Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[benedictus2]

Wrong again. The Apostle’s Creed came out of the Roman Creed. The Roman Creed, believed to be the first, was originally written around 200 A.D.

Actually the first mention of the Apostles Creed was around 390.

But even more so. If the Apostles Creed as you say was written in 200, there was only one Church then and it was the Catholic Church. If she so decides to add to that creed a hundred or so years later, she has every right to do so as it is her creed and Our Lord has promised to her the guidance of the Holy Spriit.

Furthermore, I didn’t say the church had no right to add the words. I said Protestants do recite the words. You are wrong.

But by saying that the Catholic Church “added” these words, you are making it sound as if it it was an invention by the Church that should not be there.

And as I have said, while protestants do recite these words, it means zilch, because they do not really believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[benedictus2]

Well now… you seem to have just contradicted yourself.

No I haven’t. I have just illustrated that even among protestants, this doctrine is disputed. It would have been much easier for your position if all protestants have agreed that Jesus is NOT really present in the Eucharist.

 

[Ginger2]

benedictus2:
Aaah but there is one thing you overlook. The books that were to form the Bible were measured against Tradition. The books that conformed to Apostolic tradition are those that made the cut. That is why when the Bible was first compiled, it was referred to as “THE CANON OF TRADITIONS” by Pope Clement.

Where does Clement say these traditions were not written down or that not all traditions would be found written in Sacred Scriptures?

What makes you think that “tradition” is synonymous with “orally transmitted”?

Catholics seem to think that Paul’s words, “rather by mouth or epistle” somehow means that if Paul spoke it orally, he couldn’t have also written it down.

Don’t we, even to this day, recite Scriptures as well as read them?

Ginger

 

[benedictus2]

Where does Clement say these traditions were not written down or that not all traditions would be found written in Sacred Scriptures?

But I did not say that at all. Please re-read what I wrote.

What makes you think that “tradition” is synonymous with “orally transmitted”?

I did not say that all that “tradition” meant was “orally transmitted”. Stop attributing words to me that I have not written down.

Catholics seem to think that Paul’s words, “rather by mouth or epistle” somehow means that if Paul spoke it orally, he couldn’t have also written it down.

COULD HAVE is the operative word. But did he write everything down.

Don’t we, even to this day, recite Scriptures as well as read them?

That is not what Paul meant and you know it. Otherwise, he would have just stuck with epistle. But he makes this careful distinction of “by mouth” because there are some apostles who did not write but non the less passed on the gospel traditions.

 

[Ginger2]

Actually the first mention of the Apostles Creed was around 390.

agreed.

But even more so. If the Apostles Creed as you say was written in 200,

No. I am saying the Old Roman Creed was written about 200 A.D. The Apostle’s Creed is a revision of the Old Roman Creed.

But by saying that the Catholic Church “added” these words, you are making it sound as if it it was an invention by the Church that should not be there.

My apologies.

And as I have said, while protestants do recite these words, it means zilch, because they do not really believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We believe in one universal and Apostolic church under Christ Jesus. May I ask when did the RC first begin referring to itself as the “Roman Catholic Church”?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, I can answer that last one. It was actually Protestants who began to refer to us as the “Roman” Catholics. In heavily Protestant countries such as the U.S. (until very recently when it has become less Protestant or at least more ‘conscious’ of nonChristians), Catholics have accepted (not without protest, periodically) such monikers because they were so heavily engrained in the Protestant psyche that the Protestants would not accept the written or the spoken words of Catholics without them taking on the ‘Roman’ label.

And you STILL have not answered the question and I can only surmise that you cannot answer the question.

Why do many–in fact, the majority of Protestants-- interpret John 6 as a ‘figurative’ speech from Jesus, and yet a sizeable minority (even you Ginger) interpret it as literal?

Only one of you can be correct. Either it’s literal or it’s figurative; it can’t be both.

So one of the two groups is falsely interpreting Scripture. From your previous posts, you seem to say that the false group (and you still won’t say which) is doing so deliberately, knowing the “truth” of the Scripture but choosing to deny it.

So if Scripture is what you say it is, then you have literally hundreds of millions of Christians deliberately denying Scripture and teaching a false doctrine, all the while knowing the true doctrine.

You know, this is rocking us Catholics. . .because here is a Protestant coming right out and telling us that a huge number of Protestants who are arguing for the ‘figurative language’ are doing so in DENIAL of Scripture itself… . .I mean, when WE say Protestants are wrong about something y’all go ballistic about how wrong we are, but when you say that not only are they wrong, they’re DELIBERATELY wrong --IOW, making a much more serious charge–you don’t even turn a hair. . .

 

[Ginger2]

Oh, I can answer that last one. It was actually Protestants who began to refer to us as the “Roman” Catholics. …

I was raised Catholic and never heard that before. We referred to ourselves as Roman Catholic.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, here’s the excerpt from the New Advent Encyclopedia (and it’s from 1913 so it’s before both our times.showing this isn’t something dreamed up recently). . .
Roman Catholic

tt=47 A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled “Roman Catholics” as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.
In the “Oxford English Dictionary”, the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading “Roman Catholic”. The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with theSpanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

It’s what I was trying to explain–we ‘have to’ call ourselves that in certain places (mostly ‘English’ speaking’ such as Britain, Canada, and the U.S.) because of the claims of the "anglo-Catholics’ and the pernicious usage thereof.

You won’t find it on the official Vatican web site, or in official Church documents. When reference is made to the Church it is always THE CATHOLIC CHURCH–no “roman” qualifier.

I’m not surprised you didn’t know–being brought up in the U.S., the usage has become extremely common even though it’s wrong.

 

[Ginger2]

Well, here’s the excerpt from the New Advent Encyclopedia (and it’s from 1913

Well, you learn something new everyday.

This reminds me of a story from my childhood. I had a friend who one day, out of the blue, told me she couldn’t be my friend anymore because I was Catholic and we killed Jesus. I was young and didn’t know what to say, so I said nothing.

I took me a few days to realize she thought that because I was “Roman” Catholic.

I never had the opportunity to explain her misconception.

Ginger

 

[erikd]

I suggest you study the history - not commentaries from people who misquote, and misrepresent to support their personal views.

Luther included all the same books in the same manner as Jerome. The Apocrypha were removed later due to high printing costs. This is a fact.

Ginger

Ginger:

I’m not sure how you can still claim this. The quote I gave you came from the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you believe that this information is some sort of falsified commentary, please present evidence to proove your point. Until then, I would hope that you would not espouse your personal opinion as historical fact, when the history does not support your opinion.

 

[erikd]

Two things:

1. Protestants do recite “We believe in one Holy catholic and Apostolic Church” when saying the Creed. “catholic” means universal.
2. The original Creed did not have the words, " one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". It merely said, “The Holy Church”. Catholics added this phrase.

Ginger:

The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church became known as the Nicene Creed as it was written during the council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The Apostles’ Creed, which was written before the Nicene Creed, just states “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church…” If you have any information that this is incorrect, please provide the links so we can all see it for ourselves.

 

[erikd]

I listed the essential doctrines and asked which ones Catholics and Protestants disagree with.

No one has challenge my “personal interpretation” of these Scriptures.

I didn’t leave out anything, I merely started with a partial list to show all Christians - even protestants - agree on the basic fundamental doctrines of Christianity. That is what identifies us as Christian.

Don’t Christians of all denominations disagree on the Real Presence in the Eucharist? How about the necessity of Baptism? What about the necessity of water in Baptism? These seem very basic and fundamental, yet many differing opinions exist, even within Protestant circles. Don’t forget, I already showed you protestant commentaries which claimed that in St. Matthew 16:18 Peter is the Rock (not my words, the protestant commentators). It seems there is plenty of disagreement on the fundamentals.

 

[erikd]

Wrong again. The Apostle’s Creed came out of the Roman Creed. The Roman Creed, believed to be the first, was originally written around 200 A.D.

Furthermore, I didn’t say the church had no right to add the words. I said Protestants do recite the words. You are wrong.

BTW, it was the Nicene Creed that was formulated in 325 A.D. Not the Apostle’s Creed which is the successor or the original Roman Creed.

Ambrose wrote a letter to Pope in 390 giving the Apostles’ Creed and the credit to the Apostles. The original writing from the Apostles does not exist and therefore we rely on history, as Ambrose has provided us, to let us know who is to be credited with the Creed that became known as the Apostles’ creed.

 

[erikd]

Well now… you seem to have just contradicted yourself.

Just because Luther believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that does not say anything about Zwingli, Calvin, etc. Also, Luther did not believe in the Real Presence as the Catholic Church does, as he did not subscribe to transubstantiation, rather Luther subscribed to his own theory, consubstantiation.

 

[EdOsiecki]

One major problem with this kind of interpretation is that you have several verses (from 48 to 60) where Jesus hammers in the fact that we must eat HIS flesh and you are proposing that HALF a verse (v63) negates everything that He has said prior to that?

You are portraying a Jesus who does not know what He is on about. You are in fact saying that Jesus went " Eat my flesh but you will find that it is totally useless to do so".

Verse 63 talks about THE flesh, (which is a contrast to Spirit). In verses 48-60 He talks about MY FLESH. THE flesh is truly of no avail, but not HIS flesh. HIS flesh, according to Jesus Himself, gives life.

Hi Benedictus 2 thank you for your reply. What I’m saying to Des on 1006 and twb1621 about what Jesus means in His dialog in John 6 which actually starts at verse 25 and continues to the end of that chapter, is that Jesus is not speaking literally of being bread (loaf) that came down from heaven or that He expects anyone to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. In v 63, Jesus clarifies it all by saying His words that He has spoken are in a spiritual sense and not literal. That’s why some diciples left, they thought of cannibalism. If the eating the flesh/blood is taken literally, then what about Jesus being the bread of life? that can’t be taken literally too! ------- I never said that we are not to consume communion, which is symbolic of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. If the Eucharist is mystically changed to the literal flesh and blood as transubstantiation claims it to be, then Jesus would be violating the prohibition of eating blood as per the Law of Lev. 7:26-27.-------When Des quotes a commentary from the Duoay/Rhiems Bible, that Bible is the last place I would trust for any information. I already have shown how they mistranslated “Do Penance” rather than “Repent” in Acts 2:38 which is now corrected in the New American Bible. Also they had the audacity not to mistranslate but to misquote Jesus in John 3:5. Jesus never said,” born again of water" (this is where Catholics get baptism) Jesus said, "born of water (physical birth) compared to spiritual birth. We are not born again by baptism in reference to that one and only misquoted verse, when there are numerous verses that very clearly state that we are born again by believing in Jesus’ name. John 1:12-13, Acts 16:31, Joel 2:32, Rom 10:13, 1Per 1:23, ED O.

 

[erikd]

Jesus is not speaking literally of being bread (loaf) that came down from heaven or that He expects anyone to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Ed:

35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

John 6: 35

Did Jesus mean this in a literal sense or a symbolic sense?

41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”

John 6: 41

The Jews took him seriously, and literally.

48 "I am the bread of life.
49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.
51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

John 6: 48-51

Jesus is again stressing a very important point. Also, consider verse 51 as it is very important. If this is to be interpreted as symbolic, then why does Jesus equate His flesh (food) with His death on the cross? Jesus knew He was to die “for the life of the world” and there’s nothing symbolic about that. Yet, here Jesus speaks of His flesh, as well as His giving of His flesh for the “life of the world” as if it was one and the same. How can one be symbolic and the other real? If the Bread of Life is to be equated with the crucifixion, then one must surmise that either both are real or both are symbolic. Nothing in the text shows any differentiation between the two.

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

John 6: 52

The Jews took Jesus’ words in a literal sense once again.

53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 “This is the bread which came down from heaven-not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

John 6: 53-58

Jesus, very emphatically answers the non-believing Jews. One would think that if Jesus meant this to be symbolic, He would not have stressed this same point over and over again. It is precisely because the Jews did not believe Him (as many Protestants today don’t) that Jesus is forced to continually put the exclamation point to His words. One should also consider the Greek forms of the original language. In verses 23 – 53, “phago” which is a generic Greek word for eat or consume is said nine times. However, in verses 54 – 58, after the disbelief of the Jews, the Greek word used is “trogo” which literally means to “gnaw” or “chew.” If the Greek manuscript is correct, then Jesus switched His words to indicate the true meaning of what He was saying. Or rather, He switched His words to emphasize that much more strongly what He meant.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

John 6: 60

Now, Jesus’ disciples took Him seriously.

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?
62 "What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

John 6: 61-63

Verse 63 is often referred to by non-Catholics as the explanation for this entire chapter of the Gospel of John to be understood as symbolic. But I ask you this: By saying that Jesus’ spirit gives us life, how does that negate the total real presence of Christ? Isn’t Christ the Lamb of God? Didn’t Christ equate the Body as food and the Body as a sacrifice in the same sentence? Was He not referring to the same real Body? This entire chapter says that Jesus emphasized time and time again that He meant what He said. Many did not believe, and Jesus re-emphasized the same point over and over again. Does the existence of the Spirit of Jesus negate the totality of the presence? It is much more plausible, when this verse is taken within the context of the entire chapter, to understand that Jesus tells us that we need spiritual wisdom and grace to understand His words?

64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

John 6: 64-67

Jesus realizes that even the Apostles are taking Him seriously. Surely, if the Apostles were to mistake a serious statement from an allegorical or symbolic one, would Jesus not correct them? Jesus commissioned the Apostles to go out and teach the world. If the Apostles got this one wrong, would Jesus not see the magnitude of this kind of mistake? Or maybe, the Apostles got it right. Maybe the Jews got it right. Maybe the disciples got it right. Maybe, Jesus meant what He said. The scripture seems to portray this possibility over all others. Consider that this is the only place in the New Testament, where followers of Christ actually abandoned Him for theological reasons. This does not happen anywhere in the Gospels. If this action, being so severe, were through a misunderstanding, would Jesus not have corrected the issue?

Continued on next post.

 

[erikd]

Continued from previous post.

The importance of the Eucharist is also represented by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians:

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

1 Corinthians 11: 23-29

Paul admonishes the congregation at Corinth for the same heresy which I am here speaking against. In verse 29 Paul calls this the “Lord’s body” not making any references to symbolism. In verses 27 and 28 Paul warns of receiving this Sacrament in an unworthy manner. One would think that if this was symbolic only, Paul would not warn the congregation of drinking judgment on themselves. Paul also speaks to the congregation in the following verse:

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 10: 16

I should admit that there are a couple of verses in the Gospel where Jesus speaks of food in a symbolic manner. Let’s examine those verses.

31 In the meantime His disciples urged Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”
32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?”
34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.
John 4: 31-34

Jesus clearly explains the meaning of food as symbolism.

5 Now when His disciples had come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, "O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?
9 "Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up?
10 "Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up?
11 “How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?-but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Matthew 16: 5-12

Jesus once again explains the meaning behind the symbolism. These two stories indicate a different mannerism and a different explanation than shown in John 6 where Jesus does not indicate anything as symbolic.
John 6 was only, however, the promise of the Eucharist. The actual institution of the Eucharist happened during the Last Supper.

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26: 26-28

Here, just as in John 6, Jesus equates the blood, to be drank, with the blood which is “shed for many for the remission of sins.” Also, Jesus plainly says “this is My body.” There is no distinction of any other reality other than the one being presented. The blood being shed is real and therefore the blood being drank is real. The body is real as there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Mark 14: 22-24

Mark’s Gospel is harmonious with Matthew’s as there is no distinction between the blood being drank and the blood being shed. Also, just as in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says “this is My body.” There is nothing within the language to indicate otherwise.

19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Luke 22: 19-20
A similar explanation here exists as the blood to be drank is the blood to be shed: the real blood. Also, Jesus again states “this is My body.” Nothing here indicates of any other reality other than the one being plainly presented.

 

[Tomb54]

Hi Benedictus 2 thank you for your reply. What I’m saying to Des on 1006 and twb1621 about what Jesus means in His dialog in John 6 which actually starts at verse 25 and continues to the end of that chapter, is that Jesus is not speaking literally of being bread (loaf) that came down from heaven or that He expects anyone to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. In v 63, Jesus clarifies it all by saying His words that He has spoken are in a spiritual sense and not literal. That’s why some diciples left, they thought of cannibalism. If the eating the flesh/blood is taken literally, then what about Jesus being the bread of life? that can’t be taken literally too! ------- I never said that we are not to consume communion, which is symbolic of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. If the Eucharist is mystically changed to the literal flesh and blood as transubstantiation claims it to be, then Jesus would be violating the prohibition of eating blood as per the Law of Lev. 7:26-27.-------When Des quotes a commentary from the Duoay/Rhiems Bible, that Bible is the last place I would trust for any information. I already have shown how they mistranslated “Do Penance” rather than “Repent” in Acts 2:38 which is now corrected in the New American Bible. Also they had the audacity not to mistranslate but to misquote Jesus in John 3:5. Jesus never said,” born again of water" (this is where Catholics get baptism) Jesus said, "born of water (physical birth) compared to spiritual birth. We are not born again by baptism in reference to that one and only misquoted verse, when there are numerous verses that very clearly state that we are born again by believing in Jesus’ name. John 1:12-13, Acts 16:31, Joel 2:32, Rom 10:13, 1Per 1:23, ED O.

St Paul later states that if you eat and drink without discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord you bring condemnation upon yourself. IF it is how you claim for John 6 (which is not the way early Christians believed) then how can this condemnation happen since if they do not discern they are doing nothing more than you say they should??

dis·cern (d-sûrn, -zûrn)

1. To perceive with the eyes or intellect; detect.
2. To recognize or comprehend mentally.
3. To perceive or recognize as being different or distinct

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
Cor 1
Paul did not say it is spiritual and I believe Jesus was not saying it was spiritual only in the whole thing he just said were all those people left because it was hard to believe (which if it was spiritual they would not have had a problem with it). I think Jesus was saying that you had to believe he was there spiritually as well as in the flesh. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. It does no good to see the Body and Blood without seeing also the Soul and Divinity of the Lord as being present. In other words he is there entirely so to have a pure offering (thanksgiving) to the Father.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger:

I’m not sure how you can still claim this. The quote I gave you came from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Martin Luther did exactly what Jerome had done as can be seen by their own words.

Luther separated the deuteros from the protocanicals. He appended the deuteros at the end of the OT with this comment, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

Jerome stated, “the Church reads the books ….but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads …for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

Martin Luther finished the entire Bible by 1534, writing one book at a time, and releasing each book as it was finished instead of waiting until all were completed.
By 1545, a year before his death, he had finished five original editions of the whole Bible.

Concerning the NT James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation, Luther translated these, too. He did not, from what I can see, question their place in the Bible, but rather their authorship. (The authorship of many books is still held in question today - even by the RC)

Luther did not treat the four NT books as he did the Apocrypha. There was no denial of their inspiration that I could find. (if you have such a denial, please provide it)

Nor did he exclude them:

This is know from the original preface to James, which Luther himself removed after the 1st copy (probably because it was being taken out of context to discredit him)

Obviously, if Luther translated these books into German along with the others, he did not exclude them.

The historical facts do not support your claims.

 

[twb1621]

" … the Church Jesus founded …" has not ended but continues and will continue until his return. It is not confined within the walls of the Vatican but extends to the ends of the Earth.

Ginger

You are correct in this. The Catholic Faith is as it’s name denotes, the Universal Church. Do you then recognize the Catholic faith as the only Faith following the criteria of the Church Jesus founded and the prophecies Jesus foretold of His Church?
If not, how do you reconcile the fact that it is but one fath, one set of teachings and beliefs but so many “Christian Faiths” have different beliefs all believing they are the right one? This is in direct contadiction to many verses within scripture. What I was asking for was your interpretation to each verse in relation to the many faiths in contrast to the history and longevity of the Catholic Church.