Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[Ginger2]

The Catholic Church Encyclopedia says: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose **Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”
The Catholic Church admits the Apocrypha were not always universally accepted.
“These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.”

It seems to me these books were added not removed.

 

[RunningDuck]

We are not forbidden to interpret scripture on our own because there are different levels to Scriptural interpretation. It is true that in a certain sense we are guided by the Holy Spirit when we read the Bible. The Bible can speak to us individually and as a Church.

The problem arises when you start reading some parts of the Bible and come up with the conclusion that this is what it means period, when other parts of the Bible outright refute it. Case in point is Faith Alone.

No single person can hope to plumb the depths of Scripture. The issues that you come up with now, the Church’s fathers, doctors and saints have already grappled with hundreds of years ago. Some of these Church Fathers are second generation apostles.

That is why we have the Church. That is why we have the deposit of faith to bounce back our own interpretation against.

But submitting to the wisdom of the Church requires much humility. Christ said, learn from me for I am humble of heart.

YOu are suggesting that when ordinary human beings delve into the depth of scripture, the Holy Spirit abandons them, because it is not for them to do so and they have overreached themselves? Truly there are some non-Catholics who say faith alone. They come around when you show them that God requires spiritual works, or works done in the Holy Spirit. You just have to keep looking, before you throw the baby out with the bath water.

I disagree with your second paragraph as well and so does the bible.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work
(2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Here Paul addresses the man of God, not some men of God.

And the following is what he had to say to Timothy:

2 Tim 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Therefore, the bible was written for all men to understand including children.

I would like to see where your church says that you are to bounce your interpretation of the bible back against it.

Nothing was said about submitting to the church. Interpreting scripture on your own with the help of the Holy Spirit is the issue. Your church gives you permission to do so.

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

Of course, I am assuming that you are one of the faithful, have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit and understand his instructions and guidance into all truth.

 

[Peter_J]

I love the way Catholics site Church Fathers to uphold their doctrines, but when those same fathers disagree it quickly becomes mere opinions.

If a Catholic says to you “Such-and-such must be true, just because one Church Father said it”, then you definitely have cause for complaint.

If I had ever said that to one of my Catholic school teachers, my bum would have been sore for a week. (Actually I just made that up, but you get the idea.)

 

[Peter_J]

The Catholic Church Encyclopedia says:

I’ve never heard of “The Catholic Church Encyclopedia”. Perhaps you mean the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia?

The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
AND
"[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose **Scriptural character was contested in some quarters

,"
The Catholic Church admits the Apocrypha were not always universally accepted.
“These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.”

I don’t see anything wrong with that.

It seems to me these books were added not removed.

I don’t believe “added” is correct. The fact of the matter is that they went from a “disputed” status to a “confirmed” status. (Although I suppose you’re going to reply that they went from being “disputed” to being “rejected”.) But that’s not an intrinsic change: they were always Scripture, it’s just that not everyone always agree that they were.

 

[LilyM]

I love the way Catholics site Church Fathers to uphold their doctrines, but when those same fathers disagree it quickly becomes mere opinions.

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick here.

Think of the Supreme Court. When one judge gives their individual reasons for thinking a certain way it IS mere opinion.

When a majority of the Supreme Court justices come to the same conclusions as that individual judge, then those same statements from that judge become binding authority - judgement - and cease to be mere opinion.

 

[SyCarl]

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick here.

Think of the Supreme Court. When one judge gives their individual reasons for thinking a certain way it IS mere opinion.

When a majority of the Supreme Court justices come to the same conclusions as that individual judge, then those same statements from that judge become binding authority - judgement - and cease to be mere opinion.

Was Jerome alone? Let’s look at a couple of others.

Cyril of Jerusalem

Of the Divine Scriptures.
33. Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ’s school. For before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, and, the law has been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. And if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the sound of the Saviour’s voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.

1. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.

Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4 Paragraphs 33 & 34
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

Cyril includes only Baruch from the Apocrypha as well as Jeremiah’s Epistle. He includes these as part of Jeremiah.

Rufinus

1. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five 558books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.

Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.

1. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not “Canonical” but “Ecclesiastical:” that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees.

Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, Sections 38 & 39
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xiii.xxxviii.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xiii.xxxix.html

Note the books of the Apocrypha are listed as not part of the canon.

These are two fathers I can find online. There are others who excluded the Apocrypha as well.

 

[Ginger2]

I meant “The Catholic Encyclopedia”. I sometimes write in a rush and don’t always proof read

The fact of the matter is that they went from a “disputed” status to a “confirmed” status.

in the 16th century Catholic Church

And from disputed to rejected in the reformation.

But that’s not an intrinsic change: they were always Scripture, it’s just that not everyone always agree that they were.

Yes they were always scripture, meaning written documents, but they have never been divinely inspired Scriptures.

Do you have any evidence that suggests the Deuteros are divinely inspired?
Did anyone ever claim the authors to be prophets?
Do any of the texts claim they are the Word of God?

 

[Peter_J]

I meant “The Catholic Encyclopedia”. I sometimes write in a rush and don’t always proof read

Yes. Sorry to be a stickler, but it’s rather important in this particular case. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a 20th century scholarly work. We call it “The Catholic Encyclopedia” because that’s the title of the work – it doesn’t indicate that it’s an official representative of the Catholic position. (In the same way, when I say “the Church of England”, that doesn’t mean that I consider it to truly be a church. I’m just call it by it’s official name.)

in the 16th century Catholic Church

Actually, I believe it was a pretty gradual process.

 

[Peter_J]

Was Jerome alone? Let’s look at a couple of others.

Cyril of Jerusalem

Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4 Paragraphs 33 & 34
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

Cyril includes only Baruch from the Apocrypha as well as Jeremiah’s Epistle. He includes these as part of Jeremiah.

Thanks for the quotes. I was confused at first by Cyril’s talk of “22 books of the Old Testament”, but I guess if you look at his actual list, it comes out. Curious that he included Baruch, when he didn’t include any of the other “Apocryphal” books.

You realize, of course, that the same criticism you’re making against Catholics can also be made against Protestants: there certainly wasn’t, in the early Church, a consensus that the “Apocryphal” books should be excluded, either. If “development” isn’t alright in Catholicism, why is it alright in Protestantism? (And, let’s face it, we Catholics at least admit to our developments.)

 

[benedictus2]

I knew a woman who did not believe Jesus is God. She wouldn’t listen to anything I said. I stopped talking about God with her and began praying.

One day I mindlessly started talking about God and she said she would like to know what the Bible really says.

I was floored as in the past she always declined to do a Bible study stating she already read the Bible.

She agreed to come to my home each morning to study Scriptures one-on-one.

To male a long story short…I used only the Scriptures to teach. I crossed reference from one book to another to clarify meanings.

This woman now believes in the Trinity.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, Scripture alone was sufficient. It became plain and easy to understand when God opened her mind to understanding.

YOU were explaining it to her. You already know the doctrine of the Trinity. You already know all the supporting passages because that was also explained to you.

If you had given her the Bible to understand by herself, would she have been able to come up with the Trinity as it is known, Three Persons in One God.?

 

[llblarosa]

To Previous Few Entries:

1. The Church Fathers have their place in the discussion, but one alone cannot be the authority. The decisions regarding the canon were never made by one person alone, and the Church Fathers (like all humans) varied widely in the opinions held. One must give priority where priority is due. Do all the other Fathers agree with Jerome on this text? Why or why not?
2. These texts were included in all the early Bibles. Do you use a Bible that does not owe its origins to one of these Bibles? If so, which one? Certainly, you must allow us the benefit of knowing which superior text yuo use? Or were these books removed from yours at some point? How long ago? Why?
3. You certainly must allow that the proofs that go on in these types of threads certainly do not, by any means, amount to scholarship in this area.

Lisa

 

[benedictus2]

YOu are suggesting that when ordinary human beings delve into the depth of scripture, the Holy Spirit abandons them, because it is not for them to do so and they have overreached themselves?

I think you missed this part of my post:
"benedictus:

We are not forbidden to interpret scripture on our own because there are different levels to Scriptural interpretation. It is true that in a certain sense we are guided by the Holy Spirit when we read the Bible. ***The Bible can speak to us individually and as a Church ***

Truly there are some non-Catholics who say faith alone. They come around when you show them that God requires spiritual works, or works done in the Holy Spirit. You just have to keep looking, before you throw the baby out with the bath water.

I am not throwing the baby with the bath water. As a matter of fact, if you check history, it was the reformation that did that because they did not have to throw out the Church because of the sins of some of its members. In the end, reformation of the Church happened. Just not done by Luther, Calvin, et al.

There are some protestants who believe in works, that is true, which just goes to show the divergent beliefs of all these denominations. Which comes back to the issue of private interpretation. Which of your is correct?

I think I have said this before. The protestants, despite the sins of of their founding fathers, will never be abandoned by God. You are as much His children as we are. However, you have Christ with you not because of the reformation, but inspite of it.

I disagree with your second paragraph as well and so does the bible.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work
(2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Here Paul addresses the man of God, not some men of God.

And the following is what he had to say to Timothy:

2 Tim 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

I do not disagree with the above quote at all. It is true, all scripture is profitable. And I would be very pleased if everyone read the Bible. Your disagreement with my second paragraph stems from a misunderstanding of it. The above quote from Timothy in no way refutes my statement which goes;
"benedictus2:

"The problem arises when you start reading some parts of the Bible and come up with the conclusion that this is what it means period, when other parts of the Bible outright refute it. Case in point is Faith Alone."

Let me explain that more. You have verses that say all you need to be saved is faith in Christ and this is what most protestants always emphasize and they are so vehemently against works. And yet other verses say that to enter the Kingdom of God you need to do good works e.g. feed the hungry,etc. These two seem to be contradictory but they are not.** That is why the Catholic Church teaches salvation is by grace. It is by faith working in love*.***

Therefore, the bible was written for all men to understand including children.

Here you are stretching it a bit. If you are saying that the Bible is as plain to children as it is to adults then you are downright wrong. But it is true that they can grasp a little bit here and there that is why we have Children’s Bibles, written in a language that children can understand.

I would like to see where your church says that you are to bounce your interpretation of the bible back against it.

John 6 would be a good example. Catholics believe we are receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist because he said so. You think it is only a symbolism. A Catholic who thinks it is only a symbolism obviously got it wrong.

Nothing was said about submitting to the church. Interpreting scripture on your own with the help of the Holy Spirit is the issue. Your church gives you permission to do so.

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

Of course, I am assuming that you are one of the faithful, have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit and understand his instructions and guidance into all truth.

Yes I have been annointed. I was confirmed. And if you re-read my post again, I said we are also guided by the Holy Spirit when we read the Bible individually. It is when we start coming up with interpretations of passages that is contrary to how Church understands it is when you start getting into trouble. You are pitting your own piddly brain, against the brains and illumination given to the fathers, doctors and saints of the Church and think you know better than them? That is “Sola Ego”:.

 

[Ginger2]

YOU were explaining it to her. You already know the doctrine of the Trinity. You already know all the supporting passages because that was also explained to you.

If you had given her the Bible to understand by herself, would she have been able to come up with the Trinity as it is known, Three Persons in One God.?

I have to disagree. It had nothing to do with me. I explained it to her for years and she never got it. I even looked up verses to show her it didn’t say what she thought.

It wasn’t until, after much, prayer, God laid on her heart a desire to study the Bible. Then, I was careful not to inject my understanding, but rather to cross reference Scripture when she asked a question.

We cannot explain anything to anyone about God unless God gives them understanding.

 

[Ginger2]

To Previous Few Entries:

1. These texts were included in all the early Bibles. Do you use a Bible that does not owe its origins to one of these Bibles? If so, which one? Certainly, you must allow us the benefit of knowing which superior text yuo use? Or were these books removed from yours at some point? How long ago? Why?

The origins of my Bible come straight from God. The OT from the Jews who God appointed keeper of the Law. The New Testament to the Apostles who Jesus appointed record of the fulfillment.

1. The oldest canon lists are compatible with my Bible which does not include the extra-biblical books added by the RC.
2. There is no inspired Scripture ever written first in Greek.* Greek texts are translations of the originals.* That is one reason the deutoros were rejected - because they were originally written in Greek and this placed them immediately under suspicion.
3. The oldest canon of the Jewish OT I have found is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras): It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta)

Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but doesn’t name them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.

Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian’s statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and “St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito’s restricted canon is explicable on another ground (Reid G. Canon of the Old Testament. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).”

That means Melito’s canon consisted of these books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel; Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiaste, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

Josephus’ canon would likely have been identical.

I could not find any canon that early that included any of the deuterocanical books. Can you?

 

[Ginger2]

one more thing…
4. Scriptures meant “writings” in Biblical times. The Septuagint includes secular writings, as well as Holy Writings. Just like your church library contains Bibles which you consider inspired writings, books and letters, your church library also contains uninspired writings which do not belong in the Bible.

People recorded histories that may have been fairly accurate, but were not necessarily doctrinally sound.

Catholics have already acknowledged this fact concerning the writings of various church fathers:

*“The Church Fathers have their place in the discussion, but one alone cannot be the authority.”

“When one judge gives their individual reasons for thinking a certain way it IS mere opinion.”

“it doesn’t indicate that it’s an official representative of the Catholic position.”*

etc.,…

Just because there are secular or historical writings found among inspired writings, doesn’t mean they were held equal to the inspired writings.

I have a couple very corrupt Bibles in my possession. By no means do I think they are inspired!!! They are corrupt and I use them - with great care - to expose their fallacy to the ones who are deceived by them.

 

[Peter_J]

1. There is no inspired Scripture ever written first in Greek.* Greek texts are translations of the originals.* That is one reason the deutoros were rejected - because they were originally written in Greek and this placed them immediately under suspicion.

So … you don’t consider the New Testament to be inspired Scripture?

 

[Ginger2]

So … you don’t consider the New Testament to be inspired Scripture?

First, my comment is directed toward the Old Testament, as we agree on the books of the New Testament.

However, I did not specify this as in the past Catholics have insisted the original language of NT was Aramaic and none of the original manuscripts still exist - only copies in Greek.

Second, no one ever questioned that the NT was first written in Aramaic until recent times. I was taught this in Catechism.

Also, my Catholic Bible says all the NT books were written well before the end of the first century, but recently I have Catholics telling me they weren’t.

*If you guys are going to keep changing the criteria and facts, how am I to carry on any sort of productive dialog?

Maybe you should fill me in on the latest beliefs so that we can debate and discuss starting at the same point.

The OT was written first in Hebrew and only copies are found in Greek, correct?

Do you agree the New Testament was written originally in Aramaic - the language spoken at that time by the Jews? Or some other language?

If you think it was originally written in Greek, may I ask whether you believe these Greek manuscripts are the originals or exact copies? I ask this because I have been told by Catholics we don’t know what the originals say because the originals don’t exist.

*PeterJ, I think you are trying to discuss this reasonably, but it is very difficult for me to find common ground when the criteria continually changes.

Whatever you claim, I will consider. Then after I verify the validity of your claim or the inaccuracy, I will come back to discuss why I a agree or disagree with what you have said.

But somewhere along the way we have to agree on at least a few specifics. I will concede to your claim as to what the original language of the NT was. But not the OT.

Also, I would ask you not to throw something in my face that I conceded on in the past just because I am willing to concede to new “facts” today. Afterall, I am not the one changing the criteria, I am only conceding to the changes claimed by you.

 

[llblarosa]

Ginger:

It is obvious to me at this point, though I have suspected it for some time, that you are a Jehovah’s Witness. Please feel free to correct me if am wrong, but you have been quite deceptive when certain questions have been asked.

Given that this is the case, your text must be the New World Translation, which only came into existence in 1950’s and onward, with many revisions of its own (I believe revision was one of the things you criticized the Church for). This I find preposterous. It is certainly a stretch indeed to assert that the bulk of Christendom for 2,000 years was deluded by its faulty use of the canon of the Septuagint, though the Jews themselves commisioned this work and used it in the temple, the Apostles would have been aware of it and surely have warned us of the grave errors of this Greek translation. Given that, one can see the need you must feel to take the translation as far back as possible. Dates would certainly become very important to you then, would they not? You would certainly have to reconstruct a past back to the Apostles would you not? I do not claim to know the dates of every biblical text, but I nevertheless maintain that Jesus would not have left us until 1950 to have a correct version of His Word. That would handicap us indeed!

Moreover, I see you say that your canon agrees with Melito’s canon, but what you do not mention is that the translation of your bible came from a Greek translation, not directly from the Hebrew, as you seem to indicate above.

Surely one must conclude that the Church Fathers were stupid indeed.

I remain convinced of the lack of scholarship shown herein.

Lisa

 

[Peter_J]

However, I did not specify this as in the past Catholics have insisted the original language of NT was Aramaic and none of the original manuscripts still exist - only copies in Greek.

…

Also, my Catholic Bible says all the NT books were written well before the end of the first century, but recently I have Catholics telling me they weren’t.

So, do believe whatever Catholics tell you? If so I wish I had known that sooner, as it would save us a lot of time.

Okay, but seriously folks … I find it a little offensive that you think that the fact that some Catholic told you something, somehow proves something. I mean, if you look you can some Catholic to tell you that contraception is okay. (How would it be if I started saying “Well you’re wrong about X, because I once knew a Protestant who told me Y”? Something to think about.)

*If you guys are going to keep changing the criteria and facts, how am I to carry on any sort of productive dialog?

Can you be a little more specific about what I allegedly changed?

Maybe you should fill me in on the latest beliefs so that we can debate and discuss starting at the same point.

The OT was written first in Hebrew and only copies are found in Greek, correct?

I don’t really have a strong opinion on that one way the another. (I wouldn’t want to rule out the possibility that some of it was originally written in Greek.)

Do you agree the New Testament was written originally in Aramaic - the language spoken at that time by the Jews? Or some other language?

In all sincerity, until you brought it up I assumed that we agreed that the NT (or most of it, anyways) was originally written in Greek.

If you think it was originally written in Greek, may I ask whether you believe these Greek manuscripts are the originals or exact copies?

Don’t know.

 

[Ginger2]

Lisa,

Once again you are wrong.

I have witnessed to the JW’s and showed them, using their own material, that they are being deceived.

They do not believe in a Trinity, which I do believe.
They do not believe in the deity of Jesus, which I do believe.
They do not believe a person has an immortal soul, which I do believe.
JW’s are not even Christians. They claim to be, but by deffinition they are not. They don’t believe in any of the basic Christian Doctrines.

They even believe Jesus is a lesser god. Christians know the Bible says only One God. All other gods are false gods. Therefore they believe Jesus is a false god - even tho they deny it and become frustrated in the face of truth.

I could go on, but these differences lead me to believe you know nothing about the JW’s and nothing about me.

What do you base your assumption on? I’m curious. Or was it simply the biggest insult you could think of?