How To Read and Understand The Bible

[guanophore]

, 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.

“It” being what? Adultery? Do you think the Catholic Church is more interested in members than truth? If you believe that, then I can understand why you are not Catholic. If I believed that, I would not be Catholic either.

If you were interested in communion, as you say, then you would have sought an annullment. It seems what you wanted for yourself was more important than what the Church, founded by Christ, taught.

If there were kids in that marriage  they simply vanish! ----

This is another false statement. The CAtholic Church encourages parents to take care of their children, even those conceived in sin.

---- 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.

The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. The OT priesthood was the shadow of what was to come. Jesus commands us to confess our sins, and gave His Apostles the authority to retain and remit those sins. We do understand the OT in the light of the new.

Lev 5:4-6
5 When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, 6 and he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

How do you imagine that the priest would know if the individual had fulfilled the Law, if he was not a witness to the confession?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Ed-

Permit me to ask about this…I’m confused about what you have said above.

Are you saying that you were a Catholic until you “remarried” and were denied access to communion?

Were you divorced? Was your first wife still living? Was your first marriage annulled?

Or was it the case that your wife (the Protestant) was your first wife and that you were not her first husband?

Did you marry her in the Catholic Church, a Protestant church or somewhere else?

If you married somewhere other than in a Catholic Church, did you receive a dispensation from your Bishop?

Finally, I see that receiving communion is very important to you; however, since Jesus is not really and truly present in the Lord’s Supper celebrated by Protestants, how are you able to receive him at all now that you have left the Catholic Church? I’m not seeing how this satisfies your longing. Please explain.

Thanks in advance.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Of course sincere Christians separated from the Apostolic Succession must believe that the authority appointed by Christ is extinct. There is no other way to justify refusal to follow that authority, which is clearly found commanded in the NT,a nd is characterized as disobedience to God.

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.

Yes, God gives His spirit to all believers. NOt all have the same gifts and calling.

1 Cor 12:27-31

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

Rom 12:3-8
3 For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. 4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

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.

No, Ginger2, no one said this. I think you are inclined to be contentious. What was said is that Jesus trained and commissioned His Apostles, and they trained and commissioned their successors. One of the duties of the ordained is to hear confessions, and retain and remit sins, according to the Teaching of Jesus.

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,

I is true that the Spirit gives according to His will.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Ginger2. I think you have so much hostility that you forget this fact.

The authority to retain and remit sins has been passed through the Apostolic succession. The fact that not everyone has the same ministry, gift,or responsibility does not mean they are not indwelt by the Spirit.

no one is saved except thru the RC.

This is a false statement. The Catholic Church is not Roman. The reason there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is because this is the way Jesus set it up. No one comes to the Father but by Him, and no one becomes a member of Him without becoming a member of His Church. Please see the scripture cited above.

 

[guanophore]

The Old Testament “canon” has always been known.

No, Ginger. Jesus Himself testifies to the contrary. He told the Sadducees “you know neither the scriptures, nor the power of God”. The Sadducees did not recognize which books were Scripture, just as you do not today.

The Sadducees only accepted the 5 books of Moses. They did not believe in those doctrines found in the other books, like life after death, just as you reject doctrines taught in those books accepted by Jesus and the Apostles, such as Maccabees.

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

No, Ginger2, this is not the case. Jesus Himself is testimony that this canon wasnot accepted by all. It was defined by the Palestinian Jews that rejected Christ. It was not accepted by the Saducees.

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

The main reason they were hotly contested, a nd the reason they were rejected by the Palestinian Jews, is that there were no extant copies in Hebrew. They believed the authentic scriptures were all written in Hebrew. What the Scrolls prove is that the Deuterocanonicals did exist in the Hebrew.

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.

T’he two facts have nothing to do with one another.

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?

Although this is a valid point, I fail to see what it has to do with the thread topic. It seems like you are just picking one of your favorite bones for the purpose of derailing the thread. You disagree with Catholic Teaching that Scripture should be read in the light of Sacred Tradition.

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.

No, Ginger2, this is a falsehood. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. the Septuagint was in use in Palestine, and Antioch long before the gospel ever made it to Rome, or the Latin Rite developed. The Church has always used the Septuagint because that is the collection used by Jesus and the Apostles.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church is not “bible based”, so we do not have a need to “prove” any doctrines from scripture. Scripture reflects what the Church believes, but is not the Source of that faith. Our faith is based upon the teachings of Jesus, and these were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

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.

This is a baseless accusation, which also has nothing to do with the thread topic.

It is true, however, that we find the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles within the deuterocanonicals.

It is also true that the true canon was discerned by comparing the books with the Apostolic Teaching. there were many books excluded from the canon by this standard.

I think you have a problem with the authority claimed by the church.

 

[guanophore]

Confessing to a priest has to be a NT invention since there’s no record of it in the OT. And there’s no need of it in the NT.

It seems that Jesus disagrees with you.

Nowhere in the NT did the apostles or anyone else hear any confessions.

Such a statement presupposes that all matters essential to the faith will be found explicitly in the NT. Nowhere in the NT does it record which books belong there. Nowhere do we find the words Trinity, or hypostatic union, either.

How were the Apostles supposed to retain and remit sins if no one ever confessed their sins?

Why did James direct them to call for the presbyters of the Church, and confess their sins to one another, so they could be healed?

(3) If that authority was given to the apostles they died years ago.

Hence, the need for Apostolic Succession.

Nowhere in the NT are priests hearing any confessions.

Ed, the English word for “priest” is a contraction of “presbyter”. If you look in James, it is clear that they are commanded to "call for the presbyters (priests, elders) of the church, so that the presbyters can annoint them with oil, and they can be healed. They are specfically directed to confess their sins in the presence of the presbyters.

They are sinful men like the people that would be confessed.

This is true. The Church has never taught that the persons to whom God gives gifts become, by virtue of the gift, perfect.

Since there’s no animals to killed and sacrificed on the altar, the Roman Catholic church desperately needs this verse, otherwise there’s no need for any priests at all and their whole system is bankrupt.

Ed, the Catholici Church is not “Roman”. It is not “bible based” either. None of the catholic doctrines are extrapolated from scriptures. They all predated the writing of the NT. The Church does not “desperately need” any verses because her doctrines are based upon Christ, and were intact prior to the NT.

John 20:22 means the same as Mat18:18  Anyone who confesses their sins will be saved, anyone who does not confess their sins will not be saved. And the confessing is to God otherwise  1 John 3:9 above is useless!  ED O.

It is interesting to read you write that certain scriptures are “useless”. Apparently you believe that not everything in scripture is inspired by God, and there for our instruction.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Guanphore
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.

Hi Guanphore, I must have certainly hit your bad nerve for you to be that critical of me. I know that the truth hurts at times. I strongly suggest that you go back and read that passage to get the proper meaning of it. You can’t tell me that a Muslim who has a sincere heart for Allah and somehow by the grace of God will be saved. Sir/ Man or whoever you are, we are living in the age of GRACE. One either believes in Jesus who shed His Blood on the cross for the remission of SINS or there’s no hope period! That’s what Jesus meant by the narrow road. Here let me quote it for you Mat.7:14, “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” If you don’t understand what that means, I wonder if you found it? Did Jesus lie when He said that He was the Truth and the way, No one can get to the Father accept through Him.

Contrary to what you said it meant, which was that people can be saved apart from Christ

.That’s exactly what it says. But then to cover up their contradiction Jn 14:6 and 1Tim 2;4 are quoted, Of course God desires all men to be saved but He (God) makes it very clear how it’s to be done.

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

When you say Catholic faith, what to do you really mean, Faith in Jesus? Faith in the Catholic church established by the Prophets/ Apostles? or Faith in the Roman Catholic church?

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.

How is that best achieved, by intimidation and 14,500+ posts or by letting your light shine?

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?

Have you just arrived on this planet? Haven’t you heard about Sept.11 and the Trade Bldgs. bombings? I assumed you would have known that’s who I meant by suicide bombers. The Muslims who did the bombings must have had a sincere heart for their God Allah. Why should they be saved according to that Catholic Encyclopedia article?

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?

Why is it so hard for you to believe what the Bible teaches and accept it? And then teach disciples in that manner rather than to rely on what you say here? ED O.

 

[guanophore]

You do realize Jesus was a member of the Pharisaic sect of Jews, don’t you?

No, I always thought He was an Essene.

What does it have to do with the thread topic?

The Sanhedrin was a council consisting of both Pharisees and Sadducees.
We do not know exactly what the Sadducees considered “canon”.

Yes, we do. They accepted only the five books of Moses. This is how we know that your assertion is false (that there was an agreed upon canon).

According to the Talmud, the Sadducees used the other books of the Bible in Scriptural and doctrinal debates. How and why would they refer to scriptures they didn’t consider Holy?

The same reason we refer to the Early Fathers. The fact that we don’t consider them inspired or canonical does not mean they have no value.

I still don’t see what this has to do with the topic.

 

[guanophore]

The above verses do not state Jesus replaced the Jewish priests for gentile priests. It says we have a new Priest, Christ Jesus, who made one offering for all time.

Ginger

This is consistent with Catholic teaching as well.

 

[Ginger2]

Are you trying to suggest that, because the Deuterocanonicals were disputed they are not authentically part of the Catholic canon?

Are you trying to say God allowed the Jews to follow a false canon throughout B.C.?

 

[Ginger2]

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

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.

I didn’t say he misquoted, I said he took the comments out of context by misinterpreting and denying Geisler meant what he said.

Ray: “And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh”

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

Demonstrating one example false should be enough to discredit the claim.

BUT, Why in the name of heaven would you think I would consider anything Swaggert says? lol

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?

Absolutely! And they did not make any binding decisions on Jews, either.

 

[Ginger2]

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 a false assertion. Jesus and the Apostles did not follow the Septuagint. The Apostles used the Septuagint to witness to the Greeks speaking Gentile converts as it was written in a language they could read and understand, making it a very useful tool for evangelizing.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

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).

This, and much of the rest of what you said, is false.

Show me your “proof” and I will show you documentation to prove you are wrong.

 

[Ginger2]

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.

What about the Apostles?

 

[NotWorthy]

What about the Apostles?

What about them? What about John 20:21-23? That gorilla is still sitting in the corner.

 

[Ginger2]

No, I always thought He was an Essene.

Then I guess it’s a good thing I cleared this up for you.

Yes, we do. They accepted only the five books of Moses. This is how we know that your assertion is false (that there was an agreed upon canon).

Show me the proof. And by proof I do not mean baseless opinions.

I still don’t see what this has to do with the topic.

Then go back and read through the posts so you can follow the conversation

 

[Ginger2]

What about them? What about John 20:21-23? That gorilla is still sitting in the corner.

They were Palestinian Jews.

Really! Sometimes you Catholics talk as if the Apostles were Gentiles.

 

[NotWorthy]

They were Palestinian Jews.

Really! Sometimes you Catholics talk as if the Apostles were Gentiles.

This is why I love you, Ginger!

 

[guanophore]

Are you trying to say God allowed the Jews to follow a false canon throughout B.C.?

Of course! God allows His Chosen people to commit all kinds of sins and errors. He allows you to follow a false canon. Why should it be any different for them?

Jesus affirmed many times that the Saducees had only partial revelation. He also taught and preached from the Septuagint, and supported what was in the Deuterocanonicals. In this way, He paved the way for the Apostles to use the Septuagint.

The prophets indicate that the Jews were without their Holy Writings for many generations, and at some points, it was unclear if any copies had been preserved.

 

[guanophore]

I
BUT, Why in the name of heaven would you think I would consider anything Swaggert says? lol

Your denial of historical facts and rabid clinging to interpretations that support your preconceived notions is reminiscent of his frame of mind.

 

[guanophore]

This is a false assertion. Jesus and the Apostles did not follow the Septuagint. The Apostles used the Septuagint to witness to the Greeks speaking Gentile converts as it was written in a language they could read and understand, making it a very useful tool for evangelizing.

Ginger

Yes, of course! It contains all the inspired writings, and was written in a language that was most accessible throughout the empire. God waited to send Jesus until “the fullness of time”. No other time in history was there such a wide geographical area populated by so many people able to access information in a common language such as Greek. Jesus knew He and the Apostles would use the Septuagint, which is why He guided the translators to create it so it would be ready.