Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SyCarl said:
I am not trying to confuse you. What Jerome says is that somethings referred to in the New Testament are found in the Hebrew Scriptures but not in the Septuagint. To him this shows that the Apostles used the Hebrew Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it the other way around? I.e. some things are found only in the Septuagint?

Or is it both? I.e. Some things are found only in the Septuagint, others are found only in the Hebrew texts?
 
SyCarl said:
However, when quoting something that is in both the Septuagint and the Hebrew, they would use the wording in the Septuagint since they were writing primarily to a Greek speaking audience.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s what Jerome is saying.
Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.
Click to expand...
 
Peter_J said:
Isn’t it the other way around? I.e. some things are found only in the Septuagint?

Or is it both? I.e. Some things are found only in the Septuagint, others are found only in the Hebrew texts?
Click to expand...
The Septuagint contains some books not in the Hebrew Scriptures. What Jerome is doing in the quotes I gave is comparing those books that are common to both the Septuagint and Hebrew Scriptures. He says that the Hebrew books contain something the Apostles refer to that are not in the Septuagint versions of the same books.
 
Peter_J said:
I don’t think that’s what Jerome is saying.
Click to expand...
Jerome gives some examples of what he found in the Hebrew but not the Septuagint, at least in his day.
But I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son’ (Matt. ii. 15): ‘For he shall be called a Nazarene’ (Ibid. 23): and ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced’ (John xix. 37): and ‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’ (John vii. 38): and ‘Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him’ (1 Cor. ii. 9), and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (xi. 1), the second in Isaiah (xi. 1), the third in Zechariah (xii. 10), the fourth in Proverbs (xviii. 4), the fifth also in Isaiah (lxiv. 4).
Click to expand...
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxvi.html
 
Ginger2 said:
Think about it Sycarl,

If I say “A penny saved is a penny earned”, would you assume I am quoting Benjamin Franklin or would you assume I am quoting someone who quoted Benjamin Franklin because that quote is found in some other source?

That is what they are doing when they claim the Apostles quote the LXX.

I will give you that since the the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek because that was becoming the more common language, they may have quoted using language that was closer to what was written in the LXX,

however, there is absolutely no credible evidence they quoted from any the extra books found in Catholic Bibles.

That is my point because Catholics use the “Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Septuagint” defense to create support for their false claim the deuteros were always included in the Scriptures.

Agreed or no?
Click to expand...
I agree with you with respect to the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals.
 
Peter_J said:
SyCarl or Ginger,

Are there any other examples you can provide besides this one?
Click to expand...
Why not provide me with some examples of where you believe Jesus or his disciples quoted the deuteros, as that is the real question for me. Their is no point in debating valid translations of inspired Scriptures any more than for us to debate an English Translation of Matthew - we already agree.

Show me some examples of where you think Jesus or the apostles quoted the books in dispute and we can discover together what they were quoting.

Does that make sense?
 
Peter_J said:
Jerome made a distinction between those books that are found only in the Septuagint (which he called “Apocrypha”), and those books that are found in both the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts (both of which are inspired texts, FYI). But he did not separate them – he left them in the order they appeared in the Septuagint.
Click to expand...
Actually I do not think that all versions of the Vulgate place the additional books in the same place. I have seen some that also contain additional books such as 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras (as distinct from Ezra and Nehemiah) as well as 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees.
 
Ginger2 said:
Why not provide me with some examples of where you believe Jesus or his disciples quoted the deuteros, as that is the real question for me. Their is no point in debating valid translations of inspired Scriptures any more than for us to debate an English Translation of Matthew - we already agree.

Show me some examples of where you think Jesus or the apostles quoted the books in dispute and we can discover together what they were quoting.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Many Catholics will cite a list given on the Scripture Catholic website (scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html)), but having looked into them most of them are quite a stretch.
 
Peter_J said:
Jerome made a distinction between those books that are found only in the Septuagint (which he called “Apocrypha”), and those books that are found in both the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts (both of which are inspired texts, FYI).
Click to expand...
I disagree. Jerome pointed out those texts are not inspired.

Are any of the authors acknowledged as prophets?

Do any of the authors even claim to be writing under divine inspiration?

The inspired books of the Bible state they are inspired. The authors claim to be speaking for God and bear witness that the other prophets also spoke for God.

Gen 1:3 And God said,
Gen 1:6 And God said,
Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Num 6:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Deu 2:2 And the LORD spake unto me, saying,
Jos 4:1 And it came to pass, …, that the LORD spake unto Joshua, saying,
Jdg 1:2 And the LORD said,
Jdg 7:2 And the LORD said unto Gideon,
1Sa 3:4 That the LORD called Samuel: and he answered, Here [am] I.

Also, when the prophesies came true it was proof of their inspiration.

The Apostle Paul claimed inspiration 1Galatians 1:11-12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings are indeed God’s written Word.

2 Peter 3:15-16 …as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain
things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Are any of these evidences found in the deuteros?
Does any credible witness claim even one of the authors to be a prophet?
 
OneTrueCathApos said:
Yea, use the bible with the most errors possible in it…wrong doctrine, sorry…🤷
Click to expand...
The Douay-Rheims bible contains these verses:

The word succession:

1 Deuteronomy 18

8 He shall receive the same portion of food that the rest do: besides that which is due to him in his own city, by succession from his fathers.

2 Judith 14

6 Then Achior seeing the power that the God of Israel had wrought, leaving the religion of the gentiles, he believed God, and circumcised the flesh of his foreskin, and was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred until this present day.

2 occurrences.

Four instances for successor.

1 Ruth 4

14 And the women said to Noemi: Blessed be the Lord, who hath not suffered thy family to want a successor, that his name should be preserved in Israel.

2 Ecclesiasticus 46

1 Valiant in war was Jesus the son of Nave, who was successor of Moses among the prophets, who was great according to his name,

3 2 Machabees 14

26 But Alcimus seeing the love they had one to another, and the covenants, came to Demetrius, and told him that Nicanor assented to the foreign interest, for that he meant to make Judas, who was a traitor to the kingdom, his successor.

4 Acts Of Apostles 24

27 But when two years were ended, Felix had for successor Portius Festus. And Felix being willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.

4 occurrences.

All we know now is that the Douay-Rheims version of the bible contains both words. In limited applications; but we do want you to be happy.
 
SyCarl said:
Actually I do not think that all versions of the Vulgate place the additional books in the same place. I have seen some that also contain additional books such as 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras (as distinct from Ezra and Nehemiah) as well as 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees.
Click to expand...
Well … OK, but let me ask you this: Have you even seen a shred of evidence to suggest that St. Jerome took all the “Apocryphal” books and placed them together (like Martin Luther did)?
 
Ginger2 said:
I disagree. Jerome pointed out those texts are not inspired.
Click to expand...
Well, Catholic and Protestants (and Orthodox, for that matter) agree that just because a Church Father says something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true (even if he also happens to be a Pope – but that’s really beside the point since St. Jerome wasn’t a Pope).
 
OneTrueCathApos said:
**No, the Apostles who have handed down to the Roman Catholic church to give you YOUR bible, because without the Catholic church, you wouldn’t even have one…oh, but you’ll dispute this one, even if it has historical evidence as well…🤷 **
Click to expand...
I see you did not understand my reply. The question is “are you permitted to read and understand the bible”. And according to your church, you are.

Here it is in you catechism:

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

That this is true goes without saying. Catholics quote scripture all the time. Therefore, are you or are you not permitted to read and understand the scriptures?

============================================
Have a look and tell me if you responded to what I said. Thank you.

#486 Yesterday, 1:40 pm
OneTrueCathApos
Senior Member Join Date: October 31, 2008
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 588

Re: Protestants can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningDuck
Are you forbidden to interpret scripture on your own? According to your catechism, you may understand and interpret through the power of the Holy Spirit.

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

Therefore, I don’t understand your contention.​

No, the Apostles who have handed down to the Roman Catholic church to give you YOUR bible, because without the Catholic church, you wouldn’t even have one…oh, but you’ll dispute this one, even if it has historical evidence as well…
If you have been reduced to God being your only hope, you are in a good place.
 
Ginger2 said:
We are all involved in crushing satan in that sense. (see Romans 16:20 )

However, Genesis 3:15 is singular, masculine and is referring to Christ.

The word “he” in Gen 3:15 refers to Jesus, not Mary. Changing “he” to “she” makes a difference.

Look at these examples:

She gave birth to a son. He was named Jesus.
She gave birth to a son. She was named Jesus.

Who was named Jesus? Was she named Jesus or was he named Jesus.

Here’s another example:
The son ate lunch with his mother. She paid the check.

Does this sentence make clear to the reader that the son is the one who paid the check?

Changing “he” to “she” changed the meaning.
Click to expand...
Well, you know how it goes. It all depends on what anyone’s definition of the word “IS” is.
 
Peter_J said:
He means

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Click to expand...
Thank you !!!

I’ll take the first one:

Catholics claim Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

but the very next verse, 17 says it fulfills the prophesy in Jeremiah 31:15

Matthew 2:
16 When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi.
17 Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet:
 
Peter_J said:
Well, Catholic and Protestants (and Orthodox, for that matter) agree that just because a Church Father says something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true (even if he also happens to be a Pope – but that’s really beside the point since St. Jerome wasn’t a Pope).
Click to expand...
😃 I love the way Catholics site Church Fathers to uphold their doctrines, but when those same fathers disagree it quickly becomes mere opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top