How To Read and Understand The Bible

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, Ginger2, I have already been down this road with you before. It does seem like you are here on CAF to “prove you wrong” to all the Catholics. I am not sure what need this fulfills in you, but it does seem very important to you.

It is my prayer that God will meet your needs, whatever they are. I hope that this can occur in a manner that does not foster your contentious attitude here.

Your demand is off the thread topic, and I am not going to encourage you to violate the forum rules.

 

[Ginger2]

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

Of course!

lol

 

[Ginger2]

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.

Your demand is off the thread topic, and I am not going to encourage you to violate the forum rules.

In-other-words, there is no proof. Thank you.

 

[guanophore]

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

I assure you I have read all the posts. I was a week behind, so it took a while. The topic here is how to read and understand the bible. You have an axe to grind, and seem to desire to fulfull your self appointed agenda to “prove you wrong” with Catholics, so you have derailed the thread with the issue of the canon.

 

[guanophore]

In-other-words, there is no proof. Thank you.

Did getting in that “last word” give you a great sense of triumph?

We call them articles of faith, Ginger. They are Truths that have been handed down to us from the Apostles that emanate from His Revelation of Himself. They do not originate from science, and are not subject to scientific proof. If you want that, you are on the wrong forum. Science does support them, because science also testifies to the Truth, but Scientific proof is not the Source of the truths we embrace. God’s Revelation is the Source.

Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint. By this we know that He accepted the Deuterocanonical books, and supported them as inspired.

We read and understand the bible from the point of view from which it was written, which is Catholic.

I agree with your point, that all the first Christians were Palestinian Jews. I think that God had to go to great lengths to show Peter, that the gospel needed to go to the Gentiles.

In what language, and by using which scriptures, do you think Peter preached to Cornelius? Do you think he used the Palestinian Hebrew Scriptures?

 

[Ginger2]

I assure you I have read all the posts. I was a week behind, so it took a while. The topic here is how to read and understand the bible. You have an axe to grind, and seem to desire to fulfull your self appointed agenda to “prove you wrong” with Catholics, so you have derailed the thread with the issue of the canon.

Then maybe you should direct your objections toward NotWorthy. She brought up the canon and stated something to the effect there were no Palestinian Christians of Jewish descent.

I merely responded to her posts.

 

[NotWorthy]

Then maybe you should direct your objections toward NotWorthy. She brought up the canon and stated something to the effect there were no Palestinian Christians of Jewish descent.

I merely responded to her posts.

Small note: Notworthy is a guy… at least the last time I checked, I was!

But no, I did not say there were “no Palestinian Christians of Jewish descent”. I was trying to insert a little levity by saying there are no “Palestinian Jews who are Christians”. Because (and yes, I know, having to explain a joke sort of ruins it…) once one becomes a Christian, they are no longer a Palestinian Jew! If you don’t believe me, simply ask our good Ben Masada!

 

[PJM]

=NotWorthy;5746012]I’ll find it in my notes. But not until you answer a question that has been dodged for 5 pages.

Did Jesus give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name, as Scripture indicates in John 20:20-23?

YES! And it resulted in the formation of the sacramnet of “Reconcillation”, and like every other Sacrament was “instituted by Christ”!

---

Now before you go and tell us that only God can “forgive sins” let me share that this too is Catholic belief and practice.***

The role of the priest is as follows:

To hear ones full and accurate Confession.

To determine as specfically mandated and authhorized by Christ [mt. 16:19 and mt. 18: 15-18] if the person confessing is truely repentant and committed to with the aid of God’s necessary grace to sincerely try not to commit those same sins again. Such is part of the MANDATE of “binding and loosing.”

The words the priest actually uses are "I absolve you from your sins" NOT "I forgive you your sins! We clearly understand taht it is God who forgives; however through the priest. one can know with 100% certitude that ones sins HAVE been forgiven.

Friend shouldn’t you be getting close to “somewhatsmart” after all of the questions we have answered for you:shrug:

 

[SteveGC]

PJ,

You need to realize something. This is something like the 10th time in a week that I’ve seen you responding to fellow Catholics this way. I know it’s an honest mistake, but you seem to be having some trouble following the line of dialogue.

It would be more productive to the thread if you take some time to look at who is posting, what they’re responding to, etc. and then make your replies.

Just a helpful reminder.

Peace.

 

[CWBetts]

PJ,

You need to realize something. This is something like the 10th time in a week that I’ve seen you responding to fellow Catholics this way. I know it’s an honest mistake, but you seem to be having some trouble following the line of dialogue.

It would be more productive to the thread if you take some time to look at who is posting, what they’re responding to, etc. and then make your replies.

Just a helpful reminder.

Peace.

I was thinking the exact same thing!

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Let’s pursue that in the other thread, okay?

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.

All believers receive the Holy Spirit, but they do not all receive the same gifts of the Spirit in equal amounts do they? The Holy Spirit was promised to lead the small group assembled at the Lord’s Supper in a special 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**Technically true. There is only one Church, the Catholic Church - though not all Christians understand this. If one is to be saved then he or she must be joined to Christ through this one Church in some way.

The Catechism puts it this way:

[836](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/836.htm’) "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320
[837](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/837.htm’) "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321 [838](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Heh…I would hope not. However, the point was simply that Geisler and Swaggert have used the Jamnia argument to support their contention that the Jewish canon was closed without the Deuterocanonicals being included.

Since you and I have agreed that Jamnia did not close the Jewish canon, it provides no basis for the contention that the Catholic OT canon was invalid.

There may be other reasons why Protestants object to the Catholic canon, of course, but Jamnia does not “seal the deal”. Agreed?

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

Woo-hoo! :dancing:

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I’ll take a stab at this…

Ulfilas (ca. 381)
The earliest Germanic version of the Bible was Ulfilas’ Gothic translation from Latin and Greek. From Ulfilas came much of the Germanic Christian vocabulary that is still in use today. Later Charlemagne (Karl der Große) would foster Frankish (Germanic) biblical translations in the 9th century. Over the years, prior to the appearance of the first printed German Bible in 1466, various German and German dialect translations of the Scriptures were published. The Augsburger Bibel of 1350 was a complete New Testament, while the Wenzel Bible (1389) contained the Old Testament in German.

Gutenberg Bible (1455)
Johannes Gutenberg’s so-called 42-line Bible, printed in Mainz, was in Latin. About 40 copies exist today in various states of completeness. It was Gutenberg’s invention of printing with movable type that made the Bible, in any language, vastly more influential and important. It was now possible to produce Bibles (and other books) in greater quantities at a lower cost.
%between%
First Printed Bible in German (1466)
Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg’s invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther’s new translation in 1522.

Okay…that’s all I can find…what do you have?

 

[NotWorthy]

YES! And it resulted in the formation of the sacramnet of “Reconcillation”, and like every other Sacrament was “instituted by Christ”!

---

Now before you go and tell us that only God can “forgive sins” let me share that this too is Catholic belief and practice.***

The role of the priest is as follows:

To hear ones full and accurate Confession.

To determine as specfically mandated and authhorized by Christ [mt. 16:19 and mt. 18: 15-18] if the person confessing is truely repentant and committed to with the aid of God’s necessary grace to sincerely try not to commit those same sins again. Such is part of the MANDATE of “binding and loosing.”

The words the priest actually uses are "I absolve you from your sins" NOT "I forgive you your sins! We clearly understand taht it is God who forgives; however through the priest. one can know with 100% certitude that ones sins HAVE been forgiven.

Friend shouldn’t you be getting close to “somewhatsmart” after all of the questions we have answered for you:shrug:

Ow!!! I’ve been hit by friendly fire!!! :slapfight:

PJM, I know that! And, evidently, you know that. I’m just trying to get our dear friend Ginger to admit that
a: The Apostles had no authority to forgive sins in Jesus’ Name.
b: They didn’t. If they didn’t, I’d like to get the reasoning for coming to this conclusion, which would, IMO, contradict John 20:21-23.

Let’s see what Ginger says. Oh, and Ed has dodged this question for just as long.

 

[Ginger2]

Small note: Notworthy is a guy… at least the last time I checked, I was!

But no, I did not say there were “no Palestinian Christians of Jewish descent”. I was trying to insert a little levity by saying there are no “Palestinian Jews who are Christians”. Because (and yes, I know, having to explain a joke sort of ruins it…) once one becomes a Christian, they are no longer a Palestinian Jew! If you don’t believe me, simply ask our good Ben Masada!

Sorry, the name “NotWorthy” does not give any gender indications. I just always pictured you in a dress.

Whether you were kidding or not, the point is Guano or whoever it was chastised me for trying to take the thread off topic. That is something I am accused of frequently when responding to Catholic posts.

So, it was no reflection on you, just letting the other RC know someone else brought both those subjects up - not me.

You should probably put a smiley behind your jokes. A couple days ago several Catholics chewed me up one side and down the other for not making clear I was joking. And then for thinking this forum is an appropriate place to joke around.

However, since you are Catholic that probably won’t be a worry you have. Perhaps I will be chastised again for not understanding you were only joking. <— note the smiley

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry, the name “NotWorthy” does not give any gender indications. I just always pictured you in a dress.

You’ve seen me on a Saturday night? (There. How’s that for your “smiley” advice?).

You should probably put a smiley behind your jokes. A couple days ago several Catholics chewed me up one side and down the other for not making clear I was joking. And then for thinking this forum is an appropriate place to joke around.

However, since you are Catholic that probably won’t be a worry you have. Perhaps I will be chastised again for not understanding you were only joking. <— note the smiley

Ahhhh, then you haven’t read PJM’s post to me! Just kidding, PJM!

On a more serious note, I certainly think we should always be able to laugh at ourselves. Sometimes, we take ourselves too seriously on these threads. The Truth is important… Very Important… but we should never forget that we are brothers and sisters in Christ… even if someone else pictures me in a dress!

 

[Ginger2]

I’ll take a stab at this…

Ulfilas (ca. 381)
The earliest Germanic version of the Bible was Ulfilas’ Gothic translation from Latin and Greek. From Ulfilas came much of the Germanic Christian vocabulary that is still in use today. Later Charlemagne (Karl der Große) would foster Frankish (Germanic) biblical translations in the 9th century. Over the years, prior to the appearance of the first printed German Bible in 1466, various German and German dialect translations of the Scriptures were published. The Augsburger Bibel of 1350 was a complete New Testament, while the Wenzel Bible (1389) contained the Old Testament in German.

Gutenberg Bible (1455)
Johannes Gutenberg’s so-called 42-line Bible, printed in Mainz, was in Latin. About 40 copies exist today in various states of completeness. It was Gutenberg’s invention of printing with movable type that made the Bible, in any language, vastly more influential and important. It was now possible to produce Bibles (and other books) in greater quantities at a lower cost.
%between%
First Printed Bible in German (1466)
Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg’s invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther’s new translation in 1522.

Okay…that’s all I can find…what do you have?

Most of the time I only take one or two examples to dispel myths, but in this case I think all examples should be looked at to see if there really was a German translation at the time of Luther.

I’ll start with the last example:
Johannes Gutenberg did not translate the Latin Bible into German. He was a German who printed part of the Latin Bible on his new invention.

• • Thus no German translation available in Luther’s day.

Now let’s jump to the first example:
Do you mean the Ulfilas (ca. 310 – 383)?
First, he translated part of the Bible for certain, but there was nothing but fragments even at the time of Luther.

• • Thus no German translation available in Luther’s day.

Next is Charlemagne:
Charlemagne instituted a standard writing style. He did not translate the Scriptures into German, transformed the previous texts, which consisted of all uppercase, without punctuation and no spaces between the words. The new script, was called the Carolingian minuscule. They were written in upper and lower case, separating words and adding punctuation.

• • Thus no German translation available in Luther’s day.
    These last two I had not heard of before, so you may want to do some more investigating - I could be wrong on the basis on only partial information.

The last two, Augsburger Bibel & Wenzel Bible, I have heard of, but can’t seem to find my notes, so will just say they were not German translations available to the public either.

Ginger

 

[CWBetts]

Most of the time I only take one or two examples to dispel myths, but in this case I think all examples should be looked at to see if there really was a German translation at the time of Luther.

I’ll start with the last example:
Johannes Gutenberg did not translate the Latin Bible into German. He was a German who printed part of the Latin Bible on his new invention.

• • Thus no German translation available in Luther’s day.

Now let’s jump to the first example:
Do you mean the Ulfilas (ca. 310 – 383)?
First, he translated part of the Bible for certain, but there was nothing but fragments even at the time of Luther.

• • Thus no German translation available in Luther’s day.

Next is Charlemagne:
Charlemagne instituted a standard writing style. He did not translate the Scriptures into German, transformed the previous texts, which consisted of all uppercase, without punctuation and no spaces between the words. The new script, was called the Carolingian minuscule. They were written in upper and lower case, separating words and adding punctuation.

• • Thus no German translation available in Luther’s day.
    These last two I had not heard of before, so you may want to do some more investigating - I could be wrong on the basis on only partial information.

The last two, Augsburger Bibel & Wenzel Bible, I have heard of, but can’t seem to find my notes, so will just say they were not German translations available to the public either.

Ginger

“It’s not in my notes, so they could not have existed” There is a word for that: Intellectual dishonesty. Your arguments hold as much water as a bucket made out of gauze.

 

[arcee]

These 3 books can help you to read and understand The Bible:

1. The Catholic Bible Study Handbook, A popular Introduction to Studying Scripture
   by Jerome Kodell, O.S.B.
2. A Catholic Guide to the Bible, by Father Oscar Lukefahr, C.M.
3. You Can Understand the Old Testament, A Book-by-Book Guide for Catholics,
   by Peter Kreeft

Continue reading The Bible and if you can join a study group in you parish will also be beneficial because you will learn from others experience on the Word of God.

God bless. Live Jesus in our hearts.

 

[Ginger2]

“It’s not in my notes, so they could not have existed” There is a word for that: Intellectual dishonesty. Your arguments hold as much water as a bucket made out of gauze.

Thank you for that brilliant and enlightening dissertation.

I looked up these claims of the many complete German translations available in the 16th century. They all were false claims. I could not find my notes on the last two, but remember hearing of them and since I know my research revealed these claims were false, I stated so.

Let me ask you this, since you are obviously so knowledgeable and helpful in teaching others every thing there is to know about anything,…

Luther said he wanted to translate into German so anyone could read and understand. But Catholics today claim there were many German translations available to the public so there was no need for his translation.

It seems to me if there were German translations available during the time of Luther, Catholics would have used that as an argument against Luther’s translation. They would also have pointed out that existing translations didn’t use the word “allein”.

Instead, they complained the word changed the meaning because it wasn’t found in the **Greek or Latin texts. **

Why didn’t any of Luther’s critics point out these other translations???

Maybe you should try a different approach. Instead of useless sarcasm,…

Is there any document from a Catholic during the time of Luther that says there are several (or even one complete) German translation existing before Luther’s?