Question about Catholic Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesusismyfriend
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. I haven’t checked this thread for awhile. Things took an intense turn.
Yikes! :slapfight:
 
We have to remember that present-day Protestants are NOT responsible for what the founders of Protestantism did. Why would you even bring that up? Are you personally responsible for the misdeeds that occurred during the Crusades and the Inquisition?

They worship as they have been raised to worship. To say they “don’t love Jesus” is arrogant and judgmental, a violation of the requirements of justice and charity. THAT is a disconnect between what YOU profess and what YOU practice, as well.

Also, I hope you’ll share the source of your information that people who go see Joel Osteen never say the Our Father. That’s a completely new one on me.
PatrickSanDiego said:
Then why don’t ALL Protestants want to remember him? Why? He said, “Do this in memory of me.” So why don’t you want to do what he says if you love him? And if you love Jesus? Then why did your religious ancestors make his church illegal? And why did you take his image from the altars of your churches? Didn’t you say you love him? I guess not that much…? Why do all these Protestants go to see Joel Osteen, never kneel, never say the Our Father, and listen to a man go on and on, saying more of what he wants to say than what Jesus said? Because, you only love him a little? But not that much as us?

There’s a disconnect here between what you profess, and what you practice.
Click to expand...
 
PatrickSanDiego said:
Then why don’t ALL Protestants want to remember him? Why? He said, “Do this in memory of me.” So why don’t you want to do what he says if you love him? And if you love Jesus? Then why did your religious ancestors make his church illegal? And why did you take his image from the altars of your churches? Didn’t you say you love him? I guess not that much…? Why do all these Protestants go to see Joel Osteen, never kneel, never say the Our Father, and listen to a man go on and on, saying more of what he wants to say than what Jesus said? Because, you only love him a little? But not that much as us?

There’s a disconnect here between what you profess, and what you practice.
Click to expand...
All Protestant churches that I’m aware of take communion and do it in remembrance of Jesus, though some celebrate it symbolically and some believe in Real Presence. (I’m a Real Presence person.)

Churches that use empty crosses rather than crucifixes say it’s because they prefer to focus on the resurrected Jesus rather than the crucified Jesus. I’m fine with it either way; both are truths and both are important.

Most Protestants do not follow Joel Osteen, and many consider him a false teacher. Personally, I don’t think of him as a bad preacher, but a good motivational speaker. If he weren’t doing it from a pulpit, there wouldn’t be a problem.
 
PatrickSanDiego said:
If you are naive enough to believe that I made a blanket statement encompassing each and every Protestant on the planet, then there’s an issue of maturity here. Of course not every Protestant prays for more money, but watch the 700 Club on any day, what do you hear? It’s money this, money that, the culture of Protestantism swims in it.
Click to expand...
You used the blanket term Protestant/Protestantism in the original context. If you say: “Protestants do X,” how do you think people are going to interpret that? Moreover, you are using the term “the culture of Protestantism.” Protestantism as a movement, branch of Christianity, or whatever else you want to call it, is very fragmented, which is part of the reason I turned away from it… you will find very different cultures and beliefs with each flavor. And, just so you know, most (if not all) of the Protestants I know do not watch the 700 Club, for the reason you cited. I’m honestly curious of what other support you have for the claim that the culture of Protestantism (if such a thing there be) “swims” in what essentially amounts to greed.

I’m sorry if this sounds overly defensive, as that is not my intent (and I’m sure you and I agree on a lot more grounds than you think). I just feel like you’re making a lot of sweeping statements that aren’t, in my experience, applicable to many Protestant denominations and/or individuals.
PatrickSanDiego said:
Then why don’t ALL Protestants want to remember him? Why? He said, “Do this in memory of me.” So why don’t you want to do what he says if you love him? And if you love Jesus? Then why did your religious ancestors make his church illegal? And why did you take his image from the altars of your churches? Didn’t you say you love him? I guess not that much…? Why do all these Protestants go to see Joel Osteen, never kneel, never say the Our Father, and listen to a man go on and on, saying more of what he wants to say than what Jesus said? Because, you only love him a little? But not that much as us?

There’s a disconnect here between what you profess, and what you practice.
Click to expand...
As someone else mentioned, it’s obvious that you are very passionate about this. I know that I have felt more love for Jesus while in the Catholic Church than I did as a Baptist or Methodist. I know that I feel connected in ways that I didn’t think were possible. After learning more and more about the faith and making the decision to convert, I understand where your passion comes from. I’m not saying that all Protestants are 100% correct in everything that they are doing. And this is NOT to excuse the celebrity pastor phenomenon or validate any Protestant church’s decision of how to adorn the sanctuary. The point that I am trying to convey is that Protestants are loving Him in the way that they know how. Their love for Him, as they know how to express it, is sincere.
 
Lincoln7;9251325]
We all have to make a fallible choice for what we are to follow… I choose scripture, you chose magisterium. That catholic has no more certainty, as their choice that Rome is the true church and their interpretation of the church is just as fallible as the Protestants interpretation of scripture.
Click to expand...
That’s right. We’re back to the infinite regression again.

What I wonder is why the Holy Spirit doesn’t imbue each of us with the truth, and avoid all this church, and apostles, and missionaries, and scripture stuff. It’s really a lot of bother and controversy.
 
pablope said:
I have read about it. Luther left the DC location un-numbered, making them hard to locate. But please do verify it.
Click to expand...
So as promised, I went to the library yesterday to verify this.

And what you have read (or heard) is indeed true, there are no page numbers for the DC. But then again that is true of his entire Bible, because Luther didn’t utilize page numbers at all! The DC is thus no more difficult to locate than anything else in the Bible.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
So as promised, I went to the library yesterday to verify this.

And what you have read (or heard) is indeed true, there are no page numbers for the DC. But then again that is true of his entire Bible, because Luther didn’t utilize page numbers at all! The DC is thus no more difficult to locate than anything else in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Yes. I have a copy of Die Bibel. The D-C’s are not hard to find. They’re just hard for me to read since I can’t read German. 😛

Jon
 
Dave_Noonan said:
So as promised, I went to the library yesterday to verify this.

And what you have read (or heard) is indeed true, there are no page numbers for the DC. But then again that is true of his entire Bible, because Luther didn’t utilize page numbers at all! The DC is thus no more difficult to locate than anything else in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Dave…then I wonder where did that person who wrote about the page numbers get his information…🤷

Was this the first bible Luther produced? And where the DC’s grouped together…or separated in an appendix?

The reason I asked is, related to my question on asking EWTN open line before…was that in looking at the OT table of contents…different versions have different orders…example…(aside from the Pentatuech which always come first)…after the pentatuech…the prophets are grouped together, historical ones grouped as one…and so forth.

So, would a prophetic DC not grouped together with other prophetic books and would be grouped with the DCs?

And sorry, Dave…one more question…are the NT order the same as today?
 
JonNC said:
Yes. I have a copy of Die Bibel. The D-C’s are not hard to find. They’re just hard for me to read since I can’t read German. 😛

Jon
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl:

Jon…you should have a working knowledge of German by know…😃
 
pablope said:
Thanks, Dave…then I wonder where did that person who wrote about the page numbers get his information…🤷
Click to expand...
Yes, if you could please cite your source, that would be extremely helpful–maybe it will help us get to the bottom of things.
pablope said:
Was this the first bible Luther produced? And where the DC’s grouped together…or separated in an appendix?
Click to expand...
Luther translated the New Testament first and then began work on the Old Testament. Excerpts were published in stages along the way, much like scholars are doing with the new critical version of the Hebrew Bible that are being published today. As each “piece” gets done they publish them, but at the end of the project, the entire Hebrew Bible will be published as a whole. Luther’s project was much like that, with bits and pieces (including several rounds of just the New Testament) being published along the way. This particular Bible is entitled “Die Bibel: Oder Die Ganze Helige Schrift.” So this is Luther’s complete Bible containing his idea of the entirety of Holy Scripture. As I noted earlier, the DCs are grouped together at the end of the Old Testament, but listed as part of the Old Testament in the table of contents. If you want to call that an “appendix” I guess you are certainly free to do so.
pablope said:
The reason I asked is, related to my question on asking EWTN open line before…was that in looking at the OT table of contents…different versions have different orders…example…(aside from the Pentatuech which always come first)…after the pentatuech…the prophets are grouped together, historical ones grouped as one…and so forth. So, would a prophetic DC not grouped together with other prophetic books and would be grouped with the DCs?
Click to expand...
I guess I’m not sure which DC book you would consider prophetic. Yes, there are lots of different ways to group and order the Old Testament. For example, typical Jewish Bibles order books in three categories: The Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. Here Daniel is an interesting example; a book we might think of as prophetic, but because was written later, it ended up in “writings,” sort of the catch-all category.
pablope said:
And sorry, Dave…one more question…are the NT order the same as today?
Click to expand...
Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation appear at the end of the NT. So I guess that would make Hebrews and James in order different from today. I didn’t notice any other differences,
 
Jesusismyfriend said:
Is it true that there are several other books of the Bible in the Catholic Bible? Why do Protestants claim the other books not included are not “spirit-breathed?” That’s what they told me. The books that were not included were not “God-breathed.”
I guess that is what I am wondering. The person who told me this had other ideas that seemed to go against Christ’s teachings. I was pretty much laughed out of that church. And forced out by nasty gossip and slander.
And is it okay if a Protestant chooses the Catholic Bible over the Protestant one? A lot of people I know wouldn’t like it if I started reading the Catholic Bible. But I want to know for myself what is true.🤷
Click to expand...
I believe (but my be wrong in the numbers) but 2/3 of the scripture that Jesus quoted are in the 7 books that Luther removed. I heard I think Scott Hahn say that.

Anybody have examples?

DLG
 
DLG123 said:
I believe (but my be wrong in the numbers) but 2/3 of the scripture that Jesus quoted are in the 7 books that Luther removed. I heard I think Scott Hahn say that.

Anybody have examples?

DLG
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is accurate. He may have said that Jesus quotes from the Septuagint which (it is argued) contained the deuterocanonicals. I don’t believe there are DIRECT quotes from the deuteros in the NT (which is what makes the topic hotter). Keep in mind that not every OT book is directly quoted in the NT anyway.

Jimmy Akin gives an example where Macabbees is alluded to:
ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm
 
I have 2 questions for those of you fixated with Luther’s comments on which books were canonical or not.
  1. In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, Cajetan expressed doubts on the canonicty of some of the New Testament books. These men all share one thing in common. They formed their opinions on the canon previous to the dogmatic and binding decisions of the Council of Trent. At the Council of Trent, the question of canonicity was put forth before the Council once and for all, and they issued a dogmatic pronouncement of which books were “canon” for the entire church. Isn’t the liberty that Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan expressed simply the liberty as allowed by the Roman Catholic Church previous to dogmatic pronouncement? [By the way, if you simply respond by citing earlier councils, I’m going to then ask you if the councils you cite were ecumenical or local, and why the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon”].
  1. I would like a Roman Catholic who believes that Trent closed the canon issue once and for all to explain the following riddle. Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta states:
"The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent’s list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books.
Click to expand...
…The question of Esdras’ canonical status was left theoretically open." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 240-241].
Click to expand...
If Michuta is correct, isn’t it possible that there exists a book that is canonical, but not currently in the canon? If it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, and this book isn’t simply hypothetical, don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to chastise Luther for making a personal opinion on canonicity previous to Trent, while you’re free to speculate on the Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees previous to the Roman church finally setteling the issue?

Think about it.

Regards, James Swan
 
TertiumQuid said:
the Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees

Regards, James Swan
Click to expand...
I didn’t think these books were included in the Vulgate either. Or I should say I am pretty sure about 3 Maccabees.

I thought the Vulgate = Douay Rheims in content
 
ajcstr said:
I didn’t think these books were included in the Vulgate either. Or I should say I am pretty sure about 3 Maccabees.

I thought the Vulgate = Douay Rheims in content
Click to expand...
The information I posted from Mr. Michuta comes from a book that is offered by Catholic Answers. I suggest if you wish to challenge the information, please contact Catholic Answers.

And by the way, the old Latin Vulgate does not = Douay Rheims.

Regards, James
 
TertiumQuid said:
I have 2 questions for those of you fixated with Luther’s comments on which books were canonical or not.
  1. In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, Cajetan expressed doubts on the canonicty of some of the New Testament books. These men all share one thing in common. They formed their opinions on the canon previous to the dogmatic and binding decisions of the Council of Trent. At the Council of Trent, the question of canonicity was put forth before the Council once and for all, and they issued a dogmatic pronouncement of which books were “canon” for the entire church. Isn’t the liberty that Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan expressed simply the liberty as allowed by the Roman Catholic Church previous to dogmatic pronouncement? [By the way, if you simply respond by citing earlier councils, I’m going to then ask you if the councils you cite were ecumenical or local, and why the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon”].
Click to expand...
This is quite an interesting question–inspired writings that may exist but have not been canonized.

As for Trent, that is something I’ve wondered about. Did Trent close the canon, or simply state which books were to be in the canon and not state which books were not?
That is, even though books can not be removed, can still new books be added?

So for a Catholic which books are definitely in the canon cannot be questioned, but not so for a Protestant. Theoretically at least, a Protestant may still question the canonicity of books previously deemed inspired. Especially NT books. What prevents him from doing so?

Indeed, a Baptist author asks that question–why should we today accept decisions about the canon made back in the 4th cenntury? Why, since what is canonical is a human decision anyway?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top