K
KathleenGee
Guest
Thanks for the timeline, Gabriel!
I wonder if non-Catholics realize that without the Catholic Church there would not be a Bible (nm)
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Your most welcome KathleenGee; Nice to hear from you
M
Mosacked
Guest
Your minds are corrupted beyond understanding. How far from the truth you have fallen!
If God willed, could He not even raise stones for Abraham as his descendants? What manner of insanity then could have led you to believe that you are the reason for the Bible???
muslimsopenyoureyes.blogspot.com
.
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Jerome translated the Bible into Latin 1000+ years before Trent. Help me see the connection you are trying to make. I’m not saying that there are no Catholic theologians that know greek or hebrew, I’m saying that there were no participants at Trent that knew greek or hebrew. You prove me wrong because if I attempt to, you will simply dismiss it.
As far as the Vulgate being flawed, an example, the Vulgate translates Luke 1:28 incorrectly. This famous verse was used to put wings on the doctrine of the BVM. Don’t believe me? Check the catholic NAB or the JB, they have it right. And guess what that means? It means that the famous Hail Mary is not Biblical. I also means that the doctrines of the BVM rely on tradition, sorry if that offends. I know that this is going to get me in trouble, but you did ask.
Have a nice day,
Jon
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Are you saying that the author of Hebrews quotes 2 Macc 7?
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
We are talking about the canon and I’m giving my opinions on the actions of Trent based on LOTS of research into the matter. You are tying to bring doctrine into the mix which is in my opinion not the subject. There are already approx 1 million threads on the doctrine, of which I fully understand. I did not make my points based on the silly assumption that I might be able to change your mind. I’m not yelling at you, I’m just explaining my reasoning.
Take care,
Jon
T
T_More
Guest
No, read what I wrote originally. Referenced. This example being referenced isn’t found in the any other part of the OT, so to what was the author of Hebrews referring to when writing this?
E
eucharisteo
Guest
The fact is that when you read about the wonders God performed for man you see men doing something as a sign of that miracle. Moses raised his staff, hit the rock, but twice hitting offended God. Jesus required certain people to wash their eyes or bodies. He required man, though mortal, to do something. He provided scripture through man that had to be written down by man. And then as man stepped outside of Gods divine will he called the bishops to clarify the books.
Man, like Moses sin causing him to not enter the promised land, did things requiring a universally agreed upon canon, having the authority to bind and loose. It is the Church that God uses to reach man. The Church is the body of Christ. Why would the Body of Christ not have dominion over the book. Placing the book above the body of Christ is idolatry, isn’t it?
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
I see, so T More, The Book of Mormon is God Breathed because it has references to the Holy Bible. Thanks for clearing that matter up.
Take care,
Jon
PS, this is not my position of the matter.
S
Splinker
Guest
I’m pretty sure we (Jews) would still have ours. When it comes to Torah scrolls, the Church burned far more than it preserved.
T
T_More
Guest
Jon, that is an unreasonable exegesis. You’re making the comparison of an interpretation of a quasi-Christian belief written 1800 years after the bible to a book that came before the NT, which we all agree is inspired. Apples & Oranges, my friend. You still haven’t answered the question, since it can be agreed that the NT is inspired, can a portion still be considered as such if it references a passage from a book you can’t accept to be inspired? Does that nullify, in this case, Hebrews? Why did the bible exist as defined by the CC for approx. 1400 years as is? And please don’t bring up St Jerome and what he wanted to do. When St Paul said in 2 Tim. 3:16 “All Scripture…”, he was referring to the Septuagint, no? So what was in the Septuagint, considered Scripture, at that point? What was the common lexicon throughout the Western ancient world at that time?
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Splinker,
The Church burned far more than it burned because it found errors. You should do more reading about this history of this matter before slamming Christians, or more specifically Catholics/Orthodox [aka the first Christians].
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
My friend T More,
The book of 2 Macc. is not, nor ever has been in the Jewish Scriptures. It was, as I’m sure you know, written in Greek, not Hebrew and the only link it has to the OT Scriptures is the fact that some editions of the LXX had some of the apocrypha works in them. There are some LXX copies that have some of the apocryphia in them, and other (non-apocryphia) books are found in some copies of the LXX that are not included in the apocrypha. It is, in short, a hit or miss thing, and is sort of like saying that the maps in the back of your modern Bible are Holy Scripture simply because they are bound with the rest of the Scriptures.
Think about this, I can show you “references” in the NT to “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu written in China 6th century BC. Does that make The Art of War Scripture? If a letter was found, that was written by James to his mother, wishing her a happy birthday, would that be considered scripture? There has to be a standard or standards to use to determine if a writing should be considered Scriptures. If it is your desire to really be sure what is and what is not Scripture, consider finding out what those standards are and apply them to the apocrypha. I think you will be in for a surprise if you do, but that is your decision to make.
I will grant you this, it is very likely that some if not all of the NT writers had access to the apocrypha. The evidence for inclusion in the scriptures though isn’t there. Jesus, for example quotes from Isaiah, Daniel, the 5 books of Moses, ect… leaving no doubt as to where he stood on the matter.
You have every right to believe what ever you want. But when the queestion is asked of me, I state it the way I see it.
Take care,
Jon
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Dear Splinker,
I can tell you that not every Christian thinks or believes this way.
I take my screen name from Jan Hus who lived in the 15th century. Take a look at what the “one true Church” did to him and what some confessed christians say about him today.
Take care,
Jon
S
simspt
Guest
Who chose those standards?
What criteria was used?
S
Splinker
Guest
I see. The Church found errors with our Torah scrolls, so they burned them.
I feel better now.
Thank you.
S
Splinker
Guest
Thank you. I am certain that the vast majority of Christians today wouldn’t even think of it.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
I hope not that was so poorly written I’m embarrassed.
I had to run.What I’m assuming is that you were implying that the Church was burning bibles to get them away form the people. Since I’m not an expert I can not claim or account for every possible account of this happening. But I’ve done enough reading to see how history gets twisted depending on who’s telling the story. I’ve read that some of these books were burned because they contained mistakes. I’m no expert on this matter, obvious. But this rhetoric always gets thrown in our face as an anti-Catholic rant avoiding what actually happened and why.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Jon Hus:
My friend T More,
The book of 2 Macc. is not, nor ever has been in the Jewish Scriptures.
Nope! Not true and a novelty fabricated by the Protestants. Tell me what canon was being used before Jesus lifetime? What about during his life time?
**It was, as I’m sure you know, written in Greek, not Hebrew and the only link it has to the OT Scriptures is the fact that some editions of the LXX had some of the apocrypha works in them. **
Okay…and? And what was the ‘main’ language of the time? Greek. If I am correct,the majority of the Jews during Jesus’ lifetime living in Palestine spoke Aramaic,not Hebrew. Who understood Hebrew? The priests,scribes,etc.
There are some LXX copies that have some of the apocryphia in them, and other (non-apocryphia) books are found in some copies of the LXX that are not included in the apocrypha. It is, in short, a hit or miss thing, and is sort of like saying that the maps in the back of your modern Bible are Holy Scripture simply because they are bound with the rest of the Scriptures.
The notorious term:apocrypha. The term used by Protestants for the books they REJECTED.
Quick question? Why do you follow a canon (39 OT) settled by Jews who were against the rise of Christians who evidently already existed. Sorry,but I prefer to use the OT canon of 46 books used by the early church.
My friend T More,
The book of 2 Macc. is not, nor ever has been in the Jewish Scriptures.
Nope! Not true and a novelty fabricated by the Protestants. Tell me what canon was being used before Jesus lifetime? What about during his life time?
**It was, as I’m sure you know, written in Greek, not Hebrew and the only link it has to the OT Scriptures is the fact that some editions of the LXX had some of the apocrypha works in them. **
Okay…and? And what was the ‘main’ language of the time? Greek. If I am correct,the majority of the Jews during Jesus’ lifetime living in Palestine spoke Aramaic,not Hebrew. Who understood Hebrew? The priests,scribes,etc.
There are some LXX copies that have some of the apocryphia in them, and other (non-apocryphia) books are found in some copies of the LXX that are not included in the apocrypha. It is, in short, a hit or miss thing, and is sort of like saying that the maps in the back of your modern Bible are Holy Scripture simply because they are bound with the rest of the Scriptures.
The notorious term:apocrypha. The term used by Protestants for the books they REJECTED.
Quick question? Why do you follow a canon (39 OT) settled by Jews who were against the rise of Christians who evidently already existed. Sorry,but I prefer to use the OT canon of 46 books used by the early church.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
:What he said:
- Status