Protestant interpretations...

[Jason_1977]

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:

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?

That’s all nice an everything, but if you continue on to TITUS, specifically, Titus 3:8-11 “I want you to insist on these points, that those who have believed in God be careful to devote themselves to good works; these are excellent and beneficial to others. Avoid foolish arguments, geneologies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile. After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self condemned.”

Howzat?

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Interesting. So the old Testament which Paul was clearly talking about since Timothy had not the New Testament when he was a child is all one needs to make you wise for Salvation. The New Testament is useless huh.

You’re an excellent example of one who can distort what Scripture is implying to fit your own agenda.

Actually he is quite accurate; there is no distortion there. The OT Scripture is what Jesus quoted often and it is the compass that points to Christ, which is the only way of salvation. Perhaps you differ on what I just stated. I think of Jesus being tempted and stating that men shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Jesus is right.

 

[plain_me]

No, since both versions, Mark and Matthew, report the same response from those present.

Also, Matthew was a disciple - an eye witness who spent nearly all his time with Jesus. Matthew reports Jesus spoke Hebrew.

In contrast, it is uncertain who Mark is. He is said to have been a companion of Paul or a disciple of Peter. It is also said that he was dependent on “oral tradition” to write his gospel - meaning he was not an eye witness.

Ginger

I gotta say that this is a pretty insightful citation. I honestly never considered this before, and I have no idea what the purpose of this interaction originally was; but I appreciate the insight.

 

[plain_me]

well MARK is the oldest of the 4 gospels, I tend to think this one was written in aramaic I matthew has the hebrew version. Mark gets some flack for being too blunt, & has a speedy climax as far as leading to the crucifiction, (MARK was written in aramaic, just looked it up) I’m trying to figure out what the argument being made on this topic is?

You are asserting things again Jason. It may be that Mark was the oldest, but the evidence points rather to a Greek penning and a Roman audience. The style in which it was written (too blunt, as you said) was more geared for the Roman, action seeking, miracle appreciating (power), similar to the short attention spanned American mindset. The arguments you’re making about Aramaic and Hebrew authorship is speculative, at best. But I’m willing to concede it when you post the link to the copies of the Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts. And I’m not talking about manuscripts from late in the first millennium.

 

[Jason_1977]

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.

please dont repeat it? It’s true! He wanted an appendix at the back of the bible seperate from canon. Condescending??? You dont have to like the idea that I find bickering annoying. It’s quite ok if you dont like it that I find some of these rantings and ravings childish. Sometimes I wish people would go and find discussion groups in person. I did. You have quite a presuming elitist tone and thats ok too. I dont mind that. I’m used to that too. My point is, you are very much like the little child that points a finger in a siblings face & says “I’m not touching you”. That’s the vibe I get. But that’s ok too. I posted scripture that follows shortly after what you posted from 2 Timothy. It’s from Titus. You’re going to come up with some way to discredit that, and that’s fine too. I respect your right to have an opinion and pretty much say whatever you feel like. I dont have to respect or agree with your opinion, but so far I’ve respected you. In one fell swoop you make fun at the popes expense, accuse me of broad brushing and call me condescending? Is there a block function on this thing? I thought this was a forum, not a playground for well spoken bigots.

 

[Jason_1977]

Also, Mark still IS the oldest of the 4 gospels.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

You really don’t have to wish, Jason. The Gospel itself has the power to save when applied by the Holy Spirit. Rom. 1:16 says that “the gospel…is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” EVERYONE! And keep in mind, that word “believe” does not mean a mere intellectual assent. It means to trust. If you knew Bill Gates, and he told you that he was gonna give you a $100 bill from his pocket so you could go buy him and you some dinner from McDonalds, would you believe He could do it? God is the most powerful, most trustworthy person in the universe. 1 Cor. 1:21 says that it “please God through the folly of what we preach (the Gospel) to save those who believe.” The Gospel is what has the power, and the Gospel becoes void of its power when anyone tries to hold it up by their own actions (which is what Paul was condemning in his letter to the Galatians). You must trust Jesus as you would trust a parachute (as Ray Comfort says). You don’t try to assist the parachute or work with the parachute, you just trust that it will bring you safely to the ground.

And I must respectfully disagree with this, as well. Jesus’ work is finished. “He has perfected (note the tense) for ALL time those who are being sanctified”–“by a single offering” (Heb. 10:14). My sin for His righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). It doesn’t seem fair or just, but believe me, we definitely don’t want justice. We NEED grace instead.

I would like to add:
Eph.1:1014 In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of {God’s own} possession, to the praise of His glory.

Acts 10 beginning in verse 44 tells us the sequence, which is listen, believe, receive (Holy Spirit baptism), the proclaim via water baptism. There is another one in Acts as well with the same sequence, but I was unable to locate it at this time.

 

[Jason_1977]

You are asserting things again Jason. It may be that Mark was the oldest, but the evidence points rather to a Greek penning and a Roman audience. The style in which it was written (too blunt, as you said) was more geared for the Roman, action seeking, miracle appreciating (power), similar to the short attention spanned American mindset. The arguments you’re making about Aramaic and Hebrew authorship is speculative, at best. But I’m willing to concede it when you post the link to the copies of the Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts. And I’m not talking about manuscripts from late in the first millennium.

Oh, also, in case you didn’t notice, I didn’t dispute any penning. But thanks for the extra tid bits.

 

[plain_me]

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.

Dude, get over it. The Catholic Bible said it was the second Gospel, but the writer merely meant the second Gospel as in its place in our Bibles today. Take a chill pill like teak said. geesh!

 

[Jason_1977]

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.

Also Plain, I wasn’t broad brushing, I didnt say protestants, I said fundamentals…that’s a specific group of protestants. I knew what I meant. And Yes, fundamentals are 99.9999% sola scriptura. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? (Are you a teenager? I have to know, because it’s beginning to feel like it.)

 

[plain_me]

“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

And the other protestant in the room is able to read things in context as the writer meant for it to be taken. High 5, Ginger!

 

[JohnnyBeth]

“IF THE BIBLE ALONE IS GOD’S WORD, GOD’S ONLY REVELATION OF SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER, THEN THE BIBLE WILL SURELY SAY SO.” ~~~MSGR. John J. Glenn

“THE GIFT OF GOD WAS ENTRUSTED TO THE CHURCH THAT ALL THE MEMBERS MIGHT RECEIVE OF HIM AND BE ALIVE.”~~~ST. Irenaeus, Adversus Omnes Haereses

Check it out. It’s a given that Catholicism is not JUST bible based. That’s a sinch. THAT is because the scriptures make it clear that God has revealed Himself through BOTH the Bible (the word) AND the sacred tradition of the church. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that the bible should be the ONLY source of faith. Finally, Jesus didn’t leave the Bible behind when He ascended into heaven. He left us THE CHURCH, in the ministry of HIS APOSTLES. THE BIBLE EMERGED FROM THE CHURCH…NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Respectfully,

Jason

St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen…

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word was set before the foundation of the world. The Word became flesh and dwelt among men.

This is the single mosst important issue I see with a majority of Catholics, including the ones in my family; they do not know Scripture. They read it on occasion but because they have been told and conditioned in my opinion, that they cannot or maybe do not need to interpret because they can only know from the Church which is correct rather than the Holy Spirit, which is what Scripture teaches. There is nowhere in Scripture that says a church interprets scipture, but there it does say the Holy Spirit will lead and guide one individual to the truth concerning the things of God.

 

[plain_me]

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

What historical documents were they using to back up these assertions in this “in depth” Bible study course? I gotta know!

 

[plain_me]

That’s all nice an everything, but if you continue on to TITUS, specifically, Titus 3:8-11 “I want you to insist on these points, that those who have believed in God be careful to devote themselves to good works; these are excellent and beneficial to others. Avoid foolish arguments, geneologies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile. After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self condemned.”

Howzat?

I dunno. What’s your point?

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid.

In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and *four *times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

In Aramaic, the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used in a man’s name. But when Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek, he had to use the masculine for petros because you *cannot *call a man by a feminine term in that language. So, because Matthew wanted to call Peter a rock, he made the normal feminine word petra masculine (petros) to create a play on words.

I don’t know what Greek some protestant scholars study but it ain’t Koine, that’s for sure!

That is all wonderful except you overlook something very obvious; the reality of the church being built on the foundation, which is Christ, layed by the prophets and the apostles and off course that is what Scripture not only says, but that is how it all got started and what is easily observable in the real world.

Logically, if you use rocl to mean exactly the same; then which rock is the rock Jesus built His church Rock Peter or Rock Jesus? I’ll go with Rock Jesus. We were given the Greek for good reason.

 

[Jason_1977]

I dunno. What’s your point?

my point? Read the text, you’re a smart guy, you were just having a 2TIM conversation but I know what’s 2 pages over from that text you were citing.

Also, here ya go…

Martin Luther Taught Certain Books of the Bible Were Questionable
Martin Luther had different views of various books of the Bible. Specifically, he had a fairly low view of the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:

As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Reid, George J. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik Canon of the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Martin Luther himself was the obvious reason why, as he wrote,

Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. In the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546).

Regarding the New Testament Book of Hebrews Martin Luther stated,

It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw (O’Hare, p. 203).

He also wrote,

St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).

and

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).

Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term ‘faith alone’:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24).

One would have to assume that the fact that James 2:24 contradicted Martin Luther’s sola fide teaching would have been a major reason that he discounted this book of the Bible.

Protestant scholars have recognized that Martin Luther handled James poorly as they have written:

The great reformer Martin Luther…never felt good about the Epistle of James…Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.

(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)

Martin Luther taught,

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle…Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).

To me, Jude does not sound that similar to 2 Peter, but if even it is, should it be discounted? Maybe Martin Luther discounted it because it warns people:

…to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

And this, sadly, is not something that Martin Luther really did (though he did sometimes make some efforts towards that).

Perhaps none of Martin Luther’s writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,

About this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).

Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning,

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).

Martin Luther took away from this book through his comments about it, and this is the same Martin Luther who (as shown previously in this article) added words to the Bible that were not there.

 

[plain_me]

please dont repeat it? It’s true! He wanted an appendix at the back of the bible seperate from canon. Condescending??? You dont have to like the idea that I find bickering annoying. It’s quite ok if you dont like it that I find some of these rantings and ravings childish. Sometimes I wish people would go and find discussion groups in person. I did. You have quite a presuming elitist tone and thats ok too. I dont mind that. I’m used to that too. My point is, you are very much like the little child that points a finger in a siblings face & says “I’m not touching you”. That’s the vibe I get. But that’s ok too. I posted scripture that follows shortly after what you posted from 2 Timothy. It’s from Titus. You’re going to come up with some way to discredit that, and that’s fine too. I respect your right to have an opinion and pretty much say whatever you feel like. I dont have to respect or agree with your opinion, but so far I’ve respected you. In one fell swoop you make fun at the popes expense, accuse me of broad brushing and call me condescending? Is there a block function on this thing? I thought this was a forum, not a playground for well spoken bigots.

You’re pretty touchy, man. I was trying to be light-hearted. I guess I know who I CAN’T joke around with. I apologize for any unbecoming tone that I had. I’ll try to pay closer attention and keep from being a jerk. Seriously.

I actually have gone to in person discussion groups with guys associated with Regnum Christi (though I think the guys have a different name for it–my wife was involved with Regnum Christi when we first got married). I’m actually planning to get together with a guy who has a masters in theology from a RC school and works at a museum in one of the RC parishes in Columbus.

Oh, and would you mind giving me a link to Luther’s work in which he said that he doesn’t plan to include James in his German translation? Obviously, James was already in the Vulgate and Greek NTs, so you must be referring to the translation he compiled as the one he meant to leave James out of, right?

 

[Jason_1977]

I dunno. What’s your point?

I’ll make it easy for you. I can even cite the statement that Martin Luther DID place the book of James in an appendix thereby removing it from the bible & just schlepping it in the back of the book.

The great reformer Martin Luther…never felt good about the Epistle of James…Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.

(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)

 

[JohnnyBeth]

You’re pretty touchy, man. I was trying to be light-hearted. I guess I know who I CAN’T joke around with. I apologize for any unbecoming tone that I had. I’ll try to pay closer attention and keep from being a jerk. Seriously.

I actually have gone to in person discussion groups with guys associated with Regnum Christi (though I think the guys have a different name for it–my wife was involved with Regnum Christi when we first got married). I’m actually planning to get together with a guy who has a masters in theology from a RC school and works at a museum in one of the RC parishes in Columbus.

Oh, and would you mind giving me a link to Luther’s work in which he said that he doesn’t plan to include James in his German translation? Obviously, James was already in the Vulgate and Greek NTs, so you must be referring to the translation he compiled as the one he meant to leave James out of, right?

Boys - take a deep breathe; tomorrow is another day; Lord willing.
:slapfight:

 

[plain_me]

I would like to add:
Eph.1:1014 In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of {God’s own} possession, to the praise of His glory.

Acts 10 beginning in verse 44 tells us the sequence, which is listen, believe, receive (Holy Spirit baptism), the proclaim via water baptism. There is another one in Acts as well with the same sequence, but I was unable to locate it at this time.

A welcome contribution, thanks!

I also noticed the lack of response to this by Jason. I probably wouldn’t have taken note if he hadn’t pointed out a lack of response to his former post. So, what say ye, Jason?