E
- Status
I
inkaneer
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
S
ScotchIrish
Guest
Bibleanswer; I read with interest your journey to where you are at this time, quite interesting to a point. Yet i pose this question to you. I also need for you to take yourself back to the time after Christ died in order to answer this question. Where would you have started your search about the truth, you say you have, when there wasn’t a bible to refer too for another 400yrs? You definitely wouldn’t have gone from church to churches which weren’t available. You wouldn’t have had this girl or that girl to follow. How would you have gone from there to where you say you are now?
B
BibleAnswer
Guest
The whos, whats, wheres and whys will be difficult in a hypothetical, but here goes…
It is established fact that Moses and the Prophets was already available, the old Testament. perhaps it wasn’t called that, however it was in a Tome, a book, and all the scripture would have been compiled together. There would have been very few copies, yet we know from the dialogue of Peter and Paul and many others, that they were well versed in the scripture, as well as the scribes and pharasees, the established religioun at the time which was a Jewish religioun.
I would have done then, what I do know, I would have studied the scripture available to me, and recognize that Jesus is the Christ spoken of in the old Testament. I would have had to go against my life long belief of the law, as i would have been zelous for it, and I would have gone against the church, and the pharasees who were the keepers of Gods law. I would have had to go against all the people who believe in the scripture, yet somehow dont believe in Christ, and I would embrace Chist, and follow his disciples. It would have been one church, one message, one purpose.
The leap from then to know is enourmous, and I can never deny the importance of the church, however I can never say the church is infallible. that would mean that men in charge were as Gods, because no man can be perfect, and to be perfect is to be infallible. It just doesn’t make sense. Besides this point, I would have eventually had the completed bible in my hand available to me and the rest of the world. And i would read scripture, like i do now, and i would see something that apparently a lot of others havent, and so i will follow this bit of information and go against my life long beliefs, and all my friends and family and the established church, the catholic church, because i would have read that Satan is seated on the throne in His temple. I would have been very confused about that, because anything to do with Satan cannot possibly be called infallible.
I would have taken this bit of information and studied it to its final conclusion.
And that would lead me to where I am now.
Anyway, thats what the story is.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Cachonga,
There are just a few problems with your presentatation and that of Ginger2’s… let me point them out:
Sseriously, any discussion about the Early Church must include that fact that they DID NOT have a Bible as we commonly think of it today. We also can not ignore the Early Church Fathers who were the gifted leaders helping us - even to this day - see the Light of Christ. You just can not dismiss 1,600 years of The Traditions of God through His Chruch and the Holy Scripture brought to the world by the Catholic Church.
Infant baptism is quite different - which I guess you are referring to - in that the infant’s parents are acting as loving parents and requesting that their child be made a Child of God, Heir to Heaven and to have Original Sin removed from their soul. “Suffer the little children to come to me…” (Matt 19:14) are the words of our Savior. Fear not, you were properly baptized the first time…
Here is a link you may find helpful: scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
1.) Christ said that you must be baptized - many Protestants claim this is optional.
2.) Christ said to love God with yoru whole heart and your neighbor as yourself - many Protestants claim Faith Alone is sufficient
3.) Christ said to the Apostles to forgive or retain men’s sins - all Protestants reject this.
4.) Christ said that the Bread He would give was His Flesh and not some memorial - all Protestants reject this.
5.) Christ said that His Holy Spirit would guide the Chruch - all Protestants claim to be able to interpret Scripture and look at the chaos before you very eyes.
By the way, you just claim you left the Catholic Church - but, you didn’t say where you went. Since birth, I have been a Catholic. What denomination did you go to?
God bless
There are just a few problems with your presentatation and that of Ginger2’s… let me point them out:
The reality is that the Canon of Scripture did not come into being until about 400AD. Just how do you think the Word was proclaimed? Through the teaching and preaching and the oral traditions - not of men, which you have confused - but, the inspired Traditions of God given to His Chruch. No? Well, then, just how did we get to where we are today … or, at least for the first 16 Centuries after Christ if God was not leading His (and that would be the Caholic) Church? Here is a link you may find helpful on this subject - it may also help you with your return to the Church founded by Christ on frail and so-very-human Peter: scripturecatholic.com/
Sseriously, any discussion about the Early Church must include that fact that they DID NOT have a Bible as we commonly think of it today. We also can not ignore the Early Church Fathers who were the gifted leaders helping us - even to this day - see the Light of Christ. You just can not dismiss 1,600 years of The Traditions of God through His Chruch and the Holy Scripture brought to the world by the Catholic Church.
None of this should come as a surprise to either you or to Ginger2. To this day, adults wanting admission into the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) must learn about the Faith and profess their belief in Christ’s Church BEFORE they are Baptized. Through the Power of the Holy Spirit, Peter preached that first sermon on Pentecost Sunday - and thousands were converted - professed Faith in Christ - and THEN were Baptized. People just do not go out and claim to want baptism unless they believe in what is going on. By the same token, the Chruch is not admitting adults into the Church unless they know what the Catholic Church teaches.
Infant baptism is quite different - which I guess you are referring to - in that the infant’s parents are acting as loving parents and requesting that their child be made a Child of God, Heir to Heaven and to have Original Sin removed from their soul. “Suffer the little children to come to me…” (Matt 19:14) are the words of our Savior. Fear not, you were properly baptized the first time…
Here is a link you may find helpful: scripturecatholic.com/baptism.htmlNo argument here…
Both you and Ginger2 need to go back to the beginning of Matt 16 and re-read this section to find your error. Actually, going back to the beginning of thre Gospels would be even more helpful. Notice, Christ chose 12 Apostles, but only changed the name of Simon. You may find this link helpful to give you the Biblical foundation for the primacy of Peter: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
Actually, you come up short doing it this way, too. The entire New Testament is based upon the Love and Power of God - as demonstrated in the Old Testament. Selected verses - especially as they have been used by Luther, Calvin and other 16th Century heretics can lead you down the wrong path. No? Take a look at these five items:
1.) Christ said that you must be baptized - many Protestants claim this is optional.
2.) Christ said to love God with yoru whole heart and your neighbor as yourself - many Protestants claim Faith Alone is sufficient
3.) Christ said to the Apostles to forgive or retain men’s sins - all Protestants reject this.
4.) Christ said that the Bread He would give was His Flesh and not some memorial - all Protestants reject this.
5.) Christ said that His Holy Spirit would guide the Chruch - all Protestants claim to be able to interpret Scripture and look at the chaos before you very eyes.
By the way, you just claim you left the Catholic Church - but, you didn’t say where you went. Since birth, I have been a Catholic. What denomination did you go to?
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Sword Brethren,
I joined late and am just catching up … Enjoyed reading your post! 
I joined late and am just catching up …
Enjoyed reading your post! God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, BibleAnswer,
Without a doubt, this is the most confusing, contradictory and run-on explanation I have read in some time.
Let’s take a look at two simple (but not easy) areas where you have apparently encountered some major difficulties.
1.) The Holy Spirit did a lot on Pentecost Sunday - the Birthday of the Catholic Church - but the one thing He did not do is deliver a book. It would be about 400 years before the Canon of the New (and Old) Testment were established by that same Catholic Church. Now that is the almost the same Bible you claim to love. (It underwent a unauthorized revision 1200 years later at the hands of those who wished to stop followng the Church of Jesus Christ.
2.) Hell really exists. There is real fire, real suffering - and the real knowledge that one has - through their own fault - lost being in the Presence of God for all eternity. Here is a lik that you may find helpful: catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp
God bless
Without a doubt, this is the most confusing, contradictory and run-on explanation I have read in some time.
Let’s take a look at two simple (but not easy) areas where you have apparently encountered some major difficulties.
1.) The Holy Spirit did a lot on Pentecost Sunday - the Birthday of the Catholic Church - but the one thing He did not do is deliver a book. It would be about 400 years before the Canon of the New (and Old) Testment were established by that same Catholic Church. Now that is the almost the same Bible you claim to love. (It underwent a unauthorized revision 1200 years later at the hands of those who wished to stop followng the Church of Jesus Christ.
2.) Hell really exists. There is real fire, real suffering - and the real knowledge that one has - through their own fault - lost being in the Presence of God for all eternity. Here is a lik that you may find helpful: catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp
Check this link out - honest - this will give you all the biblical documentation you need. But, either you have the Faith (one item) to Believe (another item) or you don’t.
God bless
B
BibleAnswer
Guest
You are too literal my friend, and don’t know the facts. The Old Testament, commonly referred to as ‘Moses and the Prophets’, has been available from the time it began in July of 1447 BC. Was it widely available? No, no it wasn’t, was it available period?.. Yes, yes it was. This was when Moses was on Mt Sinai and the LORD gave Moses the 10 commandments. From this point Moses undoubtebly began and mostly finished the first 5 books of the old Testament, during the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness from the time of the EXodus.
King Solomon was King in 971 BC. The temple began in 967 and his reign ended with the destruction of the temple in 931 BC; 40 years later. When the Jews came back years later to reestablish the destroyed temple after have been in bondage for an additional 40 years, guess what was found in the destroyed temple.
Guess what the LORD, by plan, gave to the King whom happened upon the old and battered tome of scripture.
Guess what the nation of Israel again found after had lost it for many a years, after there had been an absense of God from the the lives of the nation of Israel, because they betrayed God, because they were yet again in bondage, until they cried out for mercy yet again, they found Moses and the prophets, they found it completed and bound in a book, commonly refered to as the Holy Scripture. Yes, years and years and years later, a lonely and abused copy of translated text was found in one of the empty destroyed rooms of the demolished temple.
Do you have faith enough to believe what your own eyes and brain is telling you about the King who found the [at the time completed] bible, and knew instinctively that it was the Word of God and immediately, repented of his ways and instituted the laws he read about in said [at the time it was a complete] bible.
And if you read my study on Luke 16, then you would see that I accurately interpreted the meaning of the parable by using the bible, by using scripture with scripture, precept upon precept.
Is 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.
The Rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16
The parable describes two individuals. The rich man has all of the joys and comforts this present world can bring, but he is not saved. The poor man, Lazarus, has none of the good things of this world, but he is a saved man. Finally, both men die. The rich man is buried, and Lazarus is carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22). To be in the bosom of Abraham is a picture of being in the highest blessing in the presence of God. To be buried is to be placed in the grave. The parable then continues with a conversation between the dead rich man and Abraham (GOD), who is in heaven. Remember, “grave” and “death” is the same thing as hell. Therefore, it is not incorrect to say that the rich man was in hell (Luke 16:23)
But you must understand, that lifting up his eyes and seeing Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, and speaking to Abraham, are all hypothetical. That is, God has set up a completely imaginary tableau, or a three dimensional picture, or in other words a parable, in order to convey spiritual truth. These truths include important doctrines such as the following.
#1 The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus with a drop of water to cool his tongue (Luke 16:24). There is NO MERCY or GRACE to those who have died unsaved.
#2 There is a great gulf between heaven and hell. Heaven is eternal life. Hell is death forevermore. Never, never will those who are dead ever come to life again.
#3 The rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers because he thought that such a miracle will cause them to become believers. The truth is, they have Moses and the prophets, the Old Testament. If they will not believe the Bible, then they will not believe even if they witness some great miracle.
#4 The rich man is tormented in this flame. The Greek word that is translated “tormented” is used only in verse 24, in verse 25 (“thou art tormented”), in Luke 2:48, and in Acts 20:38. The “flame” emphasizes the rich man is being punished by God, who is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). The word “torment,” which is defined by its usage in Acts 20:38 and Luke 2:48, indicates the nature and character of the torment he is experiencing. Now we will look carefully at this word and its usage in these two verses.
Acts 20:38: Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.
Luke 2:48: And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
In both of these verses, the word that is translated as “tormented” in Luke 16 is translated as “sorrowing.” This sorrowing has nothing to do with physical pain. It is the sorrow of not seeing a loved one again. The rich man was in torment because he was sorrowing that he could never again have the joys and comforts he had experienced in his life on earth. While Lazarus was safe and secure with the greatest blessings forevermore.
In other words, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches us nothing at all about eternal pain in a place called hell. It is teaching us about the penalty of losing all the blessings of this life, and gaining none of the blessings of eternal life.
This is clear as day, can you trust your own eyes and brain to tell you that torment is sorrow, that eternal flame is Gods wrath, that in the sense of eternal, you are eternally dead, never to come back alive, if your soul suffers in hell forever, meaning a fire which torments you and causes pain, then you would not be dead, you would still be alive, in your soul existence, and we already know that we are all born with original sin, and that the wages of sin is death. Spiritual death. how can a dead spirity, come alive after the body dies to suffer pain in a place called hell.
A
allhers
Guest
Would it be simple enough to say that the Old Testament was written by the Jews for the Jews and that the New Testament was written by the Church for the Church (Christians) and that the two of them compiled together into one book is the Bible as we know it now?
We Catholics are aware, at least I am, that Jesus read from the Scrolls (Old Testament is what we call it), commonly referred to as the Scriptures, and told those Jewish people at that time that He was the fulfillment of those words, He Himself.
The New Testament wasn’t written or compiled until after His death and Resurrection and many many years afterward. The Canon of Scriptures was compiled by the Catholic Church, in other words, they deceided which writings were the inspired word of God and which ones were included in the Bible as you and I now know it today (of course, some denominations do have some books missing from their versions).
Some people say that the Church added to, but actually it wasn’t the Church that added too, it was the Church that compiled and then later, the reformers, such as Martin Luther, who took books from the Bible and caused much confusion that exists to this very day.
As it is, before then it was oral teaching (word of mouth), preached to them just like Jesus taught His Apostles that He choose. They didn’t walk around with a Bible in their hand, Jesus left us a Church, with His chosen Apostles to preach the Word of God to us, the Church still hands on faithfully, the fullness of Truth—(which is Jesus, Himself!!)
We Catholics are aware, at least I am, that Jesus read from the Scrolls (Old Testament is what we call it), commonly referred to as the Scriptures, and told those Jewish people at that time that He was the fulfillment of those words, He Himself.
The New Testament wasn’t written or compiled until after His death and Resurrection and many many years afterward. The Canon of Scriptures was compiled by the Catholic Church, in other words, they deceided which writings were the inspired word of God and which ones were included in the Bible as you and I now know it today (of course, some denominations do have some books missing from their versions).
Some people say that the Church added to, but actually it wasn’t the Church that added too, it was the Church that compiled and then later, the reformers, such as Martin Luther, who took books from the Bible and caused much confusion that exists to this very day.
As it is, before then it was oral teaching (word of mouth), preached to them just like Jesus taught His Apostles that He choose. They didn’t walk around with a Bible in their hand, Jesus left us a Church, with His chosen Apostles to preach the Word of God to us, the Church still hands on faithfully, the fullness of Truth—(which is Jesus, Himself!!)
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Allhers,
Can you please enlighten, I am a recent convert to the Church, ar regards the Canon of Sacred Scripture. How do we know for certain that it was the Roman Catholic Church at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that finally settled the Canon? Were they merely local Councils giving their opinion, an opinion not necessarily binding on the whole Church? Is there historical evidence that the decisions of these Councils was sent to Rome for final ratification?
I ask the above questions since Protestants say that it was a collective decision and not a decision of Rome soley.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Elvisman,
Merriam Webster is a good source…
God bless
Merriam Webster is a good source…
I think you are right on this count, too.First of all, belief and faith are NOT the same thing. I have already illustrated this using the Scriptures. Oh, and by the way - they are BOTH nouns.
I will now show you by using Merriam Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
Belief: Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
Faith: 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY
b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2): complete trust
('Nuff said)
Secondly, the passage in James was speaking of all demons in general. BUT, since you affressed the Gadarene Demoniacs - nowhere does it say that they got on their knees and worshipped God - NOWHERE.
You know - for a guy who calls himself BibleAnswer - you really don’t seem to know your **way around the Scriptures. You also don’t **seem to understand the basics of the English language.
**No - you’re *wrong ***on both counts, my uniformed firiend.
God bless
A
allhers
Guest
The Canon of Scripture was received as Divinely inspired since 382 at a council at Rome under
Pope Damasus I. I’ll search and see if I can find more information for you and the source.
I
inkaneer
Guest
If I may respond to this. The canon of scripture was decided in a series of local councils beginning in Rome in 382 AD then Hippo and Carthage. All of them came up with the same writings. The cause for doing this was the confusion in the church caused by Gnosticism. Gnostic writers were producing writings and attributing them to various apostles such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, etc. The question was which writings were to be used in the Liturgy of the Mass. Various New Testament canons were proposed by different people. The one selected at the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage was the one proposed by St. Athanasius in 348 AD. This canon begame the basis for the first Bible, the Vulgate of St. Jerome in about 400 AD. From 400 AD until the 16th century the Biblical canon was accepted but not formally defined as dogma. In 408 AD Pope Innocent I responded to a letter from a bishop in France concerning the canon and responded with the same list of books from the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. This writing of Pope Innocent I is not considered to be infallible because it lacked the requisite of being directed to the entire church. Pope Innocent I was answering a private request with a private letter. The lack of formal definition for 1100+ years is not indicative of anything nor is it to be construed as something negative. There simply was no need to formally define the canon. It was accepted by the church with no dissention. However, in the sixteenth century Luther had a problem with the seven deuterocanonical books. They contradicted his theology. So he eliminated them from the Bible and that practice spread to all protestantism. What had heretofore been totally accepted was now in question and so at the Council of Trent, called to address the protestant rebellion the canon of the Bible was formally defined. This occurred in 1547 and the council affirmed the canon as that developed aby St. Athanasius and affirmed by those earlier local councils and Pope Innocent I. They also affirmed Jeromes Vulgate as having the correct canon. So while the original decision of the local councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage was not a formal definition of the canon as far as being dogma and binding on the entire church the later reaffirmation by the Council of Trent of those councils decisions certainly was. One more thing here. Most doctrines of the church have not been formally defined. Formal definition usually occurred when some controversy arose in the church It is then that the church studies the issues and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit issues a definition. This could be by the pope himself or by a General council. The binding and loosening power granted by Jesus to all the Apostles in Mathew 18:18 is the basis for the council’s infallibility. Note that all of the Apostles includes Peter as well. There have been some General Councils of the Church where certain parts are not considered infallible because the pope did not agree. The council of Florence comes to mind. For many christian doctrines there have been no controversies and therefore no formal definition. So the lack of formal definition of the canon from 400 AD to 1547 AD is of no consequence. Formal definition was not needed. Hope that helps.
B
BibleAnswer
Guest
These are not my words, but it is an adequet explanation for what I was going for.Hi, Elvisman,
Merriam Webster is a good source…
I think you are right on this count, too.
God bless
You dont define words based on human reasoning, this is a major problem with misinterpretations. You difine context, by other biblical context.
Webster’s
noun,
name of a person, place or THING.
verb,
indicating ACTION, occurrence, being
Today I wish to shed some light on the meaning of Christian Faith. We find many who say they have faith because they regularly attend a church. These people confuse religion with faith.
Religion can be anything that the person practicing it desires. Since religion is man defined, Religion is a manifestation of the flesh.
Spirituality, on the other hand, is defined by God and is a manifestation of His nature. Or, more acurately, a Religious heart is a creation of man, and a Spiritual heart is a creation of God. Faith is based in Spirituality.
A Christian who believes that they have a strong faith based upon their knowledge of the Bible or because of their Religious teachings, has a Faith that is a NOUN. It is someTHING that they feel that they HAVE. It is static, without action…it is dead Faith.
James 2:14
What [is] the profit, my brethren, if any one say he have faith, but have not works? can faith save him?
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:24
Ye see that a man is justified on the principle of works, and not on the principle of faith only.
James 2:26
For as the body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
We see by these scriptures that Faith MUST include ACTION or works. What ACTIONS are we to take in the name of Christ you may ask? Is it gathering together with other Christians to pray or to praise God? As Galatians 5:13 said, we are called to serve one another, In Agape-Love! (Agape-Love is unconditional) Certainly, it is that, however lets look at some other scriptures:
2 Timothy 4:2,5
2 proclaim the Word; be urgent in season [and] out of season, convict, rebuke, encourage, with all longsuffering and doctrine.
5 But thou, be sober in all things, bear evils, do [the] work of an evangelist, fill up the full measure of thy ministry.
You can see by the scriptures that we are to be active in spreading the Word in the world. You cannot spread the Word only to other Christians. These people are already on their way towards Christ. We are to go into the world to spread the Word of God. This means to go outside the security of the Christian community and help our wayword fellow man. If you are going to SAVE a person you must speak the Word to those who do not Know the Word of God.
Matthew 28:19-20
19 Go [therefore] and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you. And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age.
Do you enjoy a comfortable Faith with God?
Do you only enjoy being with other Christians?
Is your Faith only active in the Church? - (noun) - (Dead Faith)
Do you enjoy helping someone discover Christ?
Do you enjoy distroying Satan’s hold on others?
Are you active in bringing others to the body of Christ? - (verb) - (Living Faith)
Matthew 5:16
Let your light thus shine before men, so that they may see your upright works, and glorify your Father who is in the heavens.
What kind of Faith do you have? NOUN or VERB?
What in the name of God have you done in this world today?
Written by: Rev. Steven B. Smethers DD
Senior Pastor / Administrator - UCMI
A
allhers
Guest
Many of the faithful are unaware of
the role of the Church in the formation of the Canon of the Scriptures
vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_22_xii-ordinaria-2008/02_inglese/b07_02.html
In 382 he moved to Rome: here, acquainted with his fame as an ascetic and his ability as a scholar, Pope Damasus engaged him as secretary and counsellor; the Pope encouraged him, for pastoral and cultural reasons, to embark on a new Latin translation of the Biblical texts.
Jerome’s literary studies and vast erudition enabled him to revise and translate many biblical texts: an invaluable undertaking for the Latin Church and for Western culture. On the basis of the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and thanks to the comparison with previous versions, he revised the four Gospels in Latin, then the Psalter and a large part of the Old Testament. Taking into account the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Septuagint, the classical Greek version of the Old Testament that dates back to pre-Christian times, as well as the earlier Latin versions, Jerome was able, with the assistance later of other collaborators, to produce a better translation: this constitutes the so-called “Vulgate”, the “official” text of the Latin Church which was recognized as such by the Council of Trent and which, after the recent revision, continues to be the “official” Latin text of the Church.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071107_en.html
In 382 Pope Damasus convoked a synod which produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. In 393 the Council of Hippo reiterated the list, as did the First Council of Carthage four years later. In 405 Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to Exsuperius, the bishop of Toulouse, listing the same books as Scripture. The list was given again in 419 at the Second Council of Carthage.
Five arguments are directed against the contents of the books themselves: God forbids sorcery, yet Tobit uses sympathetic magic to drive away a demon and heal blindness. Scripture is inerrant, yet Judith and Tobit have erroneous geography and history. Similarly, Sirach and 2 Maccabees implicitly deny they are inspired Scripture, since both contain prefaces in which the authors apologize for any possible errors. God forbids lying, yet Judith and the angel Raphael provide sinful examples by giving false information (Tob. 5:5, 5:13, Jud. 9:10, 13). Lastly, none of the books are quoted in the New Testament.
Far from presenting an exercise in magic, Tobit presents the ancient Christological symbol of the fish (who is, in Tobit 6:3, literally a catcher of men) salted and roasted on coals (as Christ was scourged and roasted in the sun on the cross) in order to destroy the power of a murderous demon and drive him away from a virginal bride. The fish is used to heal a blind man (cf. John 9) by making things like scales fall from his eyes (cf. Acts 10:18).
(I found the above interesting, just goes to show that as usual, some people don’t understand what they are reading unless they read it in light of the Church.)
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp
the role of the Church in the formation of the Canon of the Scriptures
vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_22_xii-ordinaria-2008/02_inglese/b07_02.html
In 382 he moved to Rome: here, acquainted with his fame as an ascetic and his ability as a scholar, Pope Damasus engaged him as secretary and counsellor; the Pope encouraged him, for pastoral and cultural reasons, to embark on a new Latin translation of the Biblical texts.
Jerome’s literary studies and vast erudition enabled him to revise and translate many biblical texts: an invaluable undertaking for the Latin Church and for Western culture. On the basis of the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and thanks to the comparison with previous versions, he revised the four Gospels in Latin, then the Psalter and a large part of the Old Testament. Taking into account the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Septuagint, the classical Greek version of the Old Testament that dates back to pre-Christian times, as well as the earlier Latin versions, Jerome was able, with the assistance later of other collaborators, to produce a better translation: this constitutes the so-called “Vulgate”, the “official” text of the Latin Church which was recognized as such by the Council of Trent and which, after the recent revision, continues to be the “official” Latin text of the Church.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071107_en.html
In 382 Pope Damasus convoked a synod which produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. In 393 the Council of Hippo reiterated the list, as did the First Council of Carthage four years later. In 405 Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to Exsuperius, the bishop of Toulouse, listing the same books as Scripture. The list was given again in 419 at the Second Council of Carthage.
Five arguments are directed against the contents of the books themselves: God forbids sorcery, yet Tobit uses sympathetic magic to drive away a demon and heal blindness. Scripture is inerrant, yet Judith and Tobit have erroneous geography and history. Similarly, Sirach and 2 Maccabees implicitly deny they are inspired Scripture, since both contain prefaces in which the authors apologize for any possible errors. God forbids lying, yet Judith and the angel Raphael provide sinful examples by giving false information (Tob. 5:5, 5:13, Jud. 9:10, 13). Lastly, none of the books are quoted in the New Testament.
Far from presenting an exercise in magic, Tobit presents the ancient Christological symbol of the fish (who is, in Tobit 6:3, literally a catcher of men) salted and roasted on coals (as Christ was scourged and roasted in the sun on the cross) in order to destroy the power of a murderous demon and drive him away from a virginal bride. The fish is used to heal a blind man (cf. John 9) by making things like scales fall from his eyes (cf. Acts 10:18).
(I found the above interesting, just goes to show that as usual, some people don’t understand what they are reading unless they read it in light of the Church.)
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp
E
elvisman
Guest
I was questioning your grammar and you got caught with your proverbial pants down.
Belief is a noun - believe is a verb. You kept toggling between the two and presenting them as the same thing - which they are not.
It doesn’t matter how philosophical you get in your explanation or how many Protestant scholars you quote to prove your point. It’s simple English.
**This is a perfect example of how Protestants “twist the Scriptures to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16). This thread is about Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church. **
Without the Church’s guidance and interpretation (guided by the Holy Spirit - John 16:13-15), you get all sorts of bizarre interpretations that spawn denomination after denomination and splinter groups thereof.
Not exactly the unity of the Body that Jesus so fervently prayed for in John 17, now is it?
B
BibleAnswer
Guest
It is hard to have a back and forth conversation, your obviously right and have no room for growth. forgive me buddy, but your ignorance is going to step all over your toes. How will you ever grow if you never have an objective eye. You think i am the devil wishing to destroy lives. Give me a break. I am a diligent bible student, who makes his observations and studies his hypothesis through constant study. I only desire to help with understanding. Even if you objectively listen to me, or in general each other, then see if there is a shred of truth in it at least. But your attempt to discredit me by pointint out semantics is just a waste of time.**I was questioning your grammar **and you got caught with your proverbial pants down.
Belief is a noun - believe is a verb. You kept toggling between the two and presenting them as the same thing - which they are not.
It doesn’t matter how philosophical you get in your explanation or how many Protestant scholars you quote to prove your point. It’s simple English.
This is a perfect example of how Protestants “twist the Scriptures to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16). This thread is about Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church.
Without the Church’s guidance and interpretation (guided by the Holy Spirit - John 16:13-15), you get all sorts of bizarre interpretations that spawn denomination after denomination and splinter groups thereof.
Not exactly the unity of the Body that Jesus so fervently prayed for in John 17, now is it?
E
elvisman
Guest
**IF you are a serious, diligent Bible student, then behave like one and not like a smug, condescending anti-Catholic. As all Protestants, you do possess part of the truth and I DO acknowledge that - and I celebrate it. But, I hope that you will one day share in the fullness of truth that is Christ’s Church.
And IF you are a diligent student - KNOW your history. You’ll see that the Early Church Fathers from the 1st century on down were ALL Catholic.
As the great convert Cardinal John Henry Newman once said, "To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant."
B
BibleAnswer
Guest
The only smug posts here are yours. And your logic is biased towards the church, while mine is biased towards the truth. the truth and the church are going to be different. the church does not equeal truth. Because man is fallible my friend. And if the bible teaches anything, is that there are wheat and tares. There has been many Tares in the past 2000 years, because that is the nature of man. I do not think the 2000 years of tradition and teachings are perfectly infallible. Because they are non seculare my friend. they are not from the word of God, they are from the mind of man trying to understand the word of God. This is why you have documents like Vatican II which totally contradict previous edicts. You present me with arguments that are non seculare my friends. I could care less about the last 2000 years of tradition and teaching, if the bible has taught me anything, is that the fact that there are Wheat and tares, Proves to me that individuals will be spiritually unaware.
I care about the year 2009 and my soul and my salvation, secondary I care about my friends and familes salvation. I dont care about 2000 years of church teachings because when it comes down to it, what are you really trying to prove, your trying to impress me with a history lesson, and with attacking my grammer, and presenting me with all of this information that is non secular.
A. I am totally aware of most of history. I am an avid bible student like i said. yes i know the history. History is important for perspective and for wisdom, and to learn from, however concerning spiritual biblical holy things, it is still non secular, it is not from the word of God. It is read in a book other than the bible. Which would make it from the mind of man, which would make it fallible, which would mean a lack of spiritual understanding, which would mean i would be taught incorrect doctrine.
B. It is not my job to pursuade you, i present you with arguments, with understanding, it is up to you to research it. Again, dont take my word for it, all though I can say with a full heart that I understand what I am teaching, though the key is, I say, go look yourself with this new understanding. then you can discover the truth yourself. Again, i dont say believe me, though i just as easily could, i say go look your self.
Ps 119:99-104 I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts. I have restrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Your word. I have not departed from Your judgments, for You Yourself have taught me. How sweet are Your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.
- Status