How To Read and Understand The Bible

[SteveGC]

Steve, go back and read your posts. You suggested I took your comments out of context to intentionally mislead, when in fact I posted that the quotes cited were done in jest.

regardless of the fact that you cut-and-pasted in jest, you are still claiming that I contradicted myself, when I never did. And I’m still waiting for you to provide specific evidence from my posts that I did

Ginger2:

You made an absolute claim of what is taught by Protestants with support in your Protestant background

how do you define an “absolute” claim? And, again, can you please cite specific evidence of this “absolute”?

Ginger2:

and then denied you were ever taught such a thing.

where specifically is there a denial that I was taught salvation is a one-time past event and that I cannot fall away from that event? I never denied that. That’s what I was taught…as are many non-Catholics today. What I denied was that I was taught a “free sin pass” theology, which you conjured up out of thin air. I never said anything about a free sin pass. Go back, read and discover that you brought that into it, not me. I don’t think anyone is taught they have a “free sin pass”. If I thought that, I would’ve said that. But I never did

Ginger2:

I agreed with you the Catholic definition of OSAS is a false doctrine. Then I showed you Biblical support for OSAS, as I defined it.

correct me if I’m wrong, but you agree in the fallacy of osas only inasmuch as its defined as teaching a “free sin pass” concept (which again, is a definition you errantly projected onto me - as if I defined it that way). Or do you also disagree with osas as it is truly taught…not as any formal doctrine that goes by that title, but rather what it represents - one-time past event salvation which we never can fall away from…do you also disagree with this theology? If not, you believe in osas, as it is commonly defined in all Christian circles.

Ginger2:

It is pointless for us to discuss a topic when you are talking about one thing and I am talking about something else.

oh, I fully agree with this statement, which is why I’m wondering why you refuse to acknowledge what osas actually means…and why you pulled “free sin pass” out of thin air and projected it onto what I claim osas is, when I clearly never did

Ginger2:

When we are both speaking of the same thing, we agree. But you want me to acknowledge agreement in a false doctrine because it is what you want to think I believe…sorry, I can’t help you out by agreeing with false Catholic teachings.

so, you don’t believe salvation is a one-time past event…and that it is something you can never walk away from? That’s osas.

 

[PJM]

[QUOTEGinger2;5725905]{quote=Ginger]You said Jerome’s Vulgate has been the official Catholic canon until Trent, 1000 years.

Are you now saying Jerome did not follow the pope’s orders to "follow the Canon’s determined at Carthage, Hippo, and the Synod of Rome " when translating the Scriptures into Latin???

You can’t have it both ways.

Ginger

Ginger, you’re not even close to seeking truth. You’re having way too much fun playing fantasy mind games.

Until and unless to actually endeavor to Know God and in humility to Obey Him, your going to continue making statements that are not only in error, they seem quite often to be knowingly in error.

The “Canon of the Vulgate” is the same “Canon of Trent” [now official] and it continues to the Canon of the CC today. Yes the Vulgate did have three optional books.

From the Fourth Session of Trent:

But “if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.”

Your personal bitterness is not becomming of one who identifies themselve as “a Christian”

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Ginger2]

"Ginger2:

I hope you will pardon me for having fun with your comments.

No problem. …

It is quite obvious there is a problem. I think it best we discontinue our discourse.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, you’re not even close to seeking truth. …

The “Canon of the Vulgate” is the same “Canon of Trent” [now official] and it continues to the Canon of the CC today. Yes the Vulgate did have three optional books.

Then it is not the same canon.

 

[PJM]

=Ginger2;5726101]And then Trent declared a new canon that has been used from the past almost 500 years.

Meanwhile, Protestants used the same canon from the time of Jesus and before.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
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,[/color]

Ginger this is not the first time I have caught you in a falsehood. How you are able to continue these untruths is beyond me:shrug:

I checked the “Orginal Catholic Encycepodeia,” AND the more recent version on the “newadvent.org” link*** and found this term in neither of them.***

I did however locate it in Father Hardon’s ***“Modern Catholic Dictionary” ***and I share it below.

"PROTOCANONCIAL
A term applied to those books of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, whose inspired character had never been questioned, e.g, by any Church Father. But the expression is misleading because it was not the Church Fathers but the Church’s magisterium under the Pope that was divinely authorized to decide on the canonicity of the Scriptures."

I did further research and nither Merrium -Webster, nor Britanica have the word listed. I did find it in “Wikipedia” and here is what they say:

"The Protocanonical books are those books of the Old Testament which were coextensive with the Hebrew Bible and which have always been considered canonical by almost all Christians throughout history. The term protocanonical is often used to contrast these books to the deuterocanonical books or apocrypha, which “were sometimes doubted”[1] in the early church."

I frankly don’t know how you do it:blush:

Dear God protect us!

Pat

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger this is not the first time I have caught you in a falsehood. How you are able to continue these untruths is beyond me:shrug:

I checked the “Orginal Catholic Encycepodeia,” AND the more recent version on the “newadvent.org” link*** and found this term in neither of them.***…

What term???

My quote is a cut and paste from the middle of the second paragraph located here:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Oops, it seems “I have caught you in a falsehood.”

 

[PJM]

=Ginger2;5727726]I think you’ve got that backwards.

The churches traditions and teachings should mirror/reflect that of the Holy Bible which is the inspired Word of God.

Ginger

Friends a warning!

Question everything this poster shares. She is adamently anti Catholic to the point of being a Christian.

The Church existed for 60 years before the writting of the Bible was completed and for four hundred years before it became a single volune, one language work, accomplished by the Catholic St. Jerome in about the year 400.

She is very crafty and bitter.

Love and prayers,

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, I’m sorry if I hit a bad nerve, sometimes the truth hurts. I never left the true Christian (you call Roman Catholic) church. It could very well be that you left the true Christian church and digressed to the Roman Catholic church. If Peter, Paul and the other apostles didn’t need indulgences, and five more sacramentsI etc. etc. etc. to get saved, then I don’t need them either. ED O.

I’m sorry again about your situation, for it does sadden me. I was at one time, like you, getting nothing out of the Mass. Then I began to wonder why the woman next to me was so enthralled while I was fighting off sleep. I realized that maybe its not the Mass… maybe its me. At this point, I started studying the teachings of the Church, from the 1st century Christians to the present. And yes, the problem was definitely me.

As I may have said before, if you look at the writings of the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers, the ones that learned 1st and 2nd hand directly from the Apostles, you’ll find the Catholic Church was the Church that Christ built.

I’ve give you the last word to retort mine, but I’m sad to tsee that this thread has degraded. If you bring the subject back on topic, I"ll respond. Or if you invite me to a thread dedicated to this topic (of the True Church), I’ll join. But we’ve led this thread so far off topic as to be totally uncaring of those who are actually wanting to learn more on this thread about reading and understanding the bible.

 

[Jason_1977]

You’re wasting your time with Ginger. She’s not here to learn anything, she has an agenda & wants to nit-pick & argue. Seriously. I just assume bang my head on pavement. It will be equally as productive.

 

[PJM]

2-What term???

My quote is a cut and paste from the middle of the second paragraph located here:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Oops, it seems “I have caught you in a falsehood.”

Heres the entire quote:
*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. *

Love and prayers,
Thanks Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, Do you know that what you call the Universal church teaches that a Muslim or a Jew can be saved without Christ. That’s what Universal means,it takes in everybody.---- Source: Our Sunday’s Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia p.863 ED O.

I’d like a link to this, or did you simply cut-n-paste from another website without looking at the context?

 

[Jason_1977]

friends a warning!

question everything this poster shares. She is adamently anti catholic to the point of being a christian.

The church existed for 60 years before the writting of the bible was completed and for four hundred years before it became a single volune, one language work, accomplished by the catholic st. Jerome in about the year 400.

She is very crafty and bitter.

Love and prayers,

you said it!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

I realize I used a Catholic source which is going to make my point. But it doesn’t change the fact even they admit
Protocanonical…sacred writings **which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. **…correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.

[The deuterocanonical …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,[/COLOR]

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

GingerGinger, I hope you realize that there was no set Canon until the early 5th century. I’ve been with you on these threads enough to know that you should know that. Several people had opinions, Athanasius comes to mind. But, just as our brother Jews, there was no set Canon.

With that said, your last statement is blatantly false.

 

[NotWorthy]

It’s been a long time since I was Catholic, but it seems I was taught something about this.

What I remember is being told reading Scripture on your own can be dangerous because you can misunderstand. That much we should all agree the RC still teaches.

(Recently I was told by a Catholic that praying directly to God can be dangerous, too, because satan might intercept the prayers and that is why it is better to pray to Mary…but I digress)

It seems at Trent many books and authors were banned including **all **of Luther’s writings which would then be a ban on the German translation of Scriptures.

Since Luther translated the Bible into German so that the average German could read it for himself, it stands to reason the RC, in keeping Latin as the official language, was for a time, whether by ban or language barrier, preventing the common man from read the Holy Scriptures.

Ginger

Was Luther’s the first German translation? I seem to think there were more prior to Luther - maybe 3 or 4 if I remember correctly.

But, in Luther’s case, didn’t he translate one Scripture to read, “By Faith Alone are you saved”? With a translation that mis-leads as bad as this statement does, I could see why his book was banned.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think you’ve got that backwards.

The churches traditions and teachings should mirror/reflect that of the Holy Bible which is the inspired Word of God.

Ginger

I think you’ve got that backwards. The Church, in sifting out which books were inspired and which were not, used the Church’s Traditions and Teachings as one of the criteria.

 

[Ginger2]

Was Luther’s the first German translation? I seem to think there were more prior to Luther - maybe 3 or 4 if I remember correctly.

Yes. Luther’s was the first complete translation. I say complete because I am writing from memory and can’t remember for certain if there were a couple other people who translated one or two books into German.

But, in Luther’s case, didn’t he translate one Scripture to read, “By Faith Alone are you saved”? With a translation that mis-leads as bad as this statement does, I could see why his book was banned.

This is a misconception that stems from differences in grammar between the languages.

Let’s look again to Luther’s own words to see whether or not he taught Sola Fide:

I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word
“not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). …
…In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
not the Latin or Greek usage…
…the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: Ut quid perditio haec? and in Mark 14, Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est? According to these literalist donkeys I would have to translate it, “Warumb ist dise verlierung der salben geschehen?” [Why has this loss of ointment occurred?] But what kind of German is this? What German says “loss of the ointment occurred”? And if he understands it at all, he would think that the ointment is lost and must be looked for and found again, though even that is obscure and uncertain enough. …But a German would say Ut quid, etc., this way: “Was sol doch solcher unrat?” [What is the reason for this waste?] or “Why this extravagance?” …That is good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the ointment she poured out and had been wasteful. That was what Judas meant, because he thought he could have used it better. - Luther

You can clearly see from this that Luther did not change, add to or subtract from the Holy Scriptures. He merely did his best to accurately translate the NT to German so everyone could read it and understand.

“For faith alone, and the efficacious use of the word of God, bring salvation. . . .” - Luther

“…faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). … Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. … Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever…**Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! **.” - Luther

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes. Luther’s was the first complete translation. I say complete because I am writing from memory and can’t remember for certain if there were a couple other people who translated one or two books into German.

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

This is a misconception that stems from differences in grammar between the languages.

Let’s look again to Luther’s own words to see whether or not he taught Sola Fide:

I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word
“not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). …
…In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
not the Latin or Greek usage…
…the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: Ut quid perditio haec? and in Mark 14, Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est? According to these literalist donkeys I would have to translate it, “Warumb ist dise verlierung der salben geschehen?” [Why has this loss of ointment occurred?] But what kind of German is this? What German says “loss of the ointment occurred”? And if he understands it at all, he would think that the ointment is lost and must be looked for and found again, though even that is obscure and uncertain enough. …But a German would say Ut quid, etc., this way: “Was sol doch solcher unrat?” [What is the reason for this waste?] or “Why this extravagance?” …That is good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the ointment she poured out and had been wasteful. That was what Judas meant, because he thought he could have used it better. - Luther

You can clearly see from this that Luther did not change, add to or subtract from the Holy Scriptures. He merely did his best to accurately translate the NT to German so everyone could read it and understand.

“For faith alone, and the efficacious use of the word of God, bring salvation. . . .” - Luther

“…faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). … Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. … Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever…**Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! **.” - Luther

Ginger

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?

 

[EdOsiecki]

NotWorthy
I’d like a link to this, or did you simply cut-n-paste from another website without looking at the context?/

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.

 

[EdOsiecki]

SteveGC
I have no historical knowledge of this ban…so I’d appreciate a source for your claim. I do know that the Church has historically encouraged the laity to read the Bible,

Hi SteceGC, thanks for your response. Source of the Bible was banned is: “The Secrets Of The Inqusitions” Public Broadcasting Station There was a four part series, broadcast over a two week period. I was able to DVD record two of them. After 600 yrs, of being locked, Pope John Paul II unlocked the files.

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.

 

[Jason_1977]

When I was going through my RCIA conversion process into the catholic faith, WE were actually encouraged to read the bible and read it slowly. We were also encouraged to try to stop once in a while to reflect on what we just read on our own at home, and while reading try to place ourselves in the scene of whats taking place at whatever particular passage we were reading at the time. We can read & digest, but we are also encouraged to ask for guidance. Nothing wrong with that I should think.