Martin Luther invented un-biblical doctrines.

[ac_claire]

Wow G.! You got your own thread now!

I want my own thread! lol

 

[guanophore]

Congratulations! they renamed your thread! They should have called it “Ginger’s off topic posts thread”. Oh well, as long as we know what it is for, it will work!

So what does “a book about how the bible came to us” have to do with priests authority or lack there of to forgive sins?

I am not sure. I thought you could tell me? Are you in agreement that we have the Bible because of the authority of the Catholic Church?

 

[Ginger2]

I am not sure. I thought you could tell me?

Since someone else brought it up, I can’t say.

Are you in agreement that we have the Bible because of the authority of the Catholic Church?

I won’t be spending much time online after this because of Christmas, but I will answer this question before leaving…

No.
First, The OT was given to the Hebrew people by God to keep. We received the OT from the Hebrews.

Our Protestant Bibles agree with the Hebrew Bible.

Second, The Catholic Encyclopedia says: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
AND
“The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”

The Catholic Church admits the Apocrypha were not always universally accepted.
These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

Third, Even when Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.

Forth, Protestants and Catholics have the same New Testament canon.

All the NT books were written and in circulation well before the end of the 1st century. And 1st century Christians were well aware of which books were inspired as they were being written.

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’'s writings as Scripture. This was written about 66-67 A.D.

The Gospel of Matthew, one of the twelve, was written between 42 -50 AD

Acts 3:16-17 THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 63 A.D.“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

All Scripture would include NT writings since this book was written after the others and Christians knew that this and the others were inspired.

Thank you for asking. But keep in mind this thread is about my answering questions about me so other threads are not bothered with off topic posts. However, follow-up questions are welcome - just don’t expect any replies until after the Holy-days.

I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year!!

 

[WindGirl]

Sorry to interrupt but could someone tell Ginger2 her pm box is full and she can’t receive pm’s until she fixes that? Thx!

 

[guanophore]

No.
First, The OT was given to the Hebrew people by God to keep. We received the OT from the Hebrews.

That is the point exactly. We received it. The Church chose to accept the scriptures used by Jesus and His Apostles. Also, this does not speak to the existence of the NT. Where did it come from?

Our Protestant Bibles agree with the Hebrew Bible.

They agree with the Palestinian Jews that rejected Christ and HIs teachings. The Catholic Church retained the Scriptures that were used by the Apostles, rejected by the Jews who crucified the Lord because there was too much referenceto Christian doctrine in them.

Second, The Catholic Encyclopedia says: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”

The Catholic Church admits the Apocrypha were not always universally accepted. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

No, Ginger2. The Catholic church has never considered these books as apocryphal. Deuterocanonical does not mean apocryphal. It is true that not everyone accepted Christ, either, or the Teaching of the Apostles. Most of the Apostles and their disciples were martyred by those who did not accept them. How does this invalidate the truth of the Source? Are you trying to say that the fact that some reject the truth means that it may not be true?

Third, Even when Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.

No again. Jerome SUBTRACTED them, just as the reformers did later. He did so based on lack of information. He did not think they were uninspired, but at the time, there was not an exant copy in Hebrew, as we have today. It was thought, erroneously, that it was not authentic because it was not written in Hebrew. We now know this is not the case.

Forth, Protestants and Catholics have the same New Testament canon.

All the NT books were written and in circulation well before the end of the 1st century. And 1st century Christians were well aware of which books were inspired as they were being written.

No.

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul''s writings as Scripture. This was written about 66-67 A.D.

There were 400+ documents claiming to be inspired, some being read regularly in Church that later did NOT make the canon. Several of the NT books were under just as fierce a dispute as the Deuterocanonicals.

The Gospel of Matthew, one of the twelve, was written between 42 -50 AD

In Aramaic!

Acts 3:16-17 THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 63 A.D."All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Ginger2, when Paul wrote that verse, he was talking about the OT.

All Scripture would include NT writings since this book was written after the others and Christians knew that this and the others were inspired.

The vast majority of the NT writings were not completed when Paul referenced the Scriptures. It is also clear from the context that he is speaking of the OT.

Thank you for asking. But keep in mind this thread is about my answering questions about me so other threads are not bothered with off topic posts. However, follow-up questions are welcome - just don’t expect any replies until after the Holy-days.

OK.
[/quote]

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Bottom line here is the bible is a Catholic book whether you want to believe it or not. Jesus christ chose the Catholic church to compile it in the year 397 A.D. Luther threw out the 7 books because he wasn’t happy with them, calling St. James Epistle “An Epistle of straw”. It is all in his biography if you care to read it. Without the Catholic church, you wouldn’t even have a bible. Case closed.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed.