How To Read and Understand The Bible

[guanophore]

NotWorthy,

You said Jerome’s Vulgate has been the official Catholic canon until Trent, 1000 years.

Trent did not adopt the same bible canon as Jerome’s Vulgate, therefore Catholics used a different canon until Trent. If Trent is indeed the correct canon, that meqans Catholics used an incorrect canon for over 1000 years.

Simple as that.

Ginger

No, Ginger. It is not that simple (except maybe for the simple minded!)

The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches never used the Latin Vulgate. All the the Scriptures used are in the Gk, or the regional languages (Aramaic, Syrian, Egyptian etc). If you wanted to defend your baseless assertion, you would have to figure out how to dispense with these other Rites, who used the canon promulgated in 382.

 

[Ginger2]

This is false, Ginger2. The canon was completed by 382,…

Well that is interesting…

The Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic Church in the 11th century - 500 years before the Council of Trent.

But your canons are different.

Why did the RC remove some of the inspired books?

Ginger

 

[guanophore]

I believe the confusion stems from always repeating the word “Catholic” which is not in the Bible.

Ed, you seem to need a little background in your Gk, as well as Church History. Indeed, the earliest descriptor we see of the Church as Catholic is in scripture:
Acts 9:31

31 So **the church throughout all **Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

This phrase, from the Gk Kath Holos = the Church throughout all = universal = Catholic has been used to describe the Christian Church since the book of Acts was written. It appears in the early fathers, and the term distinguishes it from heretical groups.

In spite of that, the Church founded by Christ is not “bible based”. He founded it upon the Apostles and prophets, with Himself as the cornerstone. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Those who have departed from the foundation must attempt to recreate “church” in their own likeness and image by extrapolating it from Scripture. Their own interpretation of Scripture is the foundation of their church. This is where such comments emanta “this term is not in Scripture”. this is of no concern to Catholics, who produced the entire NT.

What you really mean is the Christian faith as they were called at Antioch.  The Bible teaches how to be a Christian.  Catholicism teaches how to be a Roman Catholic.  Ed O.

No, Ed. Catholicism is not “Roman”.

Furthermore, the bible does not “teach”. Teaching is an activity given by God to persons. It requires an intellect, will, and the ability to take responsibility. this is why Jesus authorized His disciples to teach, and did not leave it up to extrapolating from a book.

Eph 4:11-14
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

Sola Scriptura has attempted to force scripture into a role it was never intended to have. Scripture is profitable for teaching and training in righteousness. These are duties of persons, not books.

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes. Protestants use the canon determined by the Palestinian Jews who rejected Christ. Meanwhile, the Apostles were ejected from the Temple, and the synagogues, and spread all over the Empire, where they used the Septuagint, just as the Apsotles taught them.

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]

Are you trying to suggest that, because the Deuterocanonicals were disputed they are not authentically part of the Catholic canon? That is like saying that, since the nature of Christ was disputed, He is not really homoeostatic, as the Church defined, or that his nature “changed” when this Dogma came out.

 

[guanophore]

Hi NotWorthy, you are bringing back to memory my 29 yrs of my being a Catholic. I remember how I dreaded to go to confession because of the sins that I’ve committed. I felt dirty inside. Yes! after the priest told me what I must do for penance and then gave me his absolution, WOW, I felt so relieved, later Communion and real close to God. That lasted for maybe a day or two. until I began to sin again, and again, and again and again, while doing so, I felt dirty, then dirtier, dirtier, then it was time to go to that dreaded confession again. For 29 yrs. the same cycle prevailed. You see! My sinful nature had CONTROL and kept me sinning and going to confession over and over again. In summary, the only time I felt good, just as you say, after the priest gave me his absolution, then Communion THAT WAS BEFORE! What I didn’t know then, according the Bible Rev 3:10, was that Jesus was standing at the door knocking and knocking wanting to come in and take CONTROL of my life. When I opened that door and called Him in and had Him save me as Rom 10:13 states, Jesus (not physically but His Spirit) came in and now I feel the Joy of His presence ALL THE TIME. Jesus’ indwelt Spirit now keeps me from sinning. I’m a new creation as 2Cor 5:17 states, “he becomes a new person inside.” My new (Christ) nature did a 180 degree turn-around. What I once liked to do, I now hate to do as Eph 5:5 states, no more, dirty stories, foul talk, coarse jokes etc… In summary: You have much Joy after the priest gives you his absolution,(I once felt that way too) while I have the Joy of Christ ALWAYS 24–7–365. Until you get to where I am now, you’ll never be able to understand what I’m talking about. That’s why you can’t understand a saved person. While you are going through the various steps to get saved, there’s a much easier way, do what the apostles taught the first century Christians to do. It’s in the Bible. I wouldn’t think of lying to you, I can assure you it works, it did for me. ED O.

It is a shame that you were so poorly catechized as a Catholic. The same thing happened to me. I did not understand the indwelling presence,and the role of grace, until after I separated myself from the Church founded by Christ.

You are right, walking by the Spirit keeps one from sinning, and if one does sin, one can return to grace quickly. even to this day, the penance in my local parish seems to do little to help the individual attain and maintain this right relationship with God. It is an element of Apostolic Teaching that does not get translated well, it seems. However, what you experienced was not a result of an error in what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, but how it was presented/explained to you. You needed more spiritual direction than you got.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can’t let this distortion go unchallenged…

Well, that’s fair, but you need to prove that the quotation is a distortion.

"Geisler writes, "The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. … the Jews

should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they **have always rejected **the Apocrypha" (169). And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh in one place in his A General Introduction to the Bible (with W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), he later relays in a chart, “Council of Jabneh (A.D. 90), Old Testament Canon fixed” (286). "Geisler’s comments have obviously been taken out of content to accuse Protestants of claiming an authoritative council at Jamnia, but as you can see, if you want to see, Geisler denies this and states the Apocrypha were always rejected.

Hope that is enough to dispel this distortion on Protestant teaching…

Obviously? All you have done is to state an assertion. If you believe Steve Ray has misquoted Geisler, you’ll have to provide some support for your contention. Simply stating your opinion does little to persuade.

And what about the other authors? Swaggert, for instance…

Again, I cannot comment on what other Catholics have said to you. I certainly would not argue that all Catholics are well-informed.

What I do think that you and I agree upon is that Jamnia was not a council and that the Jews (who by this time had rejected the Messiah) had no authority to bind the Christian Church with regard to the OT canon.

Agreed?

 

[guanophore]

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.

My misled brother, the Apostles are the ones that taught the principle of indulgences! I have to think that you do not understand this, any more than you understand the Catholic Teaching on Grace.

2 Cor 1:5-7
6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. 7 Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.

The principle of indulgences is that we are members of one another,and therefore our suffering can benefit other members of the Body.s

 

[guanophore]

You bring up a good point. Did you know that the Bible was included in the index of forbidden books banned by pope Paul IV. The ban was lifted after the Vatican Council II in 1964.

It is a good testimony to the effort of the church to prevent what has exactly occurred. the laity, reading Scripture apart from the teaching of the Church, has caused all manner of division and heresies. the outcome has been 100% what they most feared.

While I attended Catholic grade and some high school, we had no Bibles. I’m not an isolated case, I came from a very large family with cousins who were members in at least four different Catholic parishes all taught the same way.

Indeed. This is what I was talking about above when I stated that there was a whole generation of poorly catechized Catholics. A lot of us did not learn to read, pray, and study scripture.

What makes things even more interesting, while Protestants read the Bible for 500 yrs. Now the Catholics became such great Bible scholars since 1964.

Catholics have been great bible scholars since the NT was penned (and before). The American laity, however, did not benefit from this.

 By the way I never called you or any other Catholic asinine, it was the statement that NotWorthy made that I called asinine.  ED O .

I found it offensive.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a false statement, Ed. The Catholic Church teaches that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. He is the door, the sheepgate, the only mediator between God and man.

It is not difficult to understand how you strayed away from the Church, when you have such terrible misunderstandings about the teachings.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Ginger

Yes. It shows that they Protestants accepted the canon of the Palestinian Jews who rejected Christ, and rejected the canon that was used by Jesus and the Apostles - the one accepted by the Church He founded.

This is like bragging that “all of us believers have been getting circumcised since the time of Christ”. What benefit is it to embrace a practice “from the time of Christ” that the Church rejected? Why is siding with those who rejected Christ something to be proud of?

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, this is not a Catholic teaching. Catholics are encouraged to read scripture, and there are indulgences for doing so. We are not to interpret it outside of the Teaching of the Apostles.

(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 is a sad fact that there are a number of very poorly catechized Catholics.

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.

Yes. All translations that were not authorized were banned. Especially those produced by admitted heretics.

Since Luther translated the Bible into German so that the average German could read it for himself,

Except that the Catholic Church had already produced a German bible.

I agree with you, though. Luther wanted to read and translate it “for himself” (apart from the Apostolic Teaching).

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.

Primarily because, prior to the invention of the printing press, most could not afford a bible. They were copied by hand, in candlelight, by monks.

Besides, the official language is irrelevant with regard to reading scripture. Latin was never the official language in the East, and the same problem of access to bibles existed in all languages. It took over a year to make one,and they cost more than a years wages to own.

You seem very motivated to find fault with the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Ginger

Why are you here, Ginger? If you believe that the Catholic Teachings are false, why do you frequent a Catholic forum? It seems strange…

 

[CWBetts]

Why are you here, Ginger? If you believe that the Catholic Teachings are false, why do you frequent a Catholic forum? It seems strange…

Just like every other fundamentalist, she is here to try to “save us from the Big, Bad, Catholic Church”

 

[guanophore]

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,

Yes, she is anti-catholic and very bitter. She has a lot of unresolved feelings about Catholicism that invade threads as has happened here. One of her frequent tactics is to introduce this bickering about the canon, derail the thread, and refuse to accept the history of the Church. I would like to add a request to your warning. Please pray for her. She has been very wounded.

Back to the topic, we were not discussing the contents of the canon, but how one is to read and understand the bible. Ginger asserts that the Church should conform to Scripture, by which she means her interpretation of scripture. Catholics assert that we should conform our understanding of scripture to what the Apostles believed and taught. This is the major difference in the way Catholics and Sola Scripturists understand the way to read and understand the Bible.Sola Scripturists are separated from the Apostolic succession, and each one becomes their own pope.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Let us offer penance and reparation for her, and pray and fast for her. This is a spiritual problem, and the best answer is a spiritual solution. I agree with you, she is not here to learn anything, but to find fault and work out what is working in her. This has degraded the thread.

 

[guanophore]

Ginger, 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.

No, I do not think it is. Ginger is talking about the collection of OT books accepted as canonical by the Palestinian Jews who rejected Christ. She is correct, this is the collection that is today used by most Protestants.

What is curious is that she would reject the Teaching of the Church, in favor of those who rejected Christ. However, it is off topic in this thread, which is not about canon, but how we read it. She reads hers with anti-Catholic lenses, as does Ed, apparently. I know from experience she is not interested in trying on a new set of lenses, even for the sake of discussion. Not sure about Ed. He really does not seem to know any better.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, I do not think it is. Ginger is talking about the collection of OT books accepted as canonical by the Palestinian Jews who rejected Christ. She is correct, this is the collection that is today used by most Protestants.

No, Ginger says in her post that she is talking about early Christendom. The last I checked, Palestinian Jews are not classified under any type of Christendom.

 

[guanophore]

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).

It is clear from this quote that your previous assertion was in error, Ed. If you read scripture with the same frame of mind you read this, it is no wonder that you misunderstand it so badly. The passage is qute clear that salvation only comes from the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Contrary to what you said it meant, which was that people can be saved apart from Christ.

It is very painful to see people misrepresent the Catholic faith in this way.

So, is there salvation outside the Church? No.

How is this relevant to the thread, except as a demonstration of your poor reading comprehension, and how that interferes with understanding Scripture?

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.
EdOsiecki;5731522:

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.

Yes, Ed, it is explained. You just dont grasp it. Again you are blaming Catholicism with your inability to grasp what is being taught. I know it is frustrating, but if you really wish to understand (I am willing to accept that is why you are here at CAF) then it will take some work.

Yes, a suicide bomber with a sincere heart for God may be saved. If a person who valued that all life is from of value saw a tank or other weapon of war headed for an innocent group of villagers,and found he was out of missiles, and chose to stop the killing of those innocents by making a bomb out of his plane, knowing that his life would be forfeit, and crashed his plane into the tank to pritect them, such a person may be saved.
He is a suicide bomber, yes?

The point is that there are many varied circumustances to consider, and we do not know the hearts of all men. Scripture is clear that those who do not know the gospel are judged in the light of their own consciences. Why is this so hard to accept? Ar e you unable to trust God to sort them out?

 

[guanophore]

After Vatican Council II, much has changed in the Catholic church. Latin Mass was terminated,

This is a false statement. The Latin Mass was never “terminated”. It amazes me that you make these assertions about the Catholic faith as if they are facts, when it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. I think you do it in ignorance. I hope so. Deliberately spreading falsehoods, as Ginger does, is a much worse problem

the altar was changed, changes in fasting days, Up until then, we only received a wafer for Communion, no wine,

false again, Ed. No one in the Catholic Church ever receives a “wafer or wine” in communion. Catholics only receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, which replaces the bread and wine during the consecration. As statement of this kind only reveals your ignorance of the Catholic faith.

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.

The reading of scripture was never “banned”. Catholics have always been encouraged to read scripture. Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Not only that, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to read without interpreting. Interpretation is something the brain does with all sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

Just think, for all those hundreds of years, people were deprived of reading God's word.  Going to Mass was boaring, being in Latin.

I am sorry if you were bored at Mass as a youth, or that you felt deprived of reading God’s word. Clearly you did not grow up in a well formed Catholic family that read scripture and prayed the scriptures daily. For some reason, you were unable, after your confirmation, to take charge of your own spiritual formation as is your duty. I had thesame trouble.
Blaming the Church is not the answer.

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.

You are right to say it is a rule, and not a doctrine of the faith.What is a doctrine is that we are to be obedient. It is the lack of obedience that is a sin.

 

[guanophore]

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?

No, Ed The same is NOT said. The opposite is said. The passage you posted clearly states that the grace of salvation comes from Christ.

"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. "

If Muslims and Jews are saved, it is only through the grace of God through Jesus Christ, and His Church. They may not know Him, but God judges them in the light of their conformance with the revelation they have received. God saves who He Wills

Did God tell you that?

Yes, as a matter of fact, this point is clear in scripture.

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

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

Yes, but that is God, speaking for Himself.

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

No, this is false. No one every said “they will all be saved”. The Church teaches that they MAY be saved, even if ignorant of Christ.

I will say,though that it is no point for YOU to witness to anyone, because you seem to be very mixed up in your faith, and it would be better for you to spend some time studying these matters, rather than making the bold assertions you have here, spreading falsehoods.

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

yes.

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

Yes. To those whom much is given, much is required. The more revelation you have, the greater your obligations.

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

As Jesus said to Peter when he asked the same question abou tJohn, what is that to you? you follow Him. At this point, it seems that you have your hands full with the elementary doctrines of Christ!

You remind me of those workers who were angry because they worked all day, and those that came at the end of the day got the same pay.

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.

They cannot. If they are forgiven, it is by grace, through faith. Jesus’ blood is all that can save.

It is only you that apparently do not forgive them. God will forgive them if He wants.

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.

Yes, I realize this. I cannot fathom what it has to do with the thread topic, though.

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.

If you are really interested in getting a proper grasp of the Catholic teachings, you have come to the right place. It seems clear that your present grasp is way off the mark.

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.

Ahhh. Well, that explains a lot! The Church did not “push you out” by denying you communion. It is bad for your health to receive in a state of mortal sin. This is the way the Church protects the flock. To open communion to those who approach in an unworthy manner puts them in a state of severe consequences. The Church has an obligation to care for the sheep.

1 Cor 11:27-32

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

The goal is to prevent you from being condemned, along with the world.

It seems that your marriage outside the guidelines of the Church was more important to you than the Eucharist at the time. Anyway, you already said you were “bored” at the Mass. It seems that you were already out of a state of grace.