Friend says bible has changed from original

[PRmerger]

Ohhhh, that’s what you mean.

What is your opinion as to why such an illustrative, key anecdote was not included in so many of the written gospel for so many centuries?

Perhaps it was lost? The original scroll was torn?

Or perhaps the inspired writer didn’t get that info when he wrote but the Apostles made certain that the paradosis included it.

And thus the Church continued to proclaim the message in its entirety, despite what would be written down later, omitted or forgotten, later to be steered back correctly by the Church magisterium.

Or…rather than opinion, maybe you know officially: why was it not included?

Human error is my opinion.

fyi, you were originally responding regarding the he-who-has-not-sinned-cast-the-first-stone story. That’s the one I was talking about here, which you responded to…which i responded to…and so on…

.

.

Okey dokey.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

DaddyGirl;12064014]? I don’t see how this is correct.
Many different doctrines were established along the way at the different councils, centuries apart…and many different traditions/practices changed along the way, too.

That’s an incorrect interpretation to the facts.

The reason the Church councils is not to change the Apostolic faith, the Church councils to defend her already practicing Apostolic faith against heretics and heresies trying to infect and change full deposit of faith already handed down to the Church from the original apostles. Why? Because the Church was present with the original apostles who hand down the teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ to her.

The revelations of Jesus Christ and His teachings are made doctrine to protect the full deposit of faith from the original apostles. The doctrines never change anything, they bind the believer to faith and the revelations of Christ at the same time they loose the heretics and heresies trying to infect them, Jesus confirms it when He binds and looses from heaven according to scripture and the oral sacred Tradition handed down from the original apostles this is written in the New Testament.

Cultures and small “t” traditions are subject to change anytime. But capital “T” Tradition is not subject to change nor are the teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ. The Church councils to maintain these in full deposit of faith that is never subject to change.

Example; The Trinity is never mentioned in the bible. But the revelations of Jesus Christ reveal the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When the divinity of Jesus Christ comes under attack in Arianism among others, the Church confirms the apostolic faith of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the term “Trinity” to define God is ONE never three. Maintaining the Apostolic teaching that Jesus is the Word of God incarnate = God.

The result of each council calls those heretics or heresies to repent from their error which is measured against the full deposit of faith. If they do not repent, they are freed, loosed, or excommunicated from teaching such a new and false doctrine to the Church.

There are no new doctrines in the Catholic church. Doctrines are made to bind and loose those in the already revealed full deposit of faith that is never subject to change.

A development of doctrine never introduces a change. The revelations enhances the understanding and confirms the faith with terminologies that every language, culture, custom, thinking can comprehend and understand the full deposit of faith.

For a thousand year, people rarely took communion, for example–from year 400-1400 approx…until a Church law that said it had to be done at least once a year.

That is never a change in doctrine. The doctrine of Holy Communion (T) never changed. How communion (t) and when communion is received is subject to change in every age. For example; If a deadly flew virus is infecting a community, that local bishop has the authority to protect the flock of Jesus Christ, by not allowing parishioners not to hold hand, shake hands while at Mass and can change the reception of communion by the hands only.

Another ancient example was baptism; Many converts went to Mass, but delayed their baptism’s until their death bed, because they new baptism removed all sin and all punishment of sin.

The reception of the Eucharist maintained a mystery for many centuries when the Catholic church was under persecution. A Christian was never informed of the Eucharist being the True body and blood of Jesus Christ until they were catechized correctly and baptized into the Church. When the Caesar’s were persecuting the Church.

Subject like these are never changing the doctrine. Easter is another subject. The resurrection is the doctrine binding on all believers, but the date is subject to change.
It is imperative to know and understand the differences here, when ever the Catholic Church councils or has counseled. In my few comments, I covered most of all the subjects the Church has counseled on, they never reveal a doctrine has changed, anyone holding to such a view is sadly informed and mistaken.

And in some early communities, communion done at home (and probably given by women of the family) and also, done with the meals.
That’s just one small example of how practices of the apostles have changed.

Your above statement only points to those small “t” traditions that are subject to change. What you have revealed here, has nothing to do with the doctrine changing or what is believed has changed, only how it is administered is subject to change, but what is being administered to the faithful never changes.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, that’s easy.
Iraneus would have written this between 147-160 years after Jesus died.
The original gospel by Mark was written around 70AD, most scholars agree.
Within the century between when the original was written to when Iraneus wrote that…he may have been looking at a tampered version of it, with the new ending already added.

.

First of all Archaeologists who rank higher than biblical scholars on the subject of Archaeology, do not have an original to compare the whole context of the bible let alone a whole bible book.

Archaeologists including scholars both agree that they only have a small fragment of Mark’s gospel to compare with, which biblical scholars have labeled the Mark-an document of “Q”. And your implying from this fragment proves the whole bible changed? Consider that thought for a moment.

All your left with is “speculation” from both biblical scholars who are holding a license of Science and Archaeologists. Their Scientific opinions are not interpreting that the theological undertakings of the bible has changed.

The science is proving they have different dated writings from copies not the originals. And the supposed “Q” fragment they do have from Mark does not come to them fully intact to prove the bible has changed from the original.

The only way to prove the gospel has changed or has not changed. One has to look at Catholic Church Saints, Popes, Martyrs post apostolic period who write of the gospels and revelations of Jesus Christ, who were handed the full faith from the original apostles voices still ringing in their ears.

It would appear you are mixing science that does not have a license to take on such undertakings that the bible has changed. When science only view the facts of material things they can see and touch at their disposal. And what they speculate from is not the original bible only copies and transcriptions that are subject to error.

One can find an ancient document buried that teaches that Jesus was not God, such as the earlier Arians taught that predates any copy of the bible.

Would the Arian document prove the bible has changed? No, you have to look to those who lived at the time, and you find the Catholic Church always professing Jesus Christ crucified, resurrected never changed.

Please consider this the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ was never made a doctrine in the Catholic Church officially. Why not? because the Church never had any of her members fall into heresy that way, thus the death, resurrection and ascension is never made a doctrine in the Catholic Church. Although we profess these in a doxology during our Liturgical setting in the Mass which has never changed.

There are other subjects like these are never questioned, and are not made a doctrine today. Because full deposit of faith from the original Apostles has never changed.

Peace be with you

 

[nmgauss]

First of all Archaeologists who rank higher than biblical scholars on the subject of Archaeology, do not have an original to compare the whole context of the bible let alone a whole bible book.

Archaeologists including scholars both agree that they only have a small fragment of Mark’s gospel to compare with, which biblical scholars have labeled the Mark-an document of “Q”. And your implying from this fragment proves the whole bible changed? Consider that thought for a moment.

All your left with is “speculation” from both biblical scholars who are holding a license of Science and Archaeologists. Their Scientific opinions are not interpreting that the theological undertakings of the bible has changed.

The science is proving they have different dated writings from copies not the originals. And the supposed “Q” fragment they do have from Mark does not come to them fully intact to prove the bible has changed from the original.

The only way to prove the gospel has changed or has not changed. One has to look at Catholic Church Saints, Popes, Martyrs post apostolic period who write of the gospels and revelations of Jesus Christ, who were handed the full faith from the original apostles voices still ringing in their ears.

It would appear you are mixing science that does not have a license to take on such undertakings that the bible has changed. When science only view the facts of material things they can see and touch at their disposal. And what they speculate from is not the original bible only copies and transcriptions that are subject to error.

One can find an ancient document buried that teaches that Jesus was not God, such as the earlier Arians taught that predates any copy of the bible.

Would the Arian document prove the bible has changed? No, you have to look to those who lived at the time, and you find the Catholic Church always professing Jesus Christ crucified, resurrected never changed.

Please consider this the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ was never made a doctrine in the Catholic Church officially. Why not? because the Church never had any of her members fall into heresy that way, thus the death, resurrection and ascension is never made a doctrine in the Catholic Church. Although we profess these in a doxology during our Liturgical setting in the Mass which has never changed.

There are other subjects like these are never questioned, and are not made a doctrine today. Because full deposit of faith from the original Apostles has never changed.

Peace be with you

After all this wordiness, I still have not detected a cohesive point you are making.

 

[PRmerger]

After all this wordiness, I still have not detected a cohesive point you are making.

Then I will summarize for you: there are lots of things written in ancient texts. In fact, some ancient texts claim that Jesus was not divine.

That’s not a problem for Catholics because we do not glean our doctrines from any texts.

Our revelation comes from the Word of God.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Then I will summarize for you: there are lots of things written in ancient texts. In fact, some ancient texts claim that Jesus was not divine.

That’s not a problem for Catholics because we do not glean our doctrines from any texts.

Our revelation comes from the Word of God.

This post is for the benefit of our humanist friend, when Catholics use the term ‘the Word of God’ (Capital W&G), we mean Jesus, the living breathing Son of God.

The other ‘word of god’ (small letters) is the bible, however, Catholics do not base their faith solely on texts. In other words our faith stood before the Bible as we know it came into being and if the Bible never came into being it would still stand, just as it would if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed today. The CC would continue to stand as it has for over 2000years as the world’s oldest continuous institution because it came into being directly from the mouth of Jesus, who is the Word of God. We truly believe that nothing will destroy the CC.

Catholic doctrines were revealed by Christ himself, that is why we do not consider ourselves a “faith of the book.”

 

[PRmerger]

This post is for the benefit of our humanist friend, when Catholics use the term ‘the Word of God’ (Capital W&G), we mean Jesus, the living breathing Son of God.

The other ‘word of god’ (small letters) is the bible, however, Catholics do not base their faith solely on texts. In other words our faith stood before the Bible as we know it came into being and if the Bible never came into being it would still stand, just as it would if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed today. The CC would continue to stand as it has for over 2000years as the world’s oldest continuous institution because it came into being directly from the mouth of Jesus, who is the Word of God. We truly believe that nothing will destroy the CC.

Catholic doctrines were revealed by Christ himself, that is why we do not consider ourselves a “faith of the book.”

 

[nmgauss]

This post is for the benefit of our humanist friend, when Catholics use the term ‘the Word of God’ (Capital W&G), we mean Jesus, the living breathing Son of God.

The other ‘word of god’ (small letters) is the bible, however, Catholics do not base their faith solely on texts. In other words our faith stood before the Bible as we know it came into being and if the Bible never came into being it would still stand, just as it would if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed today. The CC would continue to stand as it has for over 2000years as the world’s oldest continuous institution because it came into being directly from the mouth of Jesus, who is the Word of God. We truly believe that nothing will destroy the CC.

Catholic doctrines were revealed by Christ himself, that is why we do not consider ourselves a “faith of the book.”

If there is nothing in writing to record the Word of God, how does anyone know what that word is?

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, you must go back to the interpretation of Scripture tradition.

Essentially your question is answered in the consistency of thought and teaching.

The 70 rabbis called by Emperor Ptolemy, 200 years before Christ, were kept separated for the duration they transcribed the Scriptural books. It is also assumed they had the customary scribes. Emperor Ptolemy had called them to Egypt to contribute to his aim of building the greatest libraryin the world.

When brought back together when all their work was completed, their works were compared. Every rabbi’s transcription was compared and every single book of all 70 rabbis corresponded perfectly, phrase by phrase, word by word. This is not a human achievement, but the work of the Holy Spirit.

This interpretation of Scripture likewise prophesized the description of the Messiah as we know Him, the Suffering Servant.

The author of authenticity of revelation is the Holy Spirit, and this is especially noted today, Pentecost Sunday. It is the work of the Holy Spirit that authenticates the Word of God and preserves it through each succeeding generation.

The other aspect of Catholic understanding as well as approach to Scripture is as such:

The Universal Christian Church, that is the Apostolic Church, both Latin and Orthodox, do not come to Scripture to take it apart and look at pieces and thus make them isolated nad disconnected. Every word and phrase is connected to the whole. And again, in the science of hermaneutics, it is the Holy Spirit Who enlightened the Apostles and was the key to open up the Old Testament to give it the fulfilled meaning found in Christ, or to complete ancient mysteries now realized in Christ.

This continuity of thought is found in the teaching Magesterium of the Church through the Holy Spirit and today compiled in the universal Catechism of the Church. It has plenty of footnotes, the great majority of them from Sacred Scripture, the first source of our beliefs.

Each succeeding generation simply elucidates the meaning of Scripture in the light of the times it is living in. So in part this explains why some posters do not understand the responses of Catholic educators, such as Gabriel 12. I understand what Gabriel is saying being Catholic, going to Mass every day and some weekdays my whole life, being taught past councils and the conditions people lived in then, but ALWAYS the SAME message.

The SAME Message of Scripture is summed up in one Word, LOGOS, Jesus the Living Word of God. Again, you cannot approach Scripture as separate from the faithwalk of human salvation history. You cannot see Scripture as a religion of books and texts that seem to contradict each other or not make sense.

Scripture is the work of Faith, not intellectualism. We are human beings and only part of us is intellect. You look at Scripture intellectually, it will not feed your soul. You must see Scripture as the expression of Faith within the gathering of people, particularly united and centered on God.

 

[nmgauss]

Then I will summarize for you: there are lots of things written in ancient texts. In fact, some ancient texts claim that Jesus was not divine.

That’s not a problem for Catholics because we do not glean our doctrines from any texts.

Our revelation comes from the Word of God.

If the Word of God is not in the book, then all you have is what the Church teaches you based on what the Magisterium promotes. If that body has no literature to back it up, then you have to have faith that they are telling you the truth.

When I was a kid living with my devout Catholic grandmother, a priest found out that her grandsons were not coming to Mass. He came over to the house and demanded that we come to Mass. Otherwise we were condemned. Hardly a pleasant way to be introduced to Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

If there is nothing in writing to record the Word of God, how does anyone know what that word is?

It appears as if you have not been understanding the comments made by multiple Catholics here, which is why you keep repeating your argument, ad nauseum.

No one has posited that “there is nothing in writing to record the Word of God.”

It’s as if you are on a thread for Cruciverbalists and you keep saying, “The Tagalog word for adultery is ‘pangangalunya’. I never see that word in the NYTimes Crossword Puzzle!”

Everyone on the forum says, “So what? The NYTimes Games Editor doesn’t care what the Tagalog word is for adultery.”

You keep saying, “I can see that no one has addressed the fact that the Tagalog word for adultery is pangangalunya.”

And then you add, “And since the NYTimes Crossword is anti-Filipino, why do Filipinos keep buying the newspaper?”

 

[PRmerger]

When I was a kid living with my devout Catholic grandmother, a priest found out that her grandsons were not coming to Mass. He came over to the house and demanded that we come to Mass. Otherwise we were condemned. Hardly a pleasant way to be introduced to Catholicism.

Would that your family had known their Catholic faith better and been well catechized!

They could have told this poor priest that what he was telling you was above his paygrade. They could have told him that it is against Catholic teaching to declare that anyone is going to hell.

According to the Church: “a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary” to go to hell, and, as such, no priest or even a pope can read the hearts of men to determine how willful one’s rejection is of God.

You would have been better served learning your faith, nmgauss, before rejecting that which you clearly never learned.

'Tis a great sadness indeed that you have no idea what the faith in which you were baptized teaches.

 

[KathleenGee]

The issue is about faith and salvation, not about intellectual achievements and books.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

If there is nothing in writing to record the Word of God, how does anyone know what that word is?

Through oral Tradition (Sacred Tradition).

The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition, a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches.

The two pillars of the Catholic faith are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition is what was practiced for centuries by early Christians between Jesus ascension into Heaven till the the production of the first bible late in the 4th century.

Sacred Tradition is not manmade (t)radition. It is ‘divine’ Tradition taught directly by Christ to the Apostles e.g. Baptism, Eucharist, Confession etc

 

[nmgauss]

Would that your family had known their Catholic faith better and been well catechized!

You would have been better served learning your faith, nmgauss, before rejecting that which you clearly never learned.

'Tis a great sadness indeed that you have no idea what the faith in which you were baptized teaches.

First of all, I was never baptized. My father grew up in a Lutheran family and my mother in a Catholic family. They couldn’t decide on which church for me to be baptized in so I was left unbaptized. Also, our family rarely went to church. So I never had an opportunity to be Catechized (inculcated with tradition) or become involved in Sunday School. In other words, I was neutral.

I still am neutral with an attitude of skepticism. I have great sales resistance and am very reluctant to have the wool pulled over my eyes. Thus blind faith is out of the question. That is why unless you provide proof in writing for your original sources, I am unlikely to believe you.

 

[PRmerger]

First of all, I was never baptized.

Then how is it that a priest was telling you that you had to go to Mass if you weren’t even Catholic?

Do you see how important it is to have some sort of catechesis? (And here I am talking about your family members, no disrespect to them. But clearly, if they had known their faith better they could have corrected this priest.)

 

[PRmerger]

First of all, I was never baptized. My father grew up in a Lutheran family and my mother in a Catholic family. They couldn’t decide on which church for me to be baptized in so I was left unbaptized. Also, our family rarely went to church. So I never had an opportunity to be Catechized (inculcated with tradition) or become involved in Sunday School. In other words, I was neutral.

Only if you call ignorance “neutral”.

I still am neutral with an attitude of skepticism. I have great sales resistance and am very reluctant to have the wool pulled over my eyes. Thus blind faith is out of the question.

Just so you know: “blind faith” is rejected by the Catholic Church.

In fact, it is condemned.

newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

That is why unless you provide proof in writing for your original sources, I am unlikely to believe you.

So you’re not actually neutral. You have “blind faith” that something must be “in writing” for it to be true.

Can you provide some studies that show that something must be “in writing” for it to be true? Or, if it’s not found in a text, then it simply cannot be true.

Otherwise, you have simply accepted this…with…

blind faith.

 

[pablope]

Not significant?
It’s considered the earliest written account of Mary’s visit to the tomb, isn’t it?!

No…I haven’t read specific documents about that.
Did the early Church only use Scripture as its source of the gospel???

.

The mere fact that those in the know, those early Catholic bishops…did not see a need to remove it…attests to the fact that the story is true.

Otherwise, it would have been removed.

 

[pablope]

If there is nothing in writing to record the Word of God, how does anyone know what that word is?

Well…let me ask you…what did the Apostles do after the coming of the Holy Spirit at pentecost?

Did they sit down to write a book? How could the first converts trust in the Apostles without anything written down?

 

[KathleenGee]

Good point. And Christ did not pass out bibles either.

You can read something and in your own mind, get a particular perception. When you are getting the information from a teacher, eyeball to eyeball, there is also the ability to see when the learner is not understanding what is being taught and the teacher can ask questions, clarify and explain more in depth so that the person can truly understand. Just one minor point, and a person can go off in different direction than what the message is intended.

Likewise, what about those with mental disabilities, because they are not intellectual, they are not to be graced with faith?

I have a mentally disabled person. We get alot of rain. She says, ‘well, God made the rain and there is nothing you can do about it.’