How To Read and Understand The Bible

[NotWorthy]

HI NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. Here is the source: :Our Sunday’s Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia : Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division Huntington, Indiana 1991 p 863 ----This understanding of the Church’s economy of salvation is also Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium teaches that the Church is necessary for salvation and that anyone who knows the Church’s true nature but remains outside her cannot be saved ( LG, n. 14 ). But Lumen Gentium also teaches that non-Catholic Christians, Jews, Muslims and all those who, in their ignorance, seek God with a sincere heart by obeying their consciences may in fact be saved LG, n. 15, 16 ). However, the possibility of salvation for such people, notwithstanding their ignorance of this fact, comes only from the grace of God through Jesus Christ and His Church. The solution to this apparent contradiction is not equivocation,.’ It is, rather, the Church’s understanding of the whole Gospel of Christ. Such an understanding confesses that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), and at the same time recognizes the infinite power and mercy of God, Who desires all men to be saved (1 Tm 2:4). So, is there salvation outside the Church? No. Is a person who dies without Baptism in the Catholic Church condemned to hell by this fact? No. Is this a contradiction? No. A proper grasp of the Church’s teaching allows an understanding of how this apparent antinomy is resolved.

Unfortunately they don’t explain what the proper grasp of the church’s teaching is. Then, I would take this to mean that a suicide bomber with a sincere heart for God will be saved. Shoudn’t they then be included? ED O.

I think that is a rather accurate statement (the parts I understand) and that I would change your last statement to a suicide bomber with a sincere heart for God will be saved, for all things are possible with God. When I read your first reference to that post, I had a feeling there was a lot more to it than you originally intimated. Thats why I asked for the reference.

You see, Ed. Here’s the rub. God saves who He Wills. He sets up the normative guidelines, and that is Salvation through the Church. But God saves who He Wills. In the case of your suicide bomber, if there was a betting table in heaven on the status of the bomber’s soul, I’d place my bets on “Hell for the Suicide Bomber” and I’d even double down. But I’d never have the audacity to speak for God.

Would you?

 

[Ginger2]

So… you are admitting that German translations were allowed? That’s what it seems like.

I’ve heard Luther try and explain this before. It seems that it was a copout, you know, “fessing up once you’ve got your hand in the cookie jar”, if you will. I’ll see if I can find it and get back at you.

Regarding the German and early English and all the other languages - Do you realize why local translations were risky?

I didn’t say that.

I said, if memory serves me, there were a couple men who translated one or two books of the Bible or parts of them into German.

I did not say they were authorized nor asked by the RC to do so. I didn’t even say if the were RC themselves.

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

After Vatican Council II, much has changed in the Catholic church. Latin Mass was terminated, the altar was changed, changes in fasting days, Up until then, we only received a wafer for Communion, no wine, since the Bible was no longer banned, lay people were encourage, as you say, to read It; however, but then only the Magisterium is able to interpret. Just think, for all those hundreds of years, people were deprived of reading God’s word. Going to Mass was boaring, being in Latin. We had to eat fish every Friday and confess it as a sin if we violated. Maybe Peter being a fisherman started that rule ( just kidding) etc.etc. ED O.

Ed,
I understand your dilemma. You understand what the Church teaches about you walking away. And now you’ve got to prove that the Church is wrong, for if She is right… Well, you know.

 

[EdOsiecki]

NotWorthy
When I read your first reference to that post, I had a feeling there was a lot more to it than you originally intimated. Thats why I asked for the reference.

Hi NotWorthy, I said on post 191 that Muslims and Jews can be saved without Christ. The same is said when I posted the entire reference. What changed?

You see, Ed. Here’s the rub. God saves who He Wills

.Did God tell you that?

But I’d never have the audacity to speak for God.

Didn’t you just tell me above that God saves who he wills?

According to your theology, there’s no point of witnessing to Jews or Muslims with a sincere heart for God because they’ll all be saved

Didn’t Jesus preach that there is a narrow road, some find it?

Isn’t God just? He gives me one set of rules to follow and another for the Jews and Muslims?

What about the Jews, (there’s plenty of them now) who accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Are they being treated differently?

What about the sin factor for the Jews and Muslims. “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” How can unholy people approach a Holy God unforgiven.

You do realize that there is an ecumenical movement trying to unite all religions so there will be peace on earth. ( for the dreamers) There will never be peace on earth until Christ sets up His Theocracy government.

Isn’t the Catholic church speaking out of both sides of their mouth when I posted on 216 the entire article as it appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia? What is the proper grasp of the Catholic teachings? ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

NotWorthy
Ed, I understand your dilemma. You understand what the Church teaches about you walking away.

Hi NotWorthy, I didn’t walk away, the catholic church in essence pushed me out by not allowing me to receive Communion, when I remarried a Protestant. Would you enjoy not being able to receive Communion for the rest of your life? Of course not? ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, I said on post 191 that Muslims and Jews can be saved without Christ. The same is said when I posted the entire reference. What changed?

What changed is that whole paragraph did not say what you paraphrased. It is God who Saves, right? Nothing that you and I can do can save us. Any good Catholic should know that.

So, God can choose who goes to Heaven and who doesn’t. I see know problem with that paragraph, simply the way you put it.

Did God tell you that? Didn’t you just tell me above that God saves who he wills?

Yes, and I would never speak for God by saying, "So and so is definately going to heaven or hell. I thought that was the entire context of my last post to you. I’d bet against the suicide bomber going to heaven, but I wouldn’t dare to presume to be absolutely positively sure that he went to hell.

You do realize that there is an ecumenical movement trying to unite all religions so there will be peace on earth. ( for the dreamers) There will never be peace on earth until Christ sets up His Theocracy government.

I believe that all Christian religions will unite, but that has nothing to do about “peace on earth”. Jesus prayed that His followers will be one. That prayer will come true.

Isn’t the Catholic church speaking out of both sides of their mouth when I posted on 216 the entire article as it appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia? What is the proper grasp of the Catholic teachings? ED O.

The Catholic Church teaches, as always, the normative means for Salvation.

But God is not bound by those rules. God saves who He Wills. The thief on the cross is a good example of that. He never professed that Jesus Christ was God and Savior. But Jesus saved him.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, I didn’t walk away, the catholic church in essence pushed me out by not allowing me to receive Communion, when I remarried a Protestant. Would you enjoy not being able to receive Communion for the rest of your life? Of course not? ED O.

No. I simply wouldn’t re-marry. You knew the Church’s teaching on divorce. The Church didn’t push you away.

 

[PJM]

This shows Protestants have the same canon from the time of Christ.

Ginger

Isn’t that interesting seening that there were neither a Protestant church or a protestant bible until about 1600?

Oh, I get it. Protestant’s choose a “canon” even though such did not exist, at the time, that the Catholic Church said was incomplete.Your ststement denies 2 Tim.3:16. Can God lie or error?

Love and prayers,

 

[NotWorthy]

This shows Protestants have the same canon from the time of Christ.

Ginger

BTW, can you show me an established Canon prior to Hippo and Carthage? This would seem to be necessary in order for your words above to be validated.

 

[EdOsiecki]

NotWorthy
No. I simply wouldn’t re-marry. You knew the Church’s teaching on divorce. The Church didn’t push you away./

Hi NotWorthy, I believe the Magisterium now realized that it was a mistake and as a result they lost many members. They now seemed to have changed their thoughts, people now get annulments. If there were kids in that marriage they simply vanish! -------- Let’s get back to the topic of this thread . Tell me how do you come up with the idea that in Lev 5 people confessed their sins to a priest. It seems to me that you are reading into that verse rather than getting the message out of that verse. ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, I believe the Magisterium now realized that it was a mistake and as a result they lost many members. They now seemed to have changed their thoughts, people now get annulments. If there were kids in that marriage they simply vanish! -------- Let’s get back to the topic of this thread . Tell me how do you come up with the idea that in Lev 5 people confessed their sins to a priest. It seems to me that you are reading into that verse rather than getting the message out of that verse. ED O.

I don’t have to read any into that verse. I can tell you that it was Jewish tradition to confess their sins to the priest when performing the rights necessary in Leviticus 5. Now, you can ask our Jewish Brothers where they read that into it. I don’t know or care. All I know is:

A) Confession was not an invention of the Church.
b) There is an authority that is given to the Apostles in John 20 to forgive sins Jesus’ Name. Do you acknowledge this authority or do you still not see it.

 

[Ginger2]

NotWorthy,

We acknowledge the Apostle’s were given authority to witness Christ to the World in a special way the no other group of people has been given since.

We do not acknowledge the succession of this authority to future generations.

May I ask you how you reconcile John 20:
After Jesus said that, he breathed {on the followers}. Jesus said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive people’s sins, then their sins are forgiven. If you don’t forgive people’s sins, then their sins are not forgiven.”

with Acts 15:
“And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to (the Gentile), by **giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,And put no difference between us and them, **purifying their hearts by faith.

You say God gave His spirit only to the eleven Apostles, but Acts admits God gave His Spirit to the Gentiles in the same way.

God gave His spirit to them without the assistance of the Apostles, yet the RC claims, having been given the power of the Apostles thru succession, no one is saved except thru the RC.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

BTW, can you show me an established Canon prior to Hippo and Carthage? This would seem to be necessary in order for your words above to be validated.

The Old Testament “canon” has always been known.

Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Canon of the Old Testament
“The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. [The deuterocanonical (**deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.”

The RC admits Protestants use a canon that has always been accepted - even before Jesus birth.

Catholics often cite as proof ideas such as some of these extra-Biblical books (3) being found among Dead Sea scrolls.

But that kind of thinking ignores the fact the Dead Sea Scrolls included about 650 extra-biblical manuscripts - which included uninspired writings such as songs, prayers, commentaries, and many secular works.

In other words, Just because a book or letter was found among inspired writings, doesn’t mean that book is inspired. Does your church library contain uninspired Christian writings?

Catholics also cite “proof” of a books inspiration if it seems to support some extra-Biblical RC doctrine, but ignore the verses that directly contradict history or God’s law.

In-other-words, Catholics choose books on the basis of their ability to defend extra-Biblical doctrines, rather than choosing books based on divine inspiration.

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy,

We acknowledge the Apostle’s were given authority to witness Christ to the World in a special way the no other group of people has been given since.

OK, so you admit that the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins in Jesus’ name? That’s what His words were. I’d like your thoughts on this before I continue. But I will address the rest of your post.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Old Testament “canon” has always been known.

Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Canon of the Old Testament
“The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. [The deuterocanonical (**deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.”

The RC admits Protestants use a canon that has always been accepted - even before Jesus birth.

Catholics often cite as proof ideas such as some of these extra-Biblical books (3) being found among Dead Sea scrolls.

But that kind of thinking ignores the fact the Dead Sea Scrolls included about 650 extra-biblical manuscripts - which included uninspired writings such as songs, prayers, commentaries, and many secular works.

In other words, Just because a book or letter was found among inspired writings, doesn’t mean that book is inspired. Does your church library contain uninspired Christian writings?

Catholics also cite “proof” of a books inspiration if it seems to support some extra-Biblical RC doctrine, but ignore the verses that directly contradict history or God’s law.

In-other-words, Catholics choose books on the basis of their ability to defend extra-Biblical doctrines, rather than choosing books based on divine inspiration.

GingerIf there was a Canon set before Christ, then:
a) Why do the Ethiopian Jews have the same OT Canon as Catholics.
b) Why did the Pharisees and the Sadducees (and the Samaritans) have a different Canon.

The reasons Catholics site the Deutero’s in the DSS was that St. Jerome claimed the Deutero’s were never written in Hebrew. Our separated brethren used the claim to backup up their revised Canon. The DSS proved this claim wrong.

 

[PJM]

=Ginger2;5740922]NotWorthy,

We acknowledge the Apostle’s were given authority to witness Christ to the World in a special way the no other group of people has been given since.

We do not acknowledge the succession of this authority to future generations.

May I ask you how you reconcile John 20:
After Jesus said that, he breathed {on the followers}. Jesus said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive people’s sins, then their sins are forgiven. If you don’t forgive people’s sins, then their sins are not forgiven.”

Ginger

Wow! That simply lacks logic.

So 16:15-19 [you the keys to heaven] “Whatever” , Mt. 18:15-18 “Whatever”], John 20:22-23 “who’s sins”, Mt. 28:19-20 " Go therefore and “teach ALL NATIONS” [wouldn’t this take more time the fifty?? years on earth of the Apostles?

Are you saying Christ founded His Church knowing it would “die” with the Apostles? It’s been continous for 2,000 years, [265 Popes] and the Doctines, beliefs and dogmas of the Apostles remain in full force today.

Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

Mt. 28: 18 "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

2 Tim. 4: 1”I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

Only the CC benefits from these verses: John 17: 15 I [Jesus] do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I [Jesus] consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth

Ginger, your lack of what the Bible says is shocking, and your lack of understanding what it means, bewildering:shrug:

On what basis, what evidence can you base such a shallow understanding of Gods true and Inspired words?

Love and prayers,

 

[SteveGC]

NotWorthy,

We acknowledge the Apostle’s were given authority to witness Christ to the World in a special way the no other group of people has been given since.

We do not acknowledge the succession of this authority to future generations.

I’ve always found this viewpoint perplexing and illogical, especially in light of the acknowledgement of the previous point, that the Apostle’s were indeed given special authority to witness Christ to the world through the guidance of the Spirit. What the denial of succession says it that this charism, this specific appointment by Christ of specific humans to spread Christianity to the world, was only necessary for one generation of people. And after John dies…then…what?..wherever the 12 made it to before they died was a wholly sufficient dissemination of the Gospel? Surely not. So, the argument must be that once people heard from the apostles directly, believed and converted…that they then were to do what the apostles couldn’t do forever…but…and here’s the kicker…but, those people who did this would not be sent by the apostles. The apostles were specifically ordained (anointed with the Spirit) and formally sent by Christ, but this ordination was not required by anyone after the apostles died? The apostles either could not, and/or weren’t supposed to, anoint others as they had been to carry on the mission of the Church? So, it was important enough for Jesus Himself to pick a severely limited number of men and ordain them…but after that…it was satisfactory to just have any who heard them and believed to pick up in their shoes and carry on their Christ-appointed mission? No ordination, no successive anointing needed…although the 12 themselves had to have it? Thousands and thousands could go out without special charisms like the 12 had, and just carry out the same commission? I’ve never understood, nor will ever understand, this logic. It fails on so many levels.

May I ask you how you reconcile John 20:
After Jesus said that, he breathed {on the followers}. Jesus said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive people’s sins, then their sins are forgiven. If you don’t forgive people’s sins, then their sins are not forgiven.”

with Acts 15:
“And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to (the Gentile), by **giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,And put no difference between us and them, **purifying their hearts by faith.

You say God gave His spirit only to the eleven Apostles, but Acts admits God gave His Spirit to the Gentiles in the same way.

Who said God gave the Spirit only to the apostles? He gave the Church leadership charism from the Spirit only to them. But all received the Spirit at their conversion (belief and baptism), and continue to do so to this day. That common (“in the same way”) reception of the faithful is the divine adoption, not a charism of teaching/shepherding authority and protection from teaching error.

God gave His spirit to them without the assistance of the Apostles,

Acts 15 doesn’t say “without the assistance of the Apostles”. Does not the verse previous to the one you offered reveal that the Gentiles heard from their (the apostles) lips? Indeed, the apostles preached, the Gentiles (atleast some of them) accepted, believed, and were baptized. This would be far from “without the assistance of the Apostles”.

yet the RC claims, having been given the power of the Apostles thru succession, no one is saved except thru the RC.

If you understand what “through the Catholic Church” means, this is a fair statement. If you limit it to thinking that the Church says only formal members are saved, it’s erroneous on two counts. First, no Catholic is guaranteed salvation. Second, salvation through the Church is equivalent to saying salvation through the Spirit of God, which comes to the world through the apostolic church, the Catholic Church. This also doesn’t mean that one can only receive the Spirit if they are Catholic, it simply means that the Spirit comes to the world through the Church, but is not confined to the boundaries of the official institution of the Church. He operates primarily within (and through) Her, but is not confined by Her.

 

[Ginger2]

Isn’t that interesting seening that there were neither a Protestant church or a protestant bible until about 1600?

Oh, I get it. Protestant’s choose a “canon” even though such did not exist, at the time, that the Catholic Church said was incomplete.Your ststement denies 2 Tim.3:16. Can God lie or error?

Love and prayers,

2 Ti 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[Ginger2]

BTW, can you show me an established Canon prior to Hippo and Carthage? This would seem to be necessary in order for your words above to be validated.

I’ve shown this so many times, I’ve lost count.

Will one more make any difference?

 

[Ginger2]

If there was a Canon set before Christ, then:
a) Why do the Ethiopian Jews have the same OT Canon as Catholics.

You are mistaken - again.

NotWorthy:

b) Why did the Pharisees and the Sadducees (and the Samaritans) have a different Canon.

Again you are mistaken. All 3 group held to the exact same books of the Torah.

NotWorthy:

The reasons Catholics site the Deutero’s in the DSS was that St. Jerome claimed the Deutero’s were never written in Hebrew. Our separated brethren used the claim to backup up their revised Canon. The DSS proved this claim wrong.

That was only one reason. Other reasons include their contradicting history, geography and God’s law.