Issues from an Agnostic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pvt_Jet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I wasn’t sure where to throw this thread but, you know, I figure someone knowledgeable will stumble on it eventually.

So, I’m the type of guy who doesn’t believe things without some pretty solid proof behind them. I don’t make hard decisions lightly, but when they’re made, well, it’s tough to change my mind. This creates some problems with me and religion… but my individual belief in God isn’t up for question in this thread.

I am an Agnostic, but having been raised Catholic with Catholic values… I’m inclined to believe that in Catholocism lies the answers. However, I have some very noticeable issues with the Church’s teachings… things that keep me from accepting and truly being able to believe.
  1. Homosexuality. Transgender. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual. The LGBT community. Yes, I accept it. I support those who are in fact, gay, and don’t think less of them because of it. Now, why is the Church so opposed to their lifestyle? Few of them chose to be gay in the first place, fewer chose this path for lust-driven reasons initially… many just find themselves on this path, and no amount of talk will make them change their minds because, well, there’s nothing to change. You can as easily tell a man that he is an ape than tell a gay person that there is something wrong with their beliefs, and our society where such disapproval is so common leads to depression, and much too often, suicide.
If it’s not a choice, and it’s nothing within a person’s control… if that is the way they were made, why is that wrong in the eyes of God? Where do we step in saying that it is wrong in place of God? Is it merely a Church view, or is it solid, unarguable, fact, that it is wrong?
  1. The qualifications for getting into heaven. I’ve been told many times recently that what you need to get into heaven is Grace not works. There are numerous bible quotes to support this… I forget the exact ones. Something about “so no man may boast.” Anyways…
I find it hard to accept that the afterlife run by a truly just and loving God would be an exclusive club available to only those that have been baptized, or only those who believe in Jesus, or only those who go to Mass all the time… all the little requirements in Christian religions the world over. I understand that according to the Church, God does not judge based on works. It is entirely possible for someone to do all sorts of good things for others but be a absolute horror of a person. But how can we justify the situation where someone truly is a good person would go to hell? Imagine a person who does good because they feel it is the right thing to do, they give to charity, they help others, they never deliberately hurt others… in essence, they are a paragon of all that Jesus teaches us to be in the New Testamant. But, that person is an agnostic. They are an atheist. They are a Hindu, a Muslim, heck, they may even be a pagan. Better yet, have them be somebody who has been shown Christianity, but they chose not to accept it due to a multitude of reasons from being skeptical, to believing their own religion is correct, to simply just not caring about religion playing any sort of role in their lives.

Would a truly just, a truly loving God send that person to hell? Someone who has never been baptized, never been confirmed, never accepted Jesus… done all the no-nos the Church describes… and yet lives their lives about as Saintlike as your average human can get. Can you honestly tell me that that person would go to hell?

And yet… the person who was born Catholic, accepted it because it was what their family was, did all the requisite Baptism, Confirmation, and other Sacraments… but doesn’t actually follow up on their beliefs, doesn’t go to Church, doesn’t help those in need, has all the character flaws inflicted by the 7 Deadly Sins… the Church would tell me that that person would go to Heaven simply because they believe in Jesus and accept God?

I can see the logic on works not being required to get into Heaven. But I find it even harder to believe that someone whose life is defined by their good works… who has done them not because of religion, but simply because they believe it is right (as opposed to someone doing good works to get into heaven, probably what the Church was looking to stomp down on when they made this ruling)… they would go to hell?

tl;dr version:
  1. Why does the Church have a problem with the LGBT community?
  2. Do good people go to hell simply because they deny Christianity?
I tend to be a bit wordy and tend to slide into rants… but believe me! I’m here with an open mind! And I honestly would like to hear people’s perspectives on my issues… it’s why I’m here after all.
I feel as you do…that’s why I am here:D
Perhaps I will find I am wrong, somehow…(I mean my disbelief)
I always think of the sinner in the NT (I think?) that says “Lord, I believe-help me in my disbelief”…
Sad to say, I doubt it. I’m not giving up, though. Not yet.
 
Thanks, Thyme. I find your flexibility and openness on this question surprising and refreshing. And encouraging!
Thank you very much for that compliment, however it is what Christ has taught us through the Church, so I can’t take any credit for it 🙂
The continuing tradition of the Church is incredible… it’s a shame Protestantism is so big, if not just because of the obfuscation thereby of the wealth of post-biblical revelation.
These words, which of course echo many in the New Testament, are of the eager to save, eager to help, patiently waiting God which the Church could do better to represent publically more readily, I think
I agree with you. I always see a quote outside a Protestant church saying ‘Your passport to the Kingdom of Heaven’, with a picture of a passport and the Lamb on it. I find this view a bit disappointing.

Catholic churches should have quotes reflecting how much God is suffering at the loss of souls and how ecstatic He is when they trust in His Mercy.
 
This thread has been about homosexuality almost entirely.

How about if I throw in another “issue” from another “agnostic” (myself)?

Must the miracles of both the OT and the NT be believed as literally having happened for one to be Christian? To some degree, what has pushed me away from faith (at least the Christian faith and from my primary understanding of God from youth) is this insistence. Leaving the resurrection aside, is belief in the other miracles (even the parting of the Red Sea) a MUST? Is it a deal-breaker?

–Larkin
Depends on the Miracle. The parting of the Red Sea, for example, may not have been an event like in the movie, it may have been more like the explanation on a program I saw on TV (Discovery? History Channel? I don’t remember) where the sea dried up as a complex combination of tides, wind, and other factors. Maybe the sea floor didn’t get bone-dry, maybe the sea only became a foot deep, enough for the Israelites to cross and the Egyptians chariots to get bogged down.

But is was miraculous that they were saved from the pursuing Egyptians.

Now take the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Yeah, pretty much that’s one we have to believe it. Historically, Lazarus’ raising was the impetus for the Chief Priests and Pharisees to start formal action to have Jesus killed. Granted, they would have found another reason if the Lazarus event had not occured, but the history of the events surrounding Jesus’ road to the crucifixion are not credible if the Lazarus event is not believed to be true.
 
Depends on the Miracle. The parting of the Red Sea, for example, may not have been an event like in the movie, it may have been more like the explanation on a program I saw on TV (Discovery? History Channel? I don’t remember) where the sea dried up as a complex combination of tides, wind, and other factors. Maybe the sea floor didn’t get bone-dry, maybe the sea only became a foot deep, enough for the Israelites to cross and the Egyptians chariots to get bogged down.

But is was miraculous that they were saved from the pursuing Egyptians.

Now take the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Yeah, pretty much that’s one we have to believe it. Historically, Lazarus’ raising was the impetus for the Chief Priests and Pharisees to start formal action to have Jesus killed. Granted, they would have found another reason if the Lazarus event had not occured, but the history of the events surrounding Jesus’ road to the crucifixion are not credible if the Lazarus event is not believed to be true.
Yeah.

No way on Lazarus for me. But thanks.
 
Well first I should thank those that carried on this thread in my absence on both sides… I appreciate the continued discussion and feel like I have a few more things decided, a few more questions answered.

Also glad to see the discussion range towards my second dilemna. I feel like the first is something I’m not going to be able to agree with the Church on…

And well, hmm. Thanks Thyme. It appears I am entirely satisfied by your answer as regards to dilemna 2. Whilst I am not a person who thinks Mass is worth much, I went to a shorter service to reinitiate myself into religion at a relatively nondenominational church had some decidedly Protestant views (and so did the Priest when I talked to him) when it comes to getting into Heaven, and the Protestant version of the Bible certainly has the quotes to support it.

So I suppose this brings up a question that figures pretty prominently for me. I can understand exactly how to live a moral life… what I should do to be the best person I can be, no matter what my views on religion are. That’s how the past two years of my life have gone. Much of my indecision comes from not being able to accept the Bible as any sort of truth, empirically. It could be wrong, thus I am skeptical. Now, with the Bible having been written so long ago, and with the Church being held sway under the Roman Empire and corrupt nobility for so long, how far do we take the current version of scripture as truth? Obviously the Old Testament should be looked at more for symbolic meaning due to the era in which it was written, but the New is generally regarded as more accurate fact… but is still as much or more susceptible to having been altered over the centuries by those who presided over the Church. Which has happened in the Protestant and Catholic Bibles as they have evolved over the years.

How are we supposed to use Scripture as a reference when we cannot be sure in its truth? Centuries of translation and alteration and interpretation have gone into the books… and the books themselves, though generally accepted to have been divinely inspired, could have been written or altered before the modern addition of the Bible was compiled. We obviously don’t have accurate dates for when each Gospel was written, for when each letter was sent… how do we know that what we see in front of us is indeed divinely inspired? How do we use the Bible in our lives with such questions about it?

I ask looking for some justification, because though I grow closer in accepting God in some shape, I come no nearer to accepting the Christian interpretation of God. Despite the first 18 years of my life being under the tutelage of the Catholic Church, I’ve never really accepted the Bible to be nearly as meaningful as an Encyclopedia.
 
I know how the doubt feels! When you are searching for answers but finding only further questions, it becomes a very unsettling thing indeed.

I made the mistake of approaching it almost from a secular point of view. I wanted proof all the way down the line (I’ve not called myself Doubting Thomas for nothing!). But I now know that it cannot be approached in the same manner as that, say, of a historian trying to piece together the last hours of Pompeii.

It is a matter is faith. This has to be an absolute belief that is not based on proof. I had no idea how I could find faith with so many doubts, so I started praying. First with non-Catholic friends, but now alone. With prayer, my faith has grown stronger. Now, I feel the Lord’s presence. The nourishment of my soul will not come from whether it is proven that there was an astrological phenomenon that the Magi could’ve followed, or Noah’s Ark is found on Mt. Ararat.

May God be with you.
 
Despite the first 18 years of my life being under the tutelage of the Catholic Church, I’ve never really accepted the Bible to be nearly as meaningful as an Encyclopedia.
I always found an auto repair manual more meaningful than an encyclopedia. I guess it just depends on what information you are looking for.
 
It was a metaphor. 😛 Replace Encyclopedia with knowledge giving book of your choice.
 
Much of my indecision comes from not being able to accept the Bible as any sort of truth, empirically. It could be wrong, thus I am skeptical. Now, with the Bible having been written so long ago, and with the Church being held sway under the Roman Empire and corrupt nobility for so long, how far do we take the current version of scripture as truth? Obviously the Old Testament should be looked at more for symbolic meaning due to the era in which it was written, but the New is generally regarded as more accurate fact… but is still as much or more susceptible to having been altered over the centuries by those who presided over the Church. Which has happened in the Protestant and Catholic Bibles as they have evolved over the years.

How are we supposed to use Scripture as a reference when we cannot be sure in its truth? Centuries of translation and alteration and interpretation have gone into the books… and the books themselves, though generally accepted to have been divinely inspired, could have been written or altered before the modern addition of the Bible was compiled. We obviously don’t have accurate dates for when each Gospel was written, for when each letter was sent… how do we know that what we see in front of us is indeed divinely inspired? How do we use the Bible in our lives with such questions about it?
These are good questions. I suppose I would ask the following question. If the scriptures had been altered or manipulated, then would’nt we expect historians to have uncovered a cache of “uncorrupted” gospel and new testament texts from the first century? The fact is, we have discovered no such thing. The discrepancies between the new testament texts that we have are relatively minor and can be attributed to scribal errors. This supplies evidence that no major tampering or manipulation has taken place. What are the odds that someone tampered with the new testament scriptures, and not only were they able to get away with it, but that also successfully destroyed all earlier copies, and also that there are no historical records that describe people being opposed to the changes in scripture or being persecuted for standing against the manipulations or speaking out about it? The odds are very small, I think. It is just very unlikely that someone was able to mess with the texts and yet we have no evidence of earlier uncorrupted texts or historical accounts of people speaking against it. It would be like saying that someone re-wrote the U.S. constitution in 1960 and then went back and falsified all the earlier histories and copies of the original text. What are the odds that someone could get away with that?

Also, this isn’t just an issue with regards to the Bible. Consider a related question. How do we know that any ancient text has survived uncorrupted to the present day? Our best evidence is that we can find older copies that agree with later translations, and that we can find no alternative texts that are earlier and disagree. It would not have been easy for anyone to tamper with a text without being noticed. Texts were highly prized in the ancient world because they were not as numerous as they are now, and it was not uncommon for many different people to memorize them in their entirety. It would have been incredibly difficult for someone to have manipulated a major text and to have gotten away with it unchallenged. Even if you don’t believe that the Bible is inspired, I think there is very little evidence that the Biblical texts were substantially altered or tampered with. If you are interested in reading more, I would suggest F.F. Bruce’s book The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
 
… Much of my indecision comes from not being able to accept the Bible as any sort of truth, empirically.

How are we supposed to use Scripture as a reference when we cannot be sure in its truth?

I ask looking for some justification, because though I grow closer in accepting God in some shape, I come no nearer to accepting the Christian interpretation of God. Despite the first 18 years of my life being under the tutelage of the Catholic Church, I’ve never really accepted the Bible to be nearly as meaningful as an Encyclopedia.
Hello and God Bless you Pvt Jet,

I will post the following first, and in a subsequent post, more on the history of the Bible.

Bible is without error. - in matters on Faith and Morals, in that truth necessary that God wanted us to know for the sake of our salvation.

The Bible must be read with understanding the various styles of writing (poetry, legends, allegory, prophecy, and such) and with knowledge of the customs of the people during those eras that the various books of the Bible were written.

Not understanding these customs and beliefs of the ancient writers of the Bible can make it appear that there are contradictions in the Bible. For example, ancient Hebrews during the time of Abraham still held the belief that there were many “gods”, but believed that the God of Abraham was the true God. The belief that there was only one God developed over time and this is reflected in the books in the Bible. Additionally, in the infancy of knowledge, they held that God was also a cause of disaster – if you were obedient to the Lord, you prospered; if you committed sin, you were “punished” by God and disaster would befall you. The belief that evil was attributed to Satan (or the devil) developed over time as they came to understand that evil was not attributed to God: God was good, benevolent and all loving, nevertheless, He is a just God.

The reader must learn as much as possible what the author intended behind these writings.

Look at context. Do not take one verse without looking at the whole picture. For instance: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” - Ephesians 5:22: In this passage many people leave out the part where it indicates that husbands are to serve their wives and even die for them just as Christ served and died for his beloved Bride, the Church.

Understand meaning of original language: In the Hebrew and Aramaic language there is no word for first cousins. They would use either “the son of the sister of my father” or just “brother” to depict the close blood ties of this relationship. Today in some cultures this still holds true.

example, the Greek words, adelphos “brother”, and adelphe “sister”.

Ex., Gen 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” however, Lot is the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother, making Lot, what we call in today’s terminology, his nephew. Gen 11:26-28

The same holds true for the word “hate”: The Semitic language had no word for “hate” as we understand the English word, and actually means to “love less” in the Semitic language. Therefore it is important to understand the original meaning of the written words since to be mistaken can lead to misinterpretations, and consequently to false doctrines.

Understanding literary forms: They are part of our daily experience, which can be true to life but not necessarily historical. Example: Genesis has two stories of creation, both written during different periods in time, with different authors. The older version is 2 Genesis. Understanding that Genesis was not intended to be a scientific factual history of creation, but was based on “legend”, and 1 Genesis was written in the poetical style to state a truth of creation: That all things came to be through God, the Creator, who created all things “good”, and gave an explanation for the cause of sin and death in the world. True science is never in conflict with Christian teaching.

By reading Scriptures properly and reverently, one can get to learn about and know about God. Proper interpretation of Scripture is left to the magesterium of the Church who have been properly instructed. That doesn’t mean people can’t know proper interpretation on their own - they just have to be sure they have not improperly interpreted them, for there are many passages difficult to fully understand without proper explanation. This is even mentioned by St. Peter the Apostle and first Pope, (see 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16).

Just as people need learned instructors to teach them properly how to “do” math, and further progress onto learning and understanding more difficult equations, so too do people need proper religious instructors who know what they are teaching to others. One doesn’t just automatically know how to do physics and calculus, without being instructed; so too one doesn’t just automatically know about God and His will without being properly instructed. Those who sincerely seek God and wish to understand His word will be led by the Holy Spirit to find out who God is and be led to reliable experts in the Church who have studied sacred Scripture, its languages, cultures, archaeology and traditions. The use of private interpretation is not forbidden, nonetheless, we must always test those revelations against the teachings of the Church so as not to go off tract.

Regardless, we must always remember that the Bible is the beloved word of God that shows His tremendous love for mankind and shows us, through Jesus, the way to eternal salvation, thus eternal life with God in heaven, where our true home with God awaits us.

Blessings,
CEM
 
…Now, with the Bible having been written so long ago, and with the Church being held sway under the Roman Empire and corrupt nobility for so long, how far do we take the current version of scripture as truth? …but is still as much or more susceptible to having been altered over the centuries by those who presided over the Church. Which has happened in the Protestant and Catholic Bibles as they have evolved over the years.
Hi again Pvt Jet,

My second post is about the history of the Bible, and I will have to continue in more posts.

The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon of Scriptures in the Bible, which was written, under the guidance (or inspiration: “God breathed”) of the Holy Spirit (see 2 Tim 3:16), by various inspired men: Prophets, kings, (David, Solomon), Priests, and Apostles (who were taught by Christ the meaning of all Scripture, see Luke 24:45). Jesus spoke Aramaic, and parts of the New Testament were written in Aramaic, however, it was mainly written in Koine Greek - the vernacular language of that time (not modern Greek as we know it today). The “Greek” Bibles of latter years are not the original Koine Greek but rather more modern Greek translations.

As the vernacular language changed from Greek to Latin, the Bible was in turn translated so that the population could understand the Scripture in their own language. As Priests traveled to other countries, Scripture was then in turn translated to that country’s vernacular language. In the case of Germany, there was no written language, and it was from the Church that the written language came to be (among other nations as well). The first English Bible was written by a monk (Caedmus) in the 7th century (600’s).

The first Middle English Bible was written in 1582 by the Catholic Church in Douay, and later completed in 1609/10 in Rheims. This is the Douay-Rheims Bible. The King James Bible was completed in 1611, and at first contained all the Books of the Canon of the Bible. Those other “Bibles” written by such people as Wycliffe, and Luther for instance, were not proper Bibles. They changed and translated the Bible according to their own thoughts, going so far as to discard whole books, chapters, verses, and even adding words. Today, the Protestant Bibles are not the complete, original Scriptures. It is only the Catholic Church that has protected and safeguarded the Canon of Scripture and still has the complete Bible. We also have the original letters of the Apostolic Fathers (those who were taught and even ordained by some of the Apostles). Additionally, the Early Church Fathers’ letters collectively quote almost the entire New Testament Scriptures. Thus we know that the Scriptures were not changed by the Church, but by other men opposed to the Church who thought they knew better than the Apostles and Church Fathers.

Here are some facts:

Before anything was ever written the stories of God were transmitted orally for centuries. The people of God had no written language then.

The Pentatuch (The “Law” or “Teachings”, also called the Torah by Jewish people) were first written around 1.300 by Moses. He wrote the Commandments, but other teachings were still oral and committed to memory. Moses was “Educated in all the learning of the Egyptians” Acts 7:22, and in Ex 24:4 “Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord”, (These were pertaining to laws and ordinances of God - not all the five books of the Pentatuch, for Moses was busy leading the people through the desert and never entered foot into the Promised land.)

Among the oldest parts of the Bible (first written) were the Psalms, written by King David, around 1000 - 900 BC). Later parts of the Bible were written over a period of hundreds of years by various authors who were inspired by God: the Writings (Ketuvim) and the Prophets (Nevi’im).

After the dispersion of the Jews, (when the 10 Tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel were conquered by the Assyrians and therefore became the “10 lost tribes of Israel” for they were assimilated into the Gentile nations), the Hebrew language became almost non-existent among the remaining 2 tribes of Benjamin and Judah: Only the Priests knew the Hebrew language, and when they read in the Temple from the Torah, someone had to translate what the Priest read aloud into the vernacular language: Greek. (That was the commom language spoken then, and these “Greek” Jews were known as Hellenistic Jews.) Under Pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolemy Philidelphus, were commissioned 70 Jewish scholars (Scribes) who carefully translated the Hebrew into the Greek written language so the Jewish people could have access to their Scriptures in the language they understood now. This was later to be known as the Septuagint, or simply LXX, which means “seventy” in Greek.

to be continued…
 
hi again Pvt Jet,

continued:

This is the version of the Scriptures that all Jews used for centuries and of which even Jesus and the Apostles quoted from. When Jesus read Scripture in Temple (as the New Testament records) it was from the Septuagint that He read from. There are numerous quotes from the Septuagint mentioned in the New Testament, that the Protestants won’t find in the butchered version of the Old Testament because they have discarded seven books and several chapters and verses from the Old Testament in the Reformation period.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Septuagint was the only written Scripture and the New Testament, the “Good News of Jesus Christ” (Gospel), was transmitted ORALLY. It was proclaimed aloud to all and there was no New Testament yet that was written. About 20 years after the death/resurrection of Jesus, Paul’s letters were the first words written, about 50 AD. Mark’s gospel was the first Gospel written (around 65 AD), Matthew’s was the second, (around 80 AD), Luke’s gospel was the third, written around 80 - 85 AD, and John’s gospel was written around 90 - 100 AD, with his book of Revelation being the last book of the Bible ever written. Jesus also spoke Aramaic, and parts of the New Testament were written in Aramaic. Koine Greek was the language then, and is not the same Greek spoken or written today, just as Old English and Middle English are not the same as today’s written and spoken English.

Now, during this time, many converts to Christianity was occurring, (not only Gentile converts but many Jewish converts as well - recall in Acts during Pentecost, there were about 6000 converts from Judaism to Christianity in one day alone!!). Around 70 AD the Temple was destroyed and all religious artifacts taken away never to be heard of again, and this was essential for Jewish Temple worship. With no Temple, there was no sacrifice anymore, nor were the Temple Priests able to perform their services anymore. So, around 100 AD a group of rabbis, who vehemenently opposed Christians (were “enemies of Christianity” - see Acts 5:17-19), Sadducees who did not believe in life after death, the resurrection or angels, gathered in a small ancient town (Jamnia, see Jabneh) and there they rendered a whole new version of the Old Testament. They removed those books from the Septuagint that pointed to the divinity of Christ, life after death, praying for the dead (as found in Maccabees), and one translator, Aquilla, even changed the word “virgin” (parthenos) in Isaiah 7:14 and rendered it to read “a young woman” (neanis) shall conceive, thereby changing the prophecy of Jesus’ virginal birth. This butchered “bible” is known as the Jamnian canon (or the Palestinian canon), and took several hundred years to complete fully. During this time another Talmud was being made, and is more extensive today, and known as the Babylonian canon, so even among Jewish peoples, there are various sects and beliefs now. They are not united and some believe in angels, life after death and so on, whereas others do not. This altered Bible has seven books missing:
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees
  • Wisdom
  • Sirach
  • Baruch
Some chapters of the book of Daniel were discarded along with some verses here and there from the old testament.

All these books/chapters and verses/words were in the Septuagint, and to this day, this is what the Catholic Church continues to use as its Old Testament - the same one the early Jewish people used and the same one Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted from.

The Holy Spirit was no longer guiding the Temple Priests - this Holy Spirit was promised by Christ to guide the Church, His beloved Bride, to all truth, so the rabbis of Jamnia had no authority to change the Scripture of the Septuagint, nor did they have the authority to deem any books part or not part of any canon of Scripture.

So, for centuries the letters of Paul and the other Apostles and their followers were circulated and copied and used as part of the teachings, and read during Mass. Mass is a word that comes from the Latin: missa = to be sent. And Jesus “sent” His Apostles into the world to spread the good news, and “do this in remembrance of me” - the Eucharist, which has never changed and always remain doctrine since Jesus is the one who established this sacrament. Even though the original manuscripts do not exist, we have the original manuscripts of the Apostolic Fathers (those who were taught by and ordained by the Apostles, such as St Clement of Rome who was consecrated by St Peter, and St Ignatius who was a student of St John) who collectively quote the almost the entire New Testament in their letters!

to be continued…
 
continued for Pvt Jet,

Around 367 AD the Books of the New Testament were put together, and in 419 AD, they were officially promulgated by Pope Boniface at the Second Council of Carthage. OT = 46 books (Septuagint), NT = 27 books for a total of 73 books.

During this time the common language (the vernacular) was becoming Latin, and therefore the Greek was no longer being understood by the masses of people. St. Jerome was a very learned man, knowing Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic among other languages, and he took the original manuscripts of the Scriptures (Old and New), for they still existed then, and carefully and painstakingly translated from the originals, into the Latin language. Jewish Scribes even visited him in the desert because of his knowledge. This is the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible that is still in existence today and is still one of the official versions of the Bible. (the Septuagint is the official Old Testament of the Church). It was completed 426 AD.

The first English (Saxon) Bible was translated by a monk: Caedmus in the 7th century (600’s AD).

The Bible was translated into many languages – of which some countries (Germany for example) first were introduced to a written language of their own. Before these priests./monks came, they had no written language. Every Church had at least one complete Bible.

For about 1500 years there was no question of the validity of the canon of the Bible or that the Catholic Church was the true Church - the Bride - of Christ. Then along came some men who thought they knew better than the Apostles, better than the Church, and even in some cases, more than Jesus! Luther wanted to get rid of several parts of the New Testament - such as the Book of James (which he called an “epistle of straw” - you can read his own words in the books he wrote), and he even wanted to get rid of the book of Revelation. He did manage to change Romans 3:28, and added the word “alone” which changed the passage and along with that change of his, came a new and dangerous doctrine: by Faith Alone. That is why he especially hated the book of James for in this book James tells us we are not saved by faith alone! We are saved by works, for “faith without works is no faith at all, but is dead”.

The Reformers (no doubt in their continued ignorance) then took the Hebrew Bible - that butchered version, and used it for their own bible, discarding the Holy words of the canon of the Septuagint. So that is why the Protestant Bibles are lacking and missing such important books - they turned their Bible into one that was rendered by the Jewish rabbis, as described in the N.T. as “enemies of Christianity”.

During this time the Catholic Church was persecuted by the supporters of the Reformation and in France, since Latin was no longer the vernacular language, and (Middle) English was, the Church was the first to translate the Bible into Middle English: The Douay-Rheims Bible, 1582, completed 1609/10. The King James Version of the Bible (written by King James who had no authority from God) was translated in 1611, AFTER the Catholic Church had already translated the Bible into English!! This KJV had only 66 books, not the complete 73 books.

Because of the questioning of the Catholic doctrines (which the Protestants also discarded - they don’t have the seven sacraments, some only have two, if that), and the questioning of the Bible, in 1546 at the Council of Trent, the Canon of the O.T. and N.T. was definitely fixed, (even though it was already officially promulgated - it became Doctrine), and the Nicene Creed (which was already known as the proclamation of Faith since the 300’s AD) was also accepted officially (as Doctrine) as the basis of Catholic Faith, as well as the seven sacraments (since Protestants rejected these).

Hope this helps, and God bless you. 🙂

P.S. We know without doubt that Paul’s letters were the first letters written around 50 BC, and the latest written Scripture was the Book of Revelation, around 100 BC by St. John the Apostle. All N.T. books were written prior to that date. There is no question about that. Additionally, even though the original manuscripts have disintegrated and no longer exist, we do have the original manuscripts written by those who were ordained and/or taught directly by St. Peter, and St. John, and are known as The Apostolic Fathers, and the Early Church Fathers (those who were taught/ordained directly by the Apostolic Fathers), and collectively, they quote almost the entire New Testament (which were the letters written by those Apostles, - or scribed, such as Mark scribed for Peter), and they exist today. Recall too, that St. Jerome in the third century used the original manuscripts of the Old Testament as well as the original manuscripts of the New Testament which he very carefully translated into the Latin “Vulgate” bible.
 
CEM5,

Your four post stream in reply to the OP serves as a wonderful refresher to Catholics and an excellent foreword to agnostics who don’t quite know how to regard and read the Scriptures.

Well done!

And thank you!

. . . . . .
 
Every human has crossses to bear whther we are single, married, homosexual,etc…
If you are christian and truly want to live and believe in God and trust that he knows what is better for us,then you will try to live your life according to the 10 Commandments. The 6th commandment is: Thou shall not commit adutltry. That commandment is not meant for people who are married, it is meant for all humans. We are boound by a virtue of Chastity.We are to temper our sexual desires according to Gods will. The tendency to homosexuality is not a sin . It is only a sin when you give into the sin and do the act, then it becomes a serious sin against God. There are people with homosexuals desires but surpress them . It is like being married, a man or a woman may have desires for someone other than their wife or husband but prays, and ask God to help them carry their cross and give them the grace to keep their vows to their spouse. It takes the love and help of God, and discipline required by you to do the right and moral thing, As I said before we all have crosses and with the love of God and for God we can accomplish anything.Sins of the flesh are why many people will go to hell. We must be truly sorrow for our sin befor we gain the forgiveness of Jesus.In the Old Testament God said homosexuality is an abomination. God Bless You and give You Peace …
 
Ok… that’s something I hadn’t heard before. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I guess that’s something I also have a problem with however. Does sex really only exist for procreation? Does it have no greater or lesser meaning within a relationship? Sex can be a tie that binds a couple together and enhances the love within a relationship… or as is common in Modern society, it can mean nothing more than a mutual attraction between two people as a prelude to a potential relationship.

Why IS sex’s only purpose for procreation? Our bodies certainly have a lot of other side effects involved…

Also, can we even define sex in a homosexual relationship as sex within the Church’s definition? There is no possibility of pregnancy occuring… obviously, as the parts don’t line up. How can we even compare the two, really?
Hello,

Sex can only be good if it is BOTH unitive and procreative. One without the other renders the act sinful.

Homosexuality is ‘unitive’ but NOT pro-creative. Thus it is sinful.

Similarly, if you take an act like In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), it is pro-creative but NOT unitive. Thus it is also sinful.

These aside, you should be able to see that Homosexuality is disordered just by the act. The male sexual organ for an example were not designed to enter the anus of another human. It is bad for health of participants. Hence it is clearly not natural. It does not comply with the reason an individual has been given the sexual faculties.

Now to get deeper in to this, your problem actually lies in the fact that you are not sure of God and Christ. After all, if God does not exist, everything is certainly permissible. So the first question you should approach as a searcher is to see if God exists and Christ rose from the dead. If those things are indeed true, then you can bow to the authority of Scripture, Tradition and Church.

Then on you believe by faith that the Church teaches the truth as long as what the church teaches agrees with Tradition and Scripture. You might/ might not be able to verify that they indeed are true by ‘reason’ before it is too late. For an example, Thomas Aquinas set down the foundation philosophically for some of the Catholic theological beliefs. But this obviously does not mean we Catholics could have disobeyed or disbelieved those things before (a good example is the transubstantiation).

So if you don’t understand how something is taught by the church, that does not mean you can deny them. As long as the teachings are consistent with Scripture and Tradition (Note: You cannot argue the interpretation here since the Church has the AUTHORITY and Guidance of the Holy Spirit to pick interpretation infallibly) you must accept the Church. In this sense, if the Church came out tomorrow and said Homosexuality is OK, then Catholics should truly loose their faith. The Church has violated Tradition and Scripture. Similarly the Faith vs. Works and all the other denominational dilemma should not be a problem ONCE you establish God and Christ PROPERLY. That will lead you to the acceptance of Scripture, Tradition and the Catholic Church as authority.

In short, I think you need to first nail down the basis of every truth.
  1. Do you believe in God?
  2. Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God who died on the cross and rose from the dead?
If you answer is ‘No’ or ‘Not sure’ to the above, then it is not much use trying to understand how the Catholic teaching makes sense. You do not enter the Catholic Church because you LIKE the morality it promotes, rather, you enter the Catholic Church because you know it promotes the TRUE morality. 👍

God Bless 🙂
 
In short, I think you need to first nail down the basis of every truth.
  1. Do you believe in God?
  2. Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God who died on the cross and rose from the dead?
If you answer is ‘No’ or ‘Not sure’ to the above, then it is not much use trying to understand how the Catholic teaching makes sense.
It is incorrect to state that a delusion never makes any sort of sense. However, delusions ignore observations which limit them, and they refuse to participate in logic which will lead to differing conclusions. There is nothing to be known on a subject which will render the reason of delusion invalid, for its inherent intuition has revealed all things to itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top