It's NOT in the Bible

[Nicea325]

Hey nicea325, How true. This is the way with many Protestants that i know. Little or no early church history in their back round. They have only been taught from Luther forward.
Completely unaware of how much more there is to it.
Great post…

Matthew

Thanks!

Unfortunately some folks will never accept it or actually never fully comprehend Jesus founded His Church.He did not write the Bible and state His church will be submissive to the written word.

 

[spiral]

I didn’t read all 11 pages of posts, so I apologize if this point has already been brought up. For my own part, as a former Baptist, we believed in the “Bible alone” because, to our minds, there was simply nothing else other than the Bible. What I mean is that we had no knowledge of any oral traditions outside of the Bible (sometimes I think Catholics overestimate how much Protestants know about Catholicism ). Had we known of any such extra-Biblical oral traditions, we may have been somewhat doubtful of their veracity due to the fact that anything passed along orally is generally more malleable and prone to change than something that is written down. However, had we had access to an oral tradition that had later been written down (but not so much later that it was likely to have been changed over time; perhaps writings by the early church fathers might fit the bill), we would have been more likely to believe in and adopt those traditions. Hopefully other Baptists are more knowledgeable than we were, but we didn’t know anything about the history of the Bible or the history of the Christian church; all we knew about was the Bible. So that’s what we used. In our case, it wasn’t so much “rejecting” oral traditions, as simply being ignorant of their existence. The Bible was all we used because the Bible was all we had.

 

[SteveGC]

I didn’t read all 11 pages of posts, so I apologize if this point has already been brought up. For my own part, as a former Baptist, we believed in the “Bible alone” because, to our minds, there was simply nothing else other than the Bible. What I mean is that we had no knowledge of any oral traditions outside of the Bible (sometimes I think Catholics overestimate how much Protestants know about Catholicism ). Had we known of any such extra-Biblical oral traditions, we may have been somewhat doubtful of their veracity due to the fact that anything passed along orally is generally more malleable and prone to change than something that is written down. However, had we had access to an oral tradition that had later been written down (but not so much later that it was likely to have been changed over time; perhaps writings by the early church fathers might fit the bill), we would have been more likely to believe in and adopt those traditions. Hopefully other Baptists are more knowledgeable than we were, but we didn’t know anything about the history of the Bible or the history of the Christian church; all we knew about was the Bible. So that’s what we used. In our case, it wasn’t so much “rejecting” oral traditions, as simply being ignorant of their existence. The Bible was all we used because the Bible was all we had.

And this amazes me, because I also recall a time pre-conversion when it simply did not occur to me to have any concern for the origin of this Book about Jesus that contained so much about my salvation, or lack thereof. I simply followed along with whatever the local community was doing. I think it had to do with the fact that I wasn’t really aware of the concept of denominations, or even the idea of protestantism. Heck, as a teenager, I didn’t really even know what Catholicism was, much less that it was Christian. So, I suppose I was just assuming (perhaps like many others) that what we were doing was the only Christian game in town (and in the world). So, I guess as far as I knew, the Bible simply came along with this Christian practice I was a part of, and there was really no need to question it’s origin. I’m sure a huge part of it stemmed from my lukewarmness as well. Hard to be concerned about the authenticity of your faith, when you’re barely engaged in it.

But what still baffles me is how people who are clearly engaged in their non-Catholic Christianity, clearly engaged in their faith, in their Bible, and fully aware of the disunity and divisiveness of Christianity, of protestantism and Catholicism, do not seem to worry one iota about the origin of the Book they hold up as the final authority of their religion.

 

[spiral]

But what still baffles me is how people who are clearly engaged in their non-Catholic Christianity, clearly engaged in their faith, in their Bible, and fully aware of the disunity and divisiveness of Christianity, of protestantism and Catholicism, do not seem to worry one iota about the origin of the Book they hold up as the final authority of their religion.

For my own part, I just sort of assumed that since the books of the New Testament were all authored by various disciples, that those disciples must have gotten together at some point and assembled everything. I never heard of the council of Nicaea until it was mentioned in my high school history class. I’ve got a feeling that most of the other people in my church had a similar hazy notion of the authoring apostles “getting together and putting it together”; and if you think the NT comes straight from the apostles, there’s no real reason to question it, which could explain the lack of curiosity among many people about the Bible’s origins.

 

[vsedriver]

Anyone who wants one. That won’t change whether or not it actually is or is not objectively sinful.

so how do you determine if something like contraception is sinful or not?

 

[Jaboshua]

That is why it is necessary to have an authoritative interpreter. The Catholic Church (East and West) is the only consistent authority to interpret the scripture she assembled.

Can you please show me where I can get the interpretation of catholic scriptures? I have the catechism, but that’s only interpretation and explaination of catholic dogma, not alot of scripture there, or if there is, it is usually interpreting their reasoning for traditional unbiblical tradition. What I am trying to say is… is there a catholic concordance?

 

[Jaboshua]

so how do you determine if something like contraception is sinful or not?

Check your catechism, it reveals all. Woke me up anyway.

 

[Jaboshua]

I didn’t read all 11 pages of posts, so I apologize if this point has already been brought up. For my own part, as a former Baptist, we believed in the “Bible alone” because, to our minds, there was simply nothing else other than the Bible. What I mean is that we had no knowledge of any oral traditions outside of the Bible (sometimes I think Catholics overestimate how much Protestants know about Catholicism ). Had we known of any such extra-Biblical oral traditions, we may have been somewhat doubtful of their veracity due to the fact that anything passed along orally is generally more malleable and prone to change than something that is written down. However, had we had access to an oral tradition that had later been written down (but not so much later that it was likely to have been changed over time; perhaps writings by the early church fathers might fit the bill), we would have been more likely to believe in and adopt those traditions. Hopefully other Baptists are more knowledgeable than we were, but we didn’t know anything about the history of the Bible or the history of the Christian church; all we knew about was the Bible. So that’s what we used. In our case, it wasn’t so much “rejecting” oral traditions, as simply being ignorant of their existence. The Bible was all we used because the Bible was all we had.

I didn’t read all the posts either…

But your bible, back in the day, was different than the one u use now(I pray u do) From a totally different part of the world, I think (the world was small back then). From what I have studied, it came from a region where Gnostics were prevalent, and where heretical documents, and forgeries were found to creep into, or triedtocreep into, the churches of that region. The catholic bible was what started my journey, too bad for me it’s all in vain, apparently.

 

[vsedriver]

You know what I’ll agree the Church of God changing to the Catholic Church did have the early Bible, but it took a while for them to interpret right? I disagree about the need for the Reformation, it was needed.
while there are differences in interpretation of scripture doesn’t mean the CC interpretation is right unless you believe it is, and believe their tradition.

So I disagree with you. The Church had the scriptures but who said the had the God given authority. Wait, the CC.

I think people see the bible as a manual from which a church was designed but it’s the other way around. The church was designed first and the Bible is the manual that was produced by the church so naturally the church has the full understanding of the interpretation of its own scriptures.

without the oral teaching of the apostles there would have been nothing to write down in the first place.

Jesus gave the authority to teach to the Church and therefore the Church has the full authority to interpret scripture.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Can you please show me where I can get the interpretation of catholic scriptures? I have the catechism, but that’s only interpretation and explaination of catholic dogma, not alot of scripture there, or if there is, it is usually interpreting their reasoning for traditional unbiblical tradition. What I am trying to say is… is there a catholic concordance?

A concordance is just a word search. I don’t see how that would work for you. The quick answers page I set up tells you where each doctrine is found in the Bible.

 

[vsedriver]

Not any more no, in some things fine, I know the history of the early beginning of the Church of God and that, and I’m sure the intention was well in the early years and they had to conform to the culture and emperors and then they slowly became very powerful, and well we know what happens when power get involved.

but the bible tells us that the Church is protected from the gates of hell so the Church can’t corrupt in her teachings or then Jesus has lied to us and left us orphans.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I didn’t read all the posts either…

But your bible, back in the day, was different than the one u use now(I pray u do) From a totally different part of the world, I think (the world was small back then). From what I have studied, it came from a region where Gnostics were prevalent, and where heretical documents, and forgeries were found to creep into, or triedtocreep into, the churches of that region. The catholic bible was what started my journey, too bad for me it’s all in vain, apparently.

What is this “catholic bible” you keep referring to?

 

[Bezant]

Not a fan of Sola Scriptura? AMEN I say to that!!!

Amen. I don’t know any religion that’s a) stayed true to it and b) survived for long.

 

[Jaboshua]

What is this “catholic bible” you keep referring to?

It’s the bible that I grew up not reading. I was just told things and believed them. Its from one source line,Egyptian i think, and new bibles that even exclude the Catholics extra biblical texts are translated from the same. The other is from Antioch, i think, maybe, it’s Byzantine in origin. I’m still learning, I just know they are different. I have lots of different ones, and lots of questions.

 

[Jaboshua]

A concordance is just a word search. I don’t see how that would work for you. The quick answers page I set up tells you where each doctrine is found in the Bible.

Yes, I want to see the words, languages, origins…the catechism does well enough to see where doctrine of Catholics and there dogma comes from. It’s useful.

Thanks

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Since we can’t resurrect threads over one year old I am re-posting Church Militant’s thread from Apologetics from a couple years ago.
I want to hear from our new members as to this subject.

Going back to the OP.

Which Bible are we talking about?

Roman Catholic =
Orthodox =
Non Roman Catholic/Orthodox =

 

[spiral]

But your bible, back in the day, was different than the one u use now(I pray u do) From a totally different part of the world, I think (the world was small back then). From what I have studied, it came from a region where Gnostics were prevalent, and where heretical documents, and forgeries were found to creep into, or triedtocreep into, the churches of that region. The catholic bible was what started my journey, too bad for me it’s all in vain, apparently.

It’s the bible that I grew up not reading. I was just told things and believed them. Its from one source line,Egyptian i think, and new bibles that even exclude the Catholics extra biblical texts are translated from the same. The other is from Antioch, i think, maybe, it’s Byzantine in origin. I’m still learning, I just know they are different. I have lots of different ones, and lots of questions.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re referring to. From what I’ve learned researching, the protestant bible is the catholic bible, with a handful of books removed. Are you referring to the Septuagint (which was translated in Egypt and consisted of the books of the old testament)?

vsedriver:

I think people see the bible as a manual from which a church was designed

That’s a good way of putting it. That’s essentially what I used to think, until I started learning the real story.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re referring to. From what I’ve learned researching, the protestant bible is the catholic bible, with a handful of books removed. Are you referring to the Septuagint (which was translated in Egypt and consisted of the books of the old testament)?

That’s a good way of putting it. That’s essentially what I used to think, until I started learning the real story.

Assuming that he is referring to the Septuagint, he should be aware that the Septuagint is much older (i.e. closer to the actual Old Testament events) than the Masoretic Text, which was compiled around 1000 A.D., and that the Septuagint is the Bible that was actually used by Jesus and the Apostles. According to a Protestant source, the Trinitarian Bible Society:

Perhaps one of the most important instances of the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint is Matthew 1.23, in which the Gospel writer quotes Isaiah 7.14. The Hebrew word almah, argued by some in our day to indicate a young woman of marriageable age but one not necessarily a virgin, is translated in the Septuagint as parthenos. This Greek word means virgin, indicating that the Jewish translators before the time of Christ understood the prophecy correctly. Other Jews after the advent of the Christian era translated the word into Greek as neanis, ‘young woman’, in order to distance the prophecy from fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew quotes the Septuagint, applying it to Jesus.

Other New Testament writers also used the clear translation from the Septuagint in their writings. In Hebrews 1.6 is a quotation from Psalm 97.7. The Old Testament passage speaks of the “graven images”, “idols” and “gods”. The final word in Hebrew is elohim (gods); the Septuagint renders this aggeloi (angels). The book of Hebrews takes the Septuagint rendering and incorporates it, in which is urged that “all the angels of God” worship Jesus.

However, the Septuagint continues to fill a place, particularly in Bible translation. The Hebrew of the Old Testament, while beautiful in its phrasing and form, is not always clear. The Septuagint, having been translated without anti-Christian bias and without the warping of modern liberal or neo-orthodox theology, provides an edition of the Old Testament which predates the earliest available Hebrew manuscript. Thus, although inferior to the Hebrew text, on occasion the Septuagint is a helpful aid in translation and Old Testament study.
…
More beneficial to the average Christian is the acknowledgement that our Saviour and His closest disciples used a translation of the Scriptures.

If he wants to see the actual Septuagint, here it is.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Another word for Testament is Covenant. the Bible essentially is about God’s Covenant with his Creation; the 6 Covenants of the Old Testament/Covenant & the most perfect 7th Covenant of Jesus Christ in the New Testament/Covenant. :heaven:

Dr Scott Hahn explains this better than anyone - see his books especially “Lamb of God” and series on EWTN for more. He has singlehandedly put the Bible in an far more supernatural light for me that any other writings or explanations I have EVER read.

It would seem the Church, since it’s the caretaker of the Bible, has had centuries to study and digest it. A major problem with denom’s, sects would be perhaps be a lack of scholarship; The Church understands the different LAYERS of MEANING of scripture (literal, allegory etc) especially what is said IMPLICITLY and EXPLICITLY. I suspect that is what gives rise to: “It’s not in the Bible”.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Since we can’t resurrect threads over one year old I am re-posting Church Militant’s thread from Apologetics from a couple years ago.
I want to hear from our new members as to this subject.

Stupid post about your saying about “practice”: cars, airplanes, space shuttles, microscopes, electrons, Big-Bang, are not in the Bible.