported Catholic doctrine like prayer for the dead and Purgatory found in 2 Maccabees.
 
As I understood it in school, the main reason for discouraging the reading of the Bible was mostly done but those higher in society or government positions. The reasoning was that if the poor & lowly, uneducated peasants learned to read the bible, they would eventually become educated, well-learned people. What happens to a person with more education who comes to realize that he’s been subjugated to sub-human treatment? He rises up against the forces that have been keeping him down. The poor were discouraged from reading the bible in order to keep them illiterate in order for the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful. It’s as simple as that. Like I said, at least as I understood it from history lessons in school.
 
…

Carthage and Trent have different books!
Rubbish. This thesis is so poorly supported that not on Catholic and Orthodox historians, but even Protestant historians rejected it.
 
Why are you ignoring facts stated by Catholic historians?

Why are you ignoring that the list of books by Carthage and the list of books by Trent is different?
I, for one, am not ignoring, simply questioning the facts. Can you provide the conflicting lists, as contained in official Church documents produced from these councils ?

And again, if you could provide me with links to the documents themselves, I would appreciate it (I’m having trouble coming up with them on my own).
 
OK, somewhere in all of this, kaycee quoted St Jerome as calling the story of Bel & the Dragon a myth, which seemed to be thought a telling blow…
But you see, it doesn’t matter if St Jerome thought that this particular part of Scripture was a myth; what matters is that the story of Bel & the Dragon is part of the Canon of Scriptures.
Bel & the Dragon can be thought to be literal history, or it can be thought to be a short story that someone wrote about Daniel. That is neither here nor there. What does matter, is when someone dumps the story from the Bible, because they don’t like it, or approve of it.
Jerome didn’t like it. He put it in the Bible anyway, because he knew it belonged there.
I don;'t likehttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif Leviticus. For me, it’s as good as a sleeping pill. Numbers is Bestsmileys.com worse. That doesn’t mean they are not the inspired word of God. It means that they don’t speak to me.
It would no more occur to me to slice those pages out of my Bible, than it would occur to jump off the roof of my house, to see if I could fly. I can’t fly; like 😉 pigs, I am an unlikely bird. God didn’t make me to be able to fly. And He didn’t make me, or you, to have the capacity to delete the portions of Scripture that don’t appeal to us.
You don’t like the Deuterocanon. Fine.http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif Don’t read it.
But, don’t try to re-invent history to make St Jerome, or whomever, follow after you. You don’t have that right. I don’t have it either, which is why I read a Bible with a full complement of books included. (I confess to skimming like mad through Leviticus & Numbers. But they’re still Scripture, & I know it).

God bless all here.
 
. (I confess to skimming like mad through Leviticus & Numbers. But they’re still Scripture, & I know it).

God bless all here.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: This is the funniest thing I’ve seen on the forums in a while. (if only because I can identify…I have YET to be able to make it through the book of Numbers without giving up in frustration)
 
I don;'t likehttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif Leviticus. For me, it’s as good as a sleeping pill. Numbers is http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gifeven worse.
:rotfl: :rotfl: This is the funniest thing I’ve seen on the forums in a while. (if only because I can identify…I have YET to be able to make it through the book of Numbers without giving up in frustration)
I probably actually only read about 4 chapters of Numbers in-depth, and skim over the rest. Same with Leviticus. Who belongs to the tribes, where they are supposed to live, and what they aren’t allowed to eat just does not inspire me.:eek: :whacky: :rotfl: But I won’t try to take them out of the Bible because God wanted them there for a reason; same with the Deuterocanonicals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top