Jesus's claims to divinity?

[guanophore]

Why do you choose to believe I am unaware of this? You talk of heresies as if they ceased and all things were complete in the first 300 years of the church. Yet, debates waged on for generations, for years, even centuries.

It seems you are unaware because the heresies you are now espousing were defeated before the bible was formed, by the Church.

I agree, heresies do continue, and even those defeated in the early years of the Church continue to rear their ugly heads today.

You make claim that the church did not hunt down or persecute anyone in the first 300 years because she was hunted. Yet, I tell you this, the true church, the true bride of Christ has never hunted or persecuted anyone. Only false churches have done such things, torturing and murdering all who disagree with them.

Actually, the Catholic Church did not hunt or persecute anyone. However, I will concede that wicked men, calling themselves Catholic, and believing they were acting in the interest of Christ, did such things. The Catholic Church does not believe or teach this type of wicked action. Here in the area where I live, there is commemorated a Catholic Spaniard who enslaved the natives. When they escaped, he would cut off their foot. Horrible. They put up a statue of him here, and the natives came in the night, and cut off the foot.

This is not part of the Catholic faith.

Vengence is my sayeth the Lord. The church was never given premission from God to force others into the faith upon threat of torture or and murder.

Amen.

There have been many men, however, through the history of the world, who have done such things in the name of God.

Jesus said to love your enemies. To turn the other cheek.

And many of the true faith, many who stood upon and stand upon the gospel of Jesus Christ were, are, and will be put to death until the time Christ comes and destroys his enemies by the brightness of his coming.

And this will get worse before he comes.

I believe that if the apostles would have accepted these interpretations decided upon by these councils they would have said so themselves.

How is that, since the councils occurred after their deaths? I thought you did not believe in the communion of saints?

You are adding to the Word of God by claiming it was oral, and not written.

No, not a bit. The word of God was never confined to any writing, however Sacred. All that is in the NT was first given by the Apostles orally. It was not any less the Word of God when it was oral.

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

The word of God has been at work in the church since the Apostles preached it.

The Scripture should never be separated from the Apostolic Tradition that produced it. The Reformers separated themselves from this about 500 years ago, when they rejected the fullness of the Divine Deposit of Faith in the Catholic Church.

I believe the reformation period was like a new start for the church. You believe if a person breaks away from your belief system they are wrong.

Indeed, this is true. The Reformers did start new churches. They were based upon themselves, rather than upon the foundation of apostles an prophets, as the Church Jesus founded is. It is not my “belief system”, heis. It is the faith handed down to us by the Apostles. Yes, those who break away from the One Divine Deposit of Faith do fall into error.

Yet, what if they are right. How do you think God will judge you?

No, because it is not for me to decide. It is for me to embrace the Teaching of the Apostles. By doing that, I must, of necessity, reject as heresies all that contradicts what they gave to the Church. This includes the errors of the Reformers.

Do you pray to statues?

No, the first commandment states that I must have no other God’s before Him.

Do you wear madalions of your saints on your person?

Sometimes, and sometimes I wear a locket with my grandmother’s picture.

Have you ever kissed a statue?

No, but I have wept in front of one. I wept when I went to Gettysburg, and visited the battlefields, and read the address.

Have you ever kneeled before another man?

Absolutely! Every time I enter the dojo I bow to my sensei, and when we get ready to start class, we all kneel and meditate, then bow to the instructor from a kneeling position with our foreheads to the ground. This is the custom in the East.

Until you know what Idoltry truly is, I suggest you be careful on addressing the Word of God as an idol.

Pretending that the Holy Scriptures are the same as Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, would be an idolatry for me.

For it is written, that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. To deny the Word is to deny Christ himself.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Heis,

You should check out the Greek for"published" in the NT. There are several different words that are used and none of them mean what we mean today by “published.” In the broad sense they mean to make something known that is very important, and to proclaim it publicly, or of something coming to be (i.e. miracles, events, etc.). Here is a protestant resource.

All my best . . .

And which greek are we speaking of, for there was a several different dialects if I am not mistaken? Now, if you want to seek out which greek dialect was used in the days of the apostles and choose that, then you may have a viable argument. Yet, to just claim that I should check out the greek word for published is vague.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5606873]It seems you are unaware because the heresies you are now espousing were defeated before the bible was formed, by the Church.

That’s funny. The letters of the bible were passed to each of the churches, but because they had not been compiled in a book by the CC, they could not be considered scripture, doctrine, the bible?

The heresies were spoken of by more then one apostle. You say the heresies were defeated, but if that is true, how is it they exist today. Did you even stop to think you might be on the wrong side of the heresies band wagon?

I agree, heresies do continue, and even those defeated in the early years of the Church continue to rear their ugly heads today.

Again, the so called heresies you claim to be defeated do exist yet today. Now, I do agree there are heresies, but I believe they stem more on the broader side of the fence, not the narrow side.

For it is written, the road to heaven is narrow, difficult, and few will find it. Yet, the road to hell is wide,easy, and most will take the easy path.

Actually, the Catholic Church did not hunt or persecute anyone. However, I will concede that wicked men, calling themselves Catholic, and believing they were acting in the interest of Christ, did such things. The Catholic Church does not believe or teach this type of wicked action. Here in the area where I live, there is commemorated a Catholic Spaniard who enslaved the natives. When they escaped, he would cut off their foot. Horrible. They put up a statue of him here, and the natives came in the night, and cut off the foot.

So no catholic popes or bishops or priests or deacons or cardinals ever gave an order to jail, punish, torture mentally and physically, or put to death anyone? And all who did under the banner of the CC, were not truly catholic?

That is stretching it a bit I think.

There have been many men, however, through the history of the world, who have done such things in the name of God.

A perfect example is the man who just recently killed a abortionist doctor. Was the man doing the will of God or the devil?

And this will get worse before he comes.

Certainly it will get worse. Just as in the days of Noah, the same will be in this end days. For men had become so evil, their every thought was evil. Once the church has been raptured from off the earth, I believe the evilness that remains will be equivalant to that in the days of Noah.

How is that, since the councils occurred after their deaths? I thought you did not believe in the communion of saints?

The councils debated over things that they felt was not accomplished by the apostles. In other words, they added to the words of the apostles who were given the Word of God through the unction of the Holy Spirit. To debate over such things as how many natures did Jesus have, to debate that Jesus is himself God the Father did nothing but create chaos in the church. Many people were hunted and persecuted because of the decisions made by these councils causing a permanant rift that exists even today.

You talk of the reformation period as a rift or departure from the true faith, but you do not understand that the falling away began long before someone decided to call each church catholic.

No, not a bit. The word of God was never confined to any writing, however Sacred. All that is in the NT was first given by the Apostles orally. It was not any less the Word of God when it was oral.

So the letters written by Paul were not written till years later, the gospels were not written to years later, the book of Revelations was not written till years later, after the death of the apostles. They were all given orally by the apostles to the church, and years later, after the death of the apostles, they were finally written down?

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

The word of God has been at work in the church since the Apostles preached it.

Is it not written that though the foolishness of preaching, the Word of God was given to men?

The Scripture should never be separated from the Apostolic Tradition that produced it. The Reformers separated themselves from this about 500 years ago, when they rejected the fullness of the Divine Deposit of Faith in the Catholic Church.

The only thing that was rejected was the fact the reformers believed the each man should be able to have a bible to read for himself, thus rejecting the catholic stand that the bible was to be given to the people by way of the catholic interpretation. The bible was not meant to be kept from the hands of all men.

Indeed, this is true. The Reformers did start new churches. They were based upon themselves, rather than upon the foundation of apostles an prophets, as the Church Jesus founded is. It is not my “belief system”, heis. It is the faith handed down to us by the Apostles. Yes, those who break away from the One Divine Deposit of Faith do fall into error.

You can blame the reformers all you like, but there was splits in the church long before the Reformation Period.

No, because it is not for me to decide. It is for me to embrace the Teaching of the Apostles. By doing that, I must, of necessity, reject as heresies all that contradicts what they gave to the Church. This includes the errors of the Reformers.

You claim to reject heresies, but if the bible says one thing and the CC says another, you ignore the bible completely claiming oral tradition.

Sometimes, and sometimes I wear a locket with my grandmother’s picture.

You never took a pendant of a saint and kissed it or prayed to it?

Absolutely! Every time I enter the dojo I bow to my sensei, and when we get ready to start class, we all kneel and meditate, then bow to the instructor from a kneeling position with our foreheads to the ground. This is the custom in the East.

I did the same when I was young and ignorant. I would not do it today.

Pretending that the Holy Scriptures are the same as Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, would be an idolatry for me.

You are not arguing with me, but the Word of God. For it is written, Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

For it is written, that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. To deny the Word is to deny Christ himself.

You wrote the above yourself, but you do not believe.

 

[guanophore]

And which greek are we speaking of, for there was a several different dialects if I am not mistaken? Now, if you want to seek out which greek dialect was used in the days of the apostles and choose that, then you may have a viable argument. Yet, to just claim that I should check out the greek word for published is vague.

This is a pretty lame excuse, heis. All the known uses of this word are the same. You just don’t want to concede that God is able to protect His Word in the Church as well as He can in the Scripture.

 

[Convert66]

And which greek are we speaking of, for there was a several different dialects if I am not mistaken? Now, if you want to seek out which greek dialect was used in the days of the apostles and choose that, then you may have a viable argument. Yet, to just claim that I should check out the greek word for published is vague.

Do you know what a dialect is? If I live in Oklahoma (imagine that, I actually do live in Oklahoma) we say things like “ya’ll.” If we lived in Michigan, we may say, “you’s guys.” If we lived in Utah (and I have) then we may say “all of you.”

They mean the same thing.

For the NT, the most common dialect is Koine’, I believe. Any Protestant source will giv you the same meaning for “published” as any Catholic source. You’re dissembling.

 

[guanophore]

That’s funny. The letters of the bible were passed to each of the churches, but because they had not been compiled in a book by the CC, they could not be considered scripture, doctrine, the bible?

No, heis, they were not. There were whole parts of the Roman Empire that some of the letters did not reach. Some churches had posession of, and were using documents that were later not included in the canon, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. There was quite a bit of disagreement about which books were inspired, and which were not, and out of the 400+ being examined, which should be included in the canon.

There were letters that were considered inspired that were not included, and some of those that were later included were not considered by some to be inspired.

The heresies were spoken of by more then one apostle. You say the heresies were defeated, but if that is true, how is it they exist today. Did you even stop to think you might be on the wrong side of the heresies band wagon?

By defeated I mean that God revealed His eternal Truth to the Church, just as He promised. He also was clear that people would continue to fall into error. That is why it is so important to have an infallible guide.

Yes, I was on the wrong side (espousing heretical beliefs) for a long time.

Again, the so called heresies you claim to be defeated do exist yet today. Now, I do agree there are heresies, but I believe they stem more on the broader side of the fence, not the narrow side.

Of course, you must believe this, in order to justify yourself.

So no catholic popes or bishops or priests or deacons or cardinals ever gave an order to jail, punish, torture mentally and physically, or put to death anyone? And all who did under the banner of the CC, were not truly catholic?

You are confusing the actions of sinful men with the actions of the pure and infallible bride of Christ. The Church cannot sin because she has as her Head Christ Himself, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that prevent her from error. When men sin, they separate themselves from His Holiness.

A perfect example is the man who just recently killed a abortionist doctor. Was the man doing the will of God or the devil?

The Catholic Church teaches that it is a sin to commit murder. The end does not justify the means. We are not in a seat high enough to judge the souls of such men. Only God can do that.

The councils debated over things that they felt was not accomplished by the apostles. In other words, they added to the words of the apostles who were given the Word of God through the unction of the Holy Spirit.

No, heis. The debates had nothing to do iwth how they “felt”. The debates had to do with understanding how to apply what the Apostles taught to the issues of the day. There were issues that emerged that did not exist in the time of the Apostles. When new heresies arose, the Church had to take action to shepherd the flock into all Truth. One of these issues was to define the canon - something not possible in the times of the Apostles.

To debate over such things as how many natures did Jesus have, to debate that Jesus is himself God the Father did nothing but create chaos in the church.

No, heis. Chaos was present. the debates afforded the opportunity to deliver the faithful from chaos. The devil always wants to split the Body fo Christ by such chaos.

 Many people were hunted and persecuted because of the decisions made by these councils causing a permanant rift that exists even today.

No, heis. The decisions made by the councils guided the Church into all Truth. The people who were hunted and persecuted were victims of the pride, arrogance, and sometimes the fears of sinful persons who did not understand the principles that Jesus taught. When the Councils condemned heresies, they did so just as the Apostles did. It was not a license to kill,. but a statement of one’s faith becoming shipwrecked if they refused the revelation of God.

You talk of the reformation period as a rift or departure from the true faith, but you do not understand that the falling away began long before someone decided to call each church catholic.

No, heis, you are in error. I understand a lot more about the rifts in the church than you think. I do agree with you, that they falling away began long before the Reformation.

The Apostles called the Church Catholic, as is reflected in the NT, and the letters of the early fathers.

So the letters written by Paul were not written till years later, the gospels were not written to years later, the book of Revelations was not written till years later, after the death of the apostles. They were all given orally by the apostles to the church, and years later, after the death of the apostles, they were finally written down?

No. Your understanding of the history of scripture is very limited. The Apostles taught the doctrine that we see in scripture before any of it was written. The earliest letter we have is 20 years after the Church was born. The entire collection was not brought together for centuries.

 

[guanophore]

The only thing that was rejected was the fact the reformers believed the each man should be able to have a bible to read for himself, thus rejecting the catholic stand that the bible was to be given to the people by way of the catholic interpretation. The bible was not meant to be kept from the hands of all men.

The Catholic Church did not “keep the bible from the hands of all men”. You have been indoctrinated by anti-catholic drivel. The reason that the average person did not have a bible is that they had to be copied by hand.

Anyway, the Reformers rejected a great deal more than just the guidance of the Apostles in reading the scripture.

You can blame the reformers all you like, but there was splits in the church long before the Reformation Period.

It is not really about placing blame. The problem is that there are divisions in the Body, and we are all responsible to heal them. When you reject what the Apostles entrusted to the Church, and embrace falsehoods, you contribute to the divisions.

You claim to reject heresies, but if the bible says one thing and the CC says another, you ignore the bible completely claiming oral tradition.

No, heis. There are no contradictions between the Holy Scritpure, and the teaching of the Apostles in the Church. They both came from the same Source, and cannot contradict one another. The reason that they seem to contradict to you is because you don’t understand either of them.

You never took a pendant of a saint and kissed it or prayed to it?

I have kissed a picture of my grandmother. The only praying to inanimate objects I have done is to ask the plants in my garden to hurry up and make produce before the frost.

You are not arguing with me, but the Word of God. For it is written, Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

I am arguing with your perceptions of the Word of God.

You wrote the above yourself, but you do not believe.

I do believe. I understand it differently than you do . That alone should demonstrate why Jesus gave us a teaching authority to settle such disputes. This is what He meant when He said “take it to the Church”.

 

[Dan_Parker]

guanophore:
The Catholic Church did not “keep the bible from the hands of all men”. You have been indoctrinated by anti-catholic drivel. The reason that the average person did not have a bible is that they had to be copied by hand.

Dan:
Actually there is more to the story. People like William Tyndale were killed for trying to translate the bible into the common language of the people.

Another wiki article relates:

Tyndale’s purpose was to “[cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more scripture] than the clergy of the day”, many of which were poorly educated. Thus Tyndale sought to undermine the Catholic Church’s grip on the both access to and interpretation of scripture. They were no longer needed as intercessors between the people and their God.

Dan

 

[Convert66]

Dan,

Tyndale was charged, arrested and killed by order of King Henry VIII after the whole messy business with the Church over Catherine of Aragon was done, and after Henry had declared himself the “only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England” under the 1534 Act of Supremacy (a year before Tyndale’s arrest and execution). Tyndale made the mistake of arguing against the validity of Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn publicly before fleeing to Brussels (a Catholic City known for its tolerance). If the Church wanted Tyndale, he’d walked right into their grasp in Brussels. Instead, it was Henry VIII that had him tied to a stake and strangled before his corpse was burned.

Olde English translations of the Bible had been around since the 7th century, and Middle English in the 14th century.

Also, the Church have never much feared being displaced by the Scriptures as an “intercessor between the people and God” because the Scriptures have no valid ordination to perform the Sacraments. What the Church “feared” was a bunch of semi-literates with bad translations making up doctrines for personal advantage and leading people astray, which is precisely what happened.

I’m afraid the drivel got you too.

All my best . . .

 

[Convert66]

Continued . . .

Actually it was almost 2 years after the Act of Supremacy before Tyndale was executed by order of King Henry VIII.

Because of this (I should’ve mentioned in my last post) the wikipedia article is wrong in its assertion that “the Catholic Church burned him at the stake in 1536”. It was Henry who ordered his arrest, imprisonment and execution by strangulation before his corpse was burned.

The only “persecutions” Tyndale faced from the Church was to have his anti-clerical mistranslations of the NT burned.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Continued . . .

Actually it was almost 2 years after the Act of Supremacy before Tyndale was executed by order of King Henry VIII.

Because of this (I should’ve mentioned in my last post) the wikipedia article is wrong in its assertion that “the Catholic Church burned him at the stake in 1536”. It was Henry who ordered his arrest, imprisonment and execution by strangulation before his corpse was burned.

The only “persecutions” Tyndale faced from the Church was to have his anti-clerical mistranslations of the NT burned.

I did not say that the Catholic Church burned Tyndale at the stake and did not read that the Wiki article said they did. I will read that again. I thought it was the Church of England. My point for posting this was that an earlier poster said that the reason the common people could not read the bible is because they were expensive. However the real reason is because they were not translated into a language they could understand. When the bible was translated into the common tongue they were still expensive, but just like at the Jewish synagogues, one could go and hear readings from the bible in one’s own language.

Dan

 

[Convert66]

Dan,

In the article you cited it also says that Olde English translations were around since the 7th century (which coincidentally is about the time that the Anglo-Saxon languages evolved into recognizable Olde English) and in Middle English since the 14th.

The reason people did not read the Scriptures for themselves had little to do with being available in their native tongues, because even if they had been abundantly available in the native tongues there were a handful of people that could read.

All my best . . .

**Edited to add: The labor and expense of hand-copying surely was one factor in why there weren’t more translations and copies available, but since the literacy levels ran around 10% of any given population an abundance would have made little difference. The risk of private interpetation was very real, as well. I suppose there were many valid reasons that the Church had for their obstinance. Tyndale’s translation was erroneous, as was Luther’s German NT (which Tyndale relied upon heavily while in Worms). This is not a small matter, despite protestant hagiography to the contrary. (note–small “p” to distinguish protestant sectarianism from the Reformation at large).

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

In the article you cited it also says that Olde English translations were around since the 7th century (which coincidentally is about the time that the Anglo-Saxon languages evolved into recognizable Olde English) and in Middle English since the 14th.

The reason people did not read the Scriptures for themselves had little to do with being available in their native tongues, because even if they had been abundantly available in the native tongues there were a handful of people that could read.

All my best . . .

In my recent post to you I said

When the bible was translated into the common tongue they were still expensive, but just like at the Jewish synagogues, one could go and hear readings from the bible in one’s own language.

In those days people also memorized an amazing amount of material.

Dan

 

[Convert66]

In my recent post to you I said

In those days people also memorized an amazing amount of material.

Dan

What “people”? The farmer that Tyndale sought to enlighten? If so, then I suppose the Catholic farmer was just as able to ask the priest what the Latin translations meant in his own vernacular and memorize those. Also, it is important to note that English is derived from many other languages (Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Dutch, etc.) and one of the most prevalent was Latin, which was the Biblical lingua franca. I assume the ignorant farmer with amazing powers of memorization had memorized a lot of Latin as well, since his vernacular was based upon that ancient language at least as readily as upon any other.

All my best . . .

 

[Dan_Parker]

What “people”? The farmer that Tyndale sought to enlighten? If so, then I suppose the Catholic farmer was just as able to ask the priest what the Latin translations meant in his own vernacular and memorize those. Also, it is important to note that English is derived from many other languages (Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Dutch, etc.) and one of the most prevalent was Latin, which was the Biblical lingua franca. I assume the ignorant farmer with amazing powers of memorization had memorized a lot of Latin as well, since his vernacular was based upon that ancient language at least as readily as upon any other.

All my best . . .

My point is that one need not have a copy of the bible to recite passages once one has heard them. I have no doubt someone could memorize Latin without understanding it but it is my experience that hearing, speaking and listening to the God’s word in one’s own language reaches the heart and is more motivating.

Don’t underestimate the humble people such as those Jesus selected as his apostles. They may not have been taught to read and write but they are not stupid.

Dan

 

[Convert66]

Dan,

I think you glossed right past the point I was trying to make. Being one of the “humble people” myself (I never finished school) I can certainly appreciate the simple folks’ abilities, which is why I pointed out that the English language is in large part derived from Latin which was the language of Scripture in Tyndale’s day.

It is something of a red herring to say that Tyndale’s guiding desire was to get the Bible into the hands of the poor, illiterate farmer who could not read them before undergoing an intense literacy campaign in the first place. And if the farmer had such amazing powers of memorization then he could have simply memorized the Latin readings and transliterated so many of the words which were already in a vernacular that he spoke every day of the week.

In addition, Tyndale’s NT was based upon Luther’s German NT complete with the same deliberate translational errors in order to downplay the priesthood, the Church, the Sacraments and Charity,. . .that is, to deliberately protestantize the Scriptures. This doesn’t strike me as philanthropy let alone intellectual honesty. It is rather reminiscent of an anti-clericalism that is still with us today (I don’t need no Priest—but I do need commentaries, study guides and a good Pastor).

And as I said earlier, the Church had zero reason to fear the Scriptures in the hands of the people because the Church, by it’s own lights, is the necessary intercessor/intermediary in administering valid Sacraments. The poor illiterate farmer with amazing powers of memorization can still never perform a valid Mass, hear confession or grant absolution, nor can he ordain another cleric or bless a Sacramental marriage or give Last Rites, so the Church had zero to fear from the farmer having the Scriptures in his humble little home.

What the Church was against, were bad translations (like Luther’s and Tyndales) in the hands of untrained and uneducated farmers who would innovate new doctrines and potentially disrupt the unity of Christ’s Church; which is precisely what happened.

And again, Tyndale was murdered by King Henry VIII’s orders almost two years AFTER he had declared himself the “only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England” not because of his NT, but because Tyndale had publicly denounced Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it, despite what wikipedia has to say. His “persecution” at the hands of the Catholic Church consisted of having his erroneous translations of the NT destroyed.

All my best . . .

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

I think you glossed right past the point I was trying to make. Being one of the “humble people” myself (I never finished school) I can certainly appreciate the simple folks’ abilities, which is why I pointed out that the English language is in large part derived from Latin which was the language of Scripture in Tyndale’s day.

It is something of a red herring to say that Tyndale’s guiding desire was to get the Bible into the hands of the poor, illiterate farmer who could not read them before undergoing an intense literacy campaign in the first place. And if the farmer had such amazing powers of memorization then he could have simply memorized the Latin readings and transliterated so many of the words which were already in a vernacular that he spoke every day of the week.

In addition, Tyndale’s NT was based upon Luther’s German NT complete with the same deliberate translational errors in order to downplay the priesthood, the Church, the Sacraments and Charity,. . .that is, to deliberately protestantize the Scriptures. This doesn’t strike me as philanthropy let alone intellectual honesty. It is rather reminiscent of an anti-clericalism that is still with us today (I don’t need no Priest—but I do need commentaries, study guides and a good Pastor).

And as I said earlier, the Church had zero reason to fear the Scriptures in the hands of the people because the Church, by it’s own lights, is the necessary intercessor/intermediary in administering valid Sacraments. The poor illiterate farmer with amazing powers of memorization can still never perform a valid Mass, hear confession or grant absolution, nor can he ordain another cleric or bless a Sacramental marriage or give Last Rites, so the Church had zero to fear from the farmer having the Scriptures in his humble little home.

What the Church was against, were bad translations (like Luther’s and Tyndales) in the hands of untrained and uneducated farmers who would innovate new doctrines and potentially disrupt the unity of Christ’s Church; which is precisely what happened.

And again, Tyndale was murdered by King Henry VIII’s orders almost two years AFTER he had declared himself the “only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England” not because of his NT, but because Tyndale had publicly denounced Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it, despite what wikipedia has to say. His “persecution” at the hands of the Catholic Church consisted of having his erroneous translations of the NT destroyed.

All my best . . .

I don’t support either the Church of England or the Catholic Church, however it would seem to me that if they had not waited so long to translate the bible into the common vernacular they could have saved everyone a lot of trouble…

Dan

 

[heiscominginthe]

This is a pretty lame excuse, heis. All the known uses of this word are the same. You just don’t want to concede that God is able to protect His Word in the Church as well as He can in the Scripture.

You can call it lame if you like. Yet, the proof is in the pudding.

For instance, the greek that was used to translate the Vulgate was supposedly older then the greek used to in the Revised Standard version if I am not mistaken. Yet, at the time of the Revised Standard version, it was believed that an older greek dialect had been discovered, thus many believed the Revised was the authority. This created allot of problems.

Yet, it was over time proven the greek in the Revised was indeed not older than the Vulgate.

Yet, it was also proven the the greek used in the King James was older then both the Vulgate and the Revised Standard.

Don’t take my word for it. Search it out for yourself.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Do you know what a dialect is? If I live in Oklahoma (imagine that, I actually do live in Oklahoma) we say things like “ya’ll.” If we lived in Michigan, we may say, “you’s guys.” If we lived in Utah (and I have) then we may say “all of you.”

They mean the same thing.

For the NT, the most common dialect is Koine’, I believe. Any Protestant source will giv you the same meaning for “published” as any Catholic source. You’re dissembling.

Noah Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language
(n.) The form of speech of a limited region or people, as distinguished from ether forms nearly related to it; a variety or subdivision of a language; speech characterized by local peculiarities or specific circumstances; as, the Ionic and Attic were dialects of Greece; the Yorkshire dialect; the dialect of the learned.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5630833]The Catholic Church did not “keep the bible from the hands of all men”. You have been indoctrinated by anti-catholic drivel. The reason that the average person did not have a bible is that they had to be copied by hand.

Really? Let me see, I believe the catholic bible was in latin and was able to be viewed by people who came to the church. And since most people did not know latin, they had to rely on the catholic interpretation. That is why when men attempted to translate the Word of God into other languages, the catholic church fought against it.

Anyway, the Reformers rejected a great deal more than just the guidance of the Apostles in reading the scripture.

Rejecting catholic authority and interpretation did not prevent them from understanding the Holy Writ. For the bible comes to the knowledge of a man, not by way of the CC, but by way of the Holy Spirit.

It is not really about placing blame. The problem is that there are divisions in the Body, and we are all responsible to heal them. When you reject what the Apostles entrusted to the Church, and embrace falsehoods, you contribute to the divisions.

Then why do you continue to stay in the CC?

No, heis. There are no contradictions between the Holy Scritpure, and the teaching of the Apostles in the Church. They both came from the same Source, and cannot contradict one another. The reason that they seem to contradict to you is because you don’t understand either of them.

You have volumes and volumes of interpretations by pope after pope after pope instituting their interpretations over the centuries, often times this pope changing that popes interpretation.

As for not understanding your interpretation, what I don’t understand is how you can disregard what the Word of God says in favor of the CC interpretation, such as John 3. The CC adds to it, plain and simple, disregarding what is written completely.

I am arguing with your perceptions of the Word of God.

No, you are arguing for your perception of what you have been taught by the CC, disregarding completely what the Word of God says.

I do believe. I understand it differently than you do . That alone should demonstrate why Jesus gave us a teaching authority to settle such disputes. This is what He meant when He said “take it to the Church”.

Have you not read that a little leaven leaveneth the entire lump? So if the authority has become compromised, can it still or should it still be viewed as the authority? Or would God remove the authority and give it to another?