Protestant interpretations...

[Des]

I came upon this quote provided by a Catholic purely by accident:

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, **by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. **Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. [DV 25; cf. Phil 3:8 and **St. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii prol.L 24,17B]—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., © 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

So what we have here is strong evidence literacy rates were high in the 1st century up to the forth century and into the forth century, as well!!!

If the forth and fifth centuries were the height of illiteracy as was previously suggested, why did Jerome “forcefully” stress the importance of these illiterates to “frequently” read the Scriptures???

Ginger

You may have misread that. That entire line isn’t St. Jerome’s. Look to end of the verse and notice the numbers 112. Then go to the bottom of the CCC and it shows the reference it used in saying this.

Phil 3:8 is the red part.
St. Jerome’s is the Blue part.

The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

I can’t find in full, St. Jerome’s writings online to confirm this either.

You also have to be suggesting that everyone back then had their own Bibles for St. Jerome to forcefully want ALL Christians (both literates and illiterates included) to read Scripture for themselves. But we know that’s not the case.

 

[Ginger2]

I just read the introduction to Matthew in my Catholic Bible and guess what.

It says Matthew is the only Gospel first written in a language other than Greek, and the Greek is in substantial conformity to the original Hebrew text.

Do you know what that means? This information solidifies my claims concerning Matthew 27 and Mark 15.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

RC Bible: The Greek text is in substantial conformity with the original [Hebrew]

Ginger

 

[Jason_1977]

That’s funny… my Catholic Bible says, "It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote the second Gospel, that he wrote it in Rome sometime before the year 60 A.D., that he wrote it in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.

Ginger

YOU NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE…I am going to quote MY catholic bible which SHOULD be identical to YOURS, READY? The preface to the GOSPEL OF MARK…buckle up Ginger…“THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK: This shortest of all New Testament gospels is LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, yet it often tells often of Jesus’ ministry in more detail than either Matthew or Luke…etc…Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before 70AD, at a time of impending persecution …etc” Ginger…The gospels are not in there in chronological order. They are 4 accounts of the same things with varying details here & there. I think you should take a break from all this before you put your foot in your mouth AGAIN.

 

[Ginger2]

YOU NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE…I am going to quote MY catholic bible which SHOULD be identical to YOURS, READY? The preface to the GOSPEL OF MARK…buckle up Ginger…“THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK: This shortest of all New Testament gospels is LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, yet it often tells often of Jesus’ ministry in more detail than either Matthew or Luke…etc…Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before 70AD, at a time of impending persecution …etc” Ginger…The gospels are not in there in chronological order. They are 4 accounts of the same things with varying details here & there. I think you should take a break from all this before you put your foot in your mouth AGAIN.

I didn’t say the were in chronological order. I merely quoted what my Catholic Bible says, “It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote… in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.”

In Greek, not Aramaic.

 

[teak421]

I didn’t say the were in cronological order. I merely quoted what my Catholic Bible says, “It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote… in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.”

In Greek, not Aramaic.

Ginger, you’ve crossed over… and you are not rational… you choose to ignore very specific questions and you are sometimes rude. Now, I’ve done ALL those things that I’ve just written and I was wrong. So, I would suggest we all take a chill pill and start over on another topic because we’re not doing the 2nd of the two greatest commandments all to well here…

• Michael

 

[Jason_1977]

I didn’t say the were in chronological order. I merely quoted what my Catholic Bible says, “It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote… in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.”

In Greek, not Aramaic.

conveniently you left out the fact that you slipped & said the second gospel after arguing w. me for saying it was the first to be written. Nice. I was about to tell you I just checked the NAB Study edition, the Saint Joseph Edition & the NAB & all 3 say the same thiing. I looked at the NASB & the NIV and even the NASB Study bible & they dont really say anything of the sort about the history of the book & just focuses on the lesson of whatever book. I’ve got plenty of catholic bibles & canon bibles because I love comparing & contrasting. You slipped. You know it. It’s ok. I’m used to it.

 

[Jason_1977]

I didn’t say the were in chronological order. I merely quoted what my Catholic Bible says, “It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote… in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.”

In Greek, not Aramaic.

Originally Posted by Ginger2
That’s funny… my Catholic Bible says, "It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote the second Gospel, that he wrote it in Rome sometime before the year 60 A.D., that he wrote it in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.

Ginger

UM…YOU DID say that. If I make a mistake I own up to it.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, you’ve crossed over… and you are not rational… you choose to ignore very specific questions and you are sometimes rude. Now, I’ve done ALL those things that I’ve just written and I was wrong. So, I would suggest we all take a chill pill and start over on another topic because we’re not doing the 2nd of the two greatest commandments all to well here…

• Michael

Exactly what is irrational about quoting the preface in my Catholic Bible. I would assume Catholic sources would carry more weight with Catholics.

A claim was made that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and that proves "Peter the Rock is the very rock the church is built upon. Since all the Gospels except Matthew were originally written in Greek, according to my Catholic Bible, that argument fails.

Also, Matthew’s Greek translation is said to substantially conform to the original Hebrew.

BTW, I am not ignoring questions, I’m simply tired of repeating myself.

The bottom line it that people choose to believe what they want to believe, even when all the facts contradict their opinions.

Have a nice night.

 

[teak421]

Exactly what is irrational about quoting the preface in my Catholic Bible. I would assume Catholic sources would carry more weight with Catholics.

A claim was made that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and that proves "Peter the Rock is the very rock the church is built upon. Since all the Gospels except Matthew were originally written in Greek, according to my Catholic Bible, that argument fails.

Also, Matthew’s Greek translation is said to substantially conform to the original Hebrew.

BTW, I am not ignoring questions, I’m simply tired of repeating myself.

The bottom line it that people choose to believe what they want to believe, even when all the facts contradict their opinions.

Have a nice night.

How about this, go back and answer #243… Its a very simple question.

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

Originally Posted by Ginger2
That’s funny… my Catholic Bible says, “It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote the second Gospel, that he wrote it in Rome sometime before the year 60 A.D., that he wrote it in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.”

Ginger

UM…YOU DID say that. If I make a mistake I own up to it.

So you think quoting from the Catholic Bible is a mistake?

This,
“It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote the second Gospel, that he wrote it in Rome sometime before the year 60 A.D., that he wrote it in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.”
is a direct quote from the Catholic Bible I have had since I was a child.

 

[Ginger2]

conveniently you left out the fact that you slipped & said the second gospel after arguing w. me for saying it was the first to be written. Nice. I was about to tell you I just checked the NAB Study edition, the Saint Joseph Edition & the NAB & all 3 say the same thiing. I looked at the NASB & the NIV and even the NASB Study bible & they dont really say anything of the sort about the history of the book & just focuses on the lesson of whatever book. I’ve got plenty of catholic bibles & canon bibles because I love comparing & contrasting. You slipped. You know it. It’s ok. I’m used to it.

“It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote the second Gospel, that he wrote it in Rome sometime before the year 60 A.D., that he wrote it in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.”

This is a quote from the Catholic Bible. I did not call it the “second Gospel” my Catholic Bible refers to it that way.

But if I had it would make no difference as it is the second Gospel in order of books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Ginger

 

[Jason_1977]

“It is historically certain that St. Mark wrote the second Gospel, that he wrote it in Rome sometime before the year 60 A.D., that he wrote it in Greek for the gentile convert to Christianity.”

This is a quote from the Catholic Bible. I did not call it the “second Gospel” my Catholic Bible refers to it that way.

But if I had it would make no difference as it is the second Gospel in order of books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Ginger

which bible version are you using. I’ve got a fist full of them here. Which version? Which edition. Your bible is wrong. (well the preface to the gospel of mark is wrong anyway) Dude, I need to know which version you’re looking at…version & edition. I’ve gotta see this for myself. IT IS wrong. I didnt need a preface to tell me that the book of mark was the oldest, I learned that in an in depth bible study course. Best bible class i’ve ever had. I gotta know Ginger…Version/Edition

 

[Ginger2]

which bible version are you using. I’ve got a fist full of them here. Which version? Which edition. Your bible is wrong. (well the preface to the gospel of mark is wrong anyway) Dude, I need to know which version you’re looking at…version & edition. I’ve gotta see this for myself. IT IS wrong. I didnt need a preface to tell me that the book of mark was the oldest, I learned that in an in depth bible study course. Best bible class i’ve ever had. I gotta know Ginger…Version/Edition

St. Joseph’s Textbook Edition
Confraternity Version

I don’t know the copyright as the first few pages are missing.

So, I noticed you’ve made a slip and have not acknowledged it…

 

[Jason_1977]

St. Joseph’s Textbook Edition
Confraternity Version

I don’t know the copyright as the first few pages are missing.

So, I noticed you’ve made a slip and have not acknowledged it…

enlighten me on my slip. I didnt feel a thing…

 

[Ginger2]

enlighten me on my slip. I didnt feel a thing…

That’s what I figured.

 

[Jason_1977]

That’s what I figured.

So what was my mistake? You’ve been doing a good job of telling everyone else, now you’re just playing games.

 

[plain_me]

No sir, not everything was committed to writing. “There are many things Jesus did that are not wirtten down.”-St. John, “Follow the traditions you have seen and heard from us either by our epistle or by word.”-St. Paul “have no fellowship with the man who does not follow our tradition.”-St. Paul. That is because the tradition of the Faith “once delivered to all the saints”-St. Jude, is not only in the Sacred Writ, but accompanies it in harmony. The Church does not follow what the Bible says, but the Bible flows from what the Church has said in the very beginning, so thence, if we follow what the bible says, we are following what the Church has said from the beginning.

I didn’t say that everything was committed to writing, dude. The point is that what was necessary to be known in order to be saved. This is why John goes on to point out that what he wrote was sufficient for his purpose (“but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Jn. 20:31). He didn’t point out the fact that there are many more things Jesus didn’t say in order to emphasize the unwritten tradition. By the way, since you’re a part of the organization that claims to have the tradition that was passed down apart from Scripture, name for me one tradition that John or Paul or Jude was referring to.

Without getting into too much detail right now since I’m way behind in this thread, Paul and Jude both were referring to the Gospel. The once for all faith that was handed down to the saints. I’ll be glad to demonstrate that later, but you have the texts available and can just as easily see that for yourself.

The goal is to follow the Faith that Jesus taught us. agreed? Jesus spoke perfectly so His Truth is also perfect, i.e. no error. Scripture is a snapshot back to the beginnings of the Living Church, we can learn a lot about what the Living Church taught then as received from Christ by studying how the early Christians (those who wrote scripture and first received it) understood it to mean. This is what St. Paul is saying “Follow our tradition of the Faith.”

Just because Paul used the word tradition doesn’t mean he had the same definition that you do. agreed? The only sure way to determine what someone means by what they say is by reading that someone’s words in their context. agreed? Have you heard of anachronism? I like the idea of following Trent’s words in the canons which says that you cannot interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the church fathers. As if the church fathers held to all the same things that the Roman Catholic church held to in the 16th century! :whacky: They didn’t even agree with each other! That’s anachronism. Assuming that someone is speaking the same language that you’re speaking and interpreting what they say in light of your modern understanding as if they have any idea of this novel teaching.

I agree that we can most certainly learn from the early church in the Scriptures and we can understand the Scriptures in light of what they themselves taught about it. The goal is to read it from their own perspective, not your own. And even if we committed ourselves to following what the early Christians understood the Scriptures to be teaching we’d be in the same boat as when we take anyone living today’s understanding as being authoritative. They disagreed with one another! Turtullian and Irenaeus and others didn’t even have a proper understanding of the Trinity! Are you willing to trust your soul to that authority?

agreed, this is uber important. The Bible says that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. St. Paul, writing to Timothy, uses the image Pillar for the Church, just as the Israelites were led by the Pillar of fire in the desert, so we are led by the Pillar of Truth, and the bible says that Pillar is the Church of the Living God. Jesus also said he who build his house upon a rock, that house shall stand against the tempests, Jesus built his house upon the Rock, it is on the foundation of the Apostles, not the bible.

It is disappointing to watch you speak from your preconceived POV. Since the pillar of fire best suits your purposes you assume that that’s what Paul meant. Why would you not assume that since Paul is speaking of a foundational structure that he is referring to the church as something that stands below and holds up the truth for everyone else to see? And since Jesus calls God’s word the truth, then why wouldn’t we understand the church as being the instrument that holds up the Scriptures for everyone to see and be saved? Name someone in the Bible who appealed to some outside tradition and taught the faithful instead of using God’s word.I can think of the Pharisees. Of course, I could take your POV and just take note of what the early Christians taught on this subject and notice that Irenaeus said that the Scriptures themselves are the pillar and ground of the truth. I don’t mind using your reasoning in this matter, actually.

Actually, we could go through all that rigmarole for ever and ever. OR we could recognize the authority of the unchanging Scriptures to settle our dispute. We can make our arguments from it and support our arguments with the context in order to determine the authors meanings and teachings…

 

[Jason_1977]

there is a seeeerious you say potato, I say potato pandemic going on in here. It’s kinda aggrevating. Nobody says what do you mean anymore, they just wait for a chance to pounce & doo-doo on everything that gets said. That’s not conversation, it’s nonsense.

 

[plain_me]

Can you please point me to scripture that agree with your statement above? If you can not, you are violating sola scriptura.

• Michael

Ok.

Immediately following Paul’s words to Timothy instructing him that the Scriptures are what is necessary and sufficient to save and to guide through the rest of the believer’s life into every good work he goes on to say:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For (or because) the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
(2Ti 4:1-4 ESV)

So, since Paul knows that there will be those in the future who will wander off away from the truth he tells Timothy to preach the WORD with no mention of tradition (not that his definition of tradition matches yours). He tells Timothy to preach the WORD by using it to reprove, rebuke and exhort. He tells Timothy to preach the WORD because this is what is his weapon against the error that will creep in from erroneous teachers. And he says in Acts that those teachers will actually come from within the church (20:30). And this happened from the very beginning on as we see in Galatians and Jude and the epistles of John. And the weapon the man of God has to defend against the erroneous teachings is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17).

Howzat?

 

[plain_me]

Sola Scriptura (another invention of the Catholic church which Protestants have adopted to fit the Holy Scriptures) is not a declaration of “all knowledge is contained in the scriptures and nowhere else” or “that God is found in the Bible and nowhere else”

If it was true that sola scriptura was an invention of the RCC, then what are the fundamentalists screaming about when they say all they need is the bible? Did they get on the phone & talk to the pope? Honestly. You sound a bit ridiculous when you lash out. Stick to being productive & objective. You may convince someone you’re intelligent.

Also, Luther had a huge problem with the book of James. He didnt like the idea of works. Maybe he didnt have enough time off, who knows, but this is for certain, if he had his way, the book of james & a few others would be in an appendix at the back of the bible. Funny, TITUS contains the same message James has on faith & works. In fact, those who were saved in an instant pretty much love the idea of faith alone. It would put a damper on their singular moment. Just food for thought.

You’re broad brushing people based on some bad apples, Jason. You’re also pretty condescending. This was not immediately plain to me. Disappointing.

Luther had some issues with James, I understand, but the myth that he tried to leave James out of the Bible is merely pope fiction (you like that play on words? ). It has been debunked by historical evidence and the lack thereof. Please don’t repeat it, or we may have to use condescending words against you like you did against Ginger.

Oh, and by the way,Paul has the same message as James as well (eg. Romans 6). Of course, the whole Bible agrees with itself in every way; that’s why we trust it as the reliable and ONLY infallible rule of faith and practice.