R
RCCDefender
Guest
Alfie: Get yourself an original 1611 copy of the KJV Bible. Then turn to 2 Maccabees 12:43-46! This is what I will do for you!
- Status
L
LindaS
Guest
You are mistaken about this last claim. Revelation (no s) says you cannot add or detract from this book. There was no Bible when Revelation was written. The book referred to is the Book of Revelation. The Bible as we have it, was put together, or canonized, during the last decade of the 4th century by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
Who said there had to be a Jewish prophet alive for a book to be inspired? Where is this in Scripture?
Peace.
Linda
L
LindaS
Guest
Dear AllisChalmers,
Welcome to this place. And welcome to the journey. Your friend is mistaken. If you have the opportunity, I would like to suggest you get a copy of Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. He very clearly answers Fundamentalist objections to the Catholic Church and gives Catholic teachings, also.
Peace,
Linda
Welcome to this place. And welcome to the journey. Your friend is mistaken. If you have the opportunity, I would like to suggest you get a copy of Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. He very clearly answers Fundamentalist objections to the Catholic Church and gives Catholic teachings, also.
Peace,
Linda
C
captaincoog
Guest
Alfie?..Alfie?..Anyone seen Alfie? 
R
RyanL
Guest
Alfie
Junior Member
Last Activity: Today 11:22 AM
Junior Member
Last Activity: Today 11:22 AM
C
captaincoog
Guest
I just thought of something to ask your friend in the OP:
If the CC is Satan’s church, why would the Church have a ritual for excorcism, and how would they have the success they do in excorcising a demonic spirit, if, to paraphrase the Lord, “Satan cannot cast out Satan”?
And, as someone wryly commented in these forums once before, somewhere, “The CC is Satan’s Church?? That’s strange - I haven’t seen him at Mass!!”
If the CC is Satan’s church, why would the Church have a ritual for excorcism, and how would they have the success they do in excorcising a demonic spirit, if, to paraphrase the Lord, “Satan cannot cast out Satan”?
And, as someone wryly commented in these forums once before, somewhere, “The CC is Satan’s Church?? That’s strange - I haven’t seen him at Mass!!”
T
twf
Guest
Alfie: As several others on this thread (and countless others elsewhere) have testified, I am also a former Evangelical who has become Catholic…not because of ritual, but because of my love of Christ and His Truth. It was the Scriptures, the teachings of the early Christians (the Church Fathers), among other things, that led me to the Catholic Church. I highly recommend Dave Armstrong’s book “A Biblical Defence of Catholicism”. (See his website ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM)). He is also a former Evangelical, who loved, and continues to love, the Lord. Please also take a look through the various articles on this website, or at catholicoutlook.com. Also take a look at scripturecatholic.com
Several challenges have been presented to you on this thread that you must answer if you are to defend your position. (For example, if Scripture is the only authority you have, how do you know from Scripture which books should be included, and which should be rejected). Why the KJV? It wasn’t even the earliest English translation. Not to mention the fact that it is an Anglican translation, and they were at the time, in many ways, much more Catholic than Evangelical
.
God bless.
In Christ,
Tyler
Several challenges have been presented to you on this thread that you must answer if you are to defend your position. (For example, if Scripture is the only authority you have, how do you know from Scripture which books should be included, and which should be rejected). Why the KJV? It wasn’t even the earliest English translation. Not to mention the fact that it is an Anglican translation, and they were at the time, in many ways, much more Catholic than Evangelical
.God bless.
In Christ,
Tyler
M
mlchance
Guest
I guess that must apply to Billy Graham’s ministry as well. After all, he pre-empts regular prime time, major network television programming.
http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif
– Mark L. Chance.
S
Subrosa
Guest
Hi Alfie -
Alfie:
The fact is that your argument fails. Two of the “apocryphal” writings are contained at the end of Daniel, a prophetic book (Susanna’s Virtue & Bel and the Dragon). Tobit was written in 721 BC and Isaiah in 722 BC, while Isaiah was alive. The book of Esther contains texts, written in Greek, that are not found in the latest Hebrew texts. The Greek texts were written in Alexandria, Egypt about 200 BC. The Greek texts were taken from the Hebrew texts that were provided to the Greek speaking Hebrew scholars by rabbi’s and priest’s of Palestine at that time. Those Greek passages were originally Hebrew and written along with the rest of the book in ca. 485 BC. The book of Baruch was written during the time of the prophet Jeremiah. Baruch was Jeremiah’s secretary!
These, as with all of the Deuterocanons, were provided to the Greek speaking Jews by the Hebrews of Palestine, who held them as inspired. The Hebrews removed them using arbitrary rules around 200 AD in response to Christianity! This is the same argument you use. Can a writing be inspired at one time, and then not be inspired at another time? Would the Holy Spirit inspire at one point and then remove the inspiration when somebody doesn’t like what was written?
Also as importantly, the Apostles used these books in their preaching. Were they false in their teachings? Of course not!
According to your own words Martin Luther commited a grave sin.
Subrosa
This is an argument that I have seen before. How do you equate “No prophet” = “false apocrypha”? Your argument could be easily, “No (insert what you like here)” = “false apocrypha”. You remove from God His privilege of inspiring whomever He wishes at whatever time and wherever He wishes using a completely arbitrary rule that exists nowhere.
The fact is that your argument fails. Two of the “apocryphal” writings are contained at the end of Daniel, a prophetic book (Susanna’s Virtue & Bel and the Dragon). Tobit was written in 721 BC and Isaiah in 722 BC, while Isaiah was alive. The book of Esther contains texts, written in Greek, that are not found in the latest Hebrew texts. The Greek texts were written in Alexandria, Egypt about 200 BC. The Greek texts were taken from the Hebrew texts that were provided to the Greek speaking Hebrew scholars by rabbi’s and priest’s of Palestine at that time. Those Greek passages were originally Hebrew and written along with the rest of the book in ca. 485 BC. The book of Baruch was written during the time of the prophet Jeremiah. Baruch was Jeremiah’s secretary!
These, as with all of the Deuterocanons, were provided to the Greek speaking Jews by the Hebrews of Palestine, who held them as inspired. The Hebrews removed them using arbitrary rules around 200 AD in response to Christianity! This is the same argument you use. Can a writing be inspired at one time, and then not be inspired at another time? Would the Holy Spirit inspire at one point and then remove the inspiration when somebody doesn’t like what was written?
Also as importantly, the Apostles used these books in their preaching. Were they false in their teachings? Of course not!
Do you realize that Martin Luther removed the Deuterocanons (Protestant Apocrypha) from the bible? All bibles until the late 1600’s contained those books as a complete part of the bible, including the first KJV.
According to your own words Martin Luther commited a grave sin.
Subrosa
D
deb1
Guest
Believe it or not there are some fundamentalist groups that don’t like Billy Graham’s friendliness to Catholics.
So, they might agree that his popularity with the world is a sign of his nonChristianity.
R
RiverRock
Guest
It appears Alfie was just another bible-only “hit and run”, however he did us a valuable service. It does serve to prove the point that there are many, many mistaken beliefs about the Catholic Church, no matter how ridiculous and outrageous. Alot of people have a need for us to be “wrong” and invent many laughable claims about us. So, that in comparison, they can appear to be “right”. People are very naive. The lesson here is: Do you homework. Read what the Church says about itself, get some books, some were mentioned. You are also at the best place on the 'net for information right here at Catholic.com. Please look over the rest of this website, there’s more here than you can ever read. God Bless you on your journey!
T
twf
Guest
In all fairness, I would like to remind my fellow Catholics that while the 1611 edition of the KJV did include the seven books rejected by the Protestant Reformation, they were only included in an appendix at the end of te Old Testament (as I recall). I don’t think the Anglicans believed these books to be inspired…just worthy of study.
P
Philthy
Guest
How truly moronic - and I say that with all the charity I can muster right now. His contention is that Satan uses the world to PROMOTE the Catholic Church? Does he mean, like, the seemingly unending pedophelia scandal? Was that Satan “promoting” the Church? The recent scandal of the priest in NYC at St Patricks? The resignation of Cardinal Egan?
How ludicrous. I could go on and on. Understand that he starts with the biased assumption that the Catholic Church is the “whore of babylon” and then twists the facts to support his views. This is a requirement in order for him to justify the existence of his own church and its “success”. Of course he will ignore all the facts to hold on to his misguided fantasy which, when viewed in the light of the day, is probably more consistent with the work of Satan attempting to discredit the Church. Which church is a light upon a hill? Which church is hated by the world? Which church is built upon Peter? Which church is being led into ALL Truth? Which church has the gates of hell not prevail against since 33AD despite the incompetence of its members and leaders?
Phil
A
Alfie
Guest
I know from talking to a number of Protestant converts that that plays a major part in their decision to become Catholic. Plus they want to drink and gamble and that is a big no-no in the Evangelical church.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
And a fine “tradition of man” that is, since neither one of those “vices” is forbidden by the Word of God.
Drunkeness-Yes.
Drinking- Not at all.
Gambling- Not at all.
Alfie’s statements supported by statistical facts.- Not at all.
Alfie’s statements supported by The Word of God- No.
Catholic teaching that is in line with both common sense and the Word of God.- In the CCC.
Pax vobiscum,
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Anglicans have a purposefully ambiguous understanding of Scripture. They included the deuterocanonicals as “Holy Scripture” but insisted they are to be “read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Articles of Religion, article VI).
According to this Anglican author…
“The Canon of Holy Scripture: An Anglican Note”
sewanee.edu/theology/facultyfolder/bryan/foundations/canonHS.html
by Christopher Bryan
The 1611 KJV actually had a Scripture reading guide which read from such fine books of Holy Scripture as the Book of Wisdom.
continued…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
continued…
Here’s an exerpt from the original 1611 KJV Bible reading calendar…
From a Protestant source:
ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/tabkal.htm
The 1611 KJV schedule of “the rest of Holy Scripture” readings includes passages from Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18.
The 1611 KJV also contains many marginal cross-references to other Scripture. Here are some interesting cross-references…
Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, “2 Macc. 6:9,” a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees
Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, “Ecclus. 7:16,” a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus
Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, “Wisd. 2:15,16,” a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom
Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, “4 Esd. 1:30,” a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra
Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, “Tob. 4:7,” a cross-reference to a book of Tobit
John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, “1 Macc. 4:59,” a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees
Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, “2 Macc. 7:7,” a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees
Original Preface from the Translator of the original 1611 KJV:
jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm#s7
On the inspiration of the Septuagint…
**
… it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince***…***to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.
… This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters [LXX, or Septuagint], commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles
… Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick,
… which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures
… Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews. … For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus …
… These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. …
**
The longer Theodotian (2nd cent. Jew) recession of the Book of Daniel is accepted by all Christianity (including Origen & Jerome), but excepting Protestants.
Hmmmmm. Kinda makes you think, huh?
Here’s an exerpt from the original 1611 KJV Bible reading calendar…
From a Protestant source:
ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/tabkal.htm
Notice that the first lessons at Morning and Evening prayer is dedicated to reading the Old Testament
The 1611 KJV schedule of “the rest of Holy Scripture” readings includes passages from Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18.
The 1611 KJV also contains many marginal cross-references to other Scripture. Here are some interesting cross-references…
Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, “2 Macc. 6:9,” a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees
Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, “Ecclus. 7:16,” a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus
Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, “Wisd. 2:15,16,” a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom
Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, “4 Esd. 1:30,” a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra
Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, “Tob. 4:7,” a cross-reference to a book of Tobit
John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, “1 Macc. 4:59,” a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees
Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, “2 Macc. 7:7,” a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees
Original Preface from the Translator of the original 1611 KJV:
jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm#s7
On the inspiration of the Septuagint…
**
… it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince***…***to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.
… This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters [LXX, or Septuagint], commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles
… Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick,
… which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures
… Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews. … For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus …
… These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. …
**
The longer Theodotian (2nd cent. Jew) recession of the Book of Daniel is accepted by all Christianity (including Origen & Jerome), but excepting Protestants.
Hmmmmm. Kinda makes you think, huh?
B
BlindSheep
Guest
Yeah, drinking is a terrible sin. That’s why Jesus drank, and turned water into wine, etc.
We could just as well say that Catholics become Evangelical so they can get divorced and use contraception.
- Status