P
- Status
B
Blacksword
Guest
Please support this contention. Please enlighten me on this as to where you discovered this, seeing as that the first century jewish christians, including the disciples themselves, absolutely used the greek Septuagint in their spiritual life, which include the “extra” books. Thank you.
K
kbachler
Guest
Since the “whole Bible” did not exist when those verses were written, how do you support that conclusion?
K
kbachler
Guest
I am not trying to defend all his contentions, but the use of the deuterocanonical books was not 100% widespread among the Catholic Church prior to the Council of Trent which affirmed that these books were canonical. Prior canonization was apparently done by regional councils - so that while the use was widespread, it apparently was not 100%.Please support this contention. Please enlighten me on this as to where you discovered this, seeing as that the first century jewish christians, including the disciples themselves, absolutely used the greek Septuagint in their spiritual life, which include the “extra” books. Thank you.
I wouldn’t say that makes him correct about “adding 7 books.” But it’s also “not quite” correct that they’ve always been there.
There were early “Jewish Christians” who around 100 AD raised questions about including Old Testament books that were not in the Hebrew Bible.
O
onemangang
Guest
Oops meant for Luvtosew
When do you think the Gospels were written? I don’t mean the words that Jesus said, but the written record of the past events?
When were the Pauline Epistles written?
How about Jude, Peter, John, and James Catholic Epistles, when were they written?
Now in regards to Revelation I will link a thread that I posted earlier, that shows Revelation/apocalypse was written before 70 A.D
P
Publisher
Guest
Since most of the books of the NT were written separately and at different times…and since the writer of Revelation had no idea…barring some magical/revalatory experience…which books were to be included in our NT…and since most of the books included were not bound together but circulated separately for decades…if not centuries…I’d think it would just be confined to the Apocalypse itself…as there is evidence the last book in our NT’s was not necessarily the last book written to be included in the NT…I just find it hard to accept the writer of the Apocalypse meant a volume that had not even been compliled at the time it was written.
O
onemangang
Guest
You certainly are not alone, we Catholics agree with youSince most of the books of the NT were written separately and at different times…and since the writer of Revelation had no idea…barring some magical/revalatory experience…which books were to be included in our NT…and since most of the books included were not bound together but circulated separately for decades…if not centuries…I’d think it would just be confined to the Apocalypse itself…as there is evidence the last book in our NT’s was not necessarily the last book written to be included in the NT…I just find it hard to accept the writer of the Apocalypse meant a volume that had not even been compliled at the time it was written.
Hypothetically, lets say the text sighted in Revelation was writing about a complete Canon of Scripture, as **Luvtosew ** claims. How does that benefit Protestantism, and condemn Catholicism? It doesn’t. In fact, it does just the opposite, the only difference is that a Catholic wouldn’t make such a claim, to do so would be reading into the text.
P
Publisher
Guest
Since I tend to agree that it would be “reading into the text”…I can’t really frame it as “the only difference” since I’m not Catholic and agree with you…even “hypothetically” it makes no sense to me.You certainly are not alone, we Catholics agree with you
Hypothetically, lets say the text sighted in Revelation was writing about a complete Canon of Scripture, as **Luvtosew ** claims. How does that benefit Protestantism, and condemn Catholicism? It doesn’t. In fact, it does just the opposite, the only difference is that a Catholic wouldn’t make such a claim, to do so would be reading into the text.
O
onemangang
Guest
even “hypothetically” it makes no sense to me!
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Luvtosew,
This does refer to all of Holy Scripture; but not in the way you are asserting.
It applies to all of Scripture in that we are not to alter God’s Word by adding to it or taking away from it, lest we be found a liar:
Proverbs 30:
5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
In addition to the verses from Revelation you quoted; you will find a similar warning here:
Deuteronomy Chapter 4: 2
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.
After God gave specific instructions to Israel about what they were to do and not to do; He said:
Deuteronomy Chapter 12:
32 Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
If we applied to the words in Deuteronomy, the same assertion you are making with Revelation; we would have to disregard all the teachings and commandments of Christ that did not precisely match Jewish law.
Obeying the Commandments of God, whether under the New Covenant or the Old Covenant is extremely important:
Deuteronomy 28: 45 “All these curses shall come upon you and pursue you and overtake you till you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that he commanded you.
When you study the transmission of Scripture; you will find that there has always been a problem with man attempting to alter Holy Scripture, whether it be ancient scribes or modern day translators.
God rebukes His people in Jeremiah and speaks of the lying pen of the scribes (scribes were copyists):
Jeremiah 8:
7 Even the stork in the heavens
knows her times,
and the turtledove, swallow, and crane
keep the time of their coming,
but my people know not
the rules of the Lord.
8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise,
and the law of the Lord is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie.
9 The wise men shall be put to shame;
they shall be dismayed and taken;
behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord,
so what wisdom is in them?.
Some scribes decided to give their theological view a boost and inserted or removed things when copying N.T. autographs and manuscripts. Several of these are found in the KJV, btw.
Most of the obvious intentional changes have been discovered and corrected in many (not all) of the Bible translations we have today.
Keep in mind there are more than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament (copies of copies of copies), with more variants than words in the New Testament. Most variants are obvious scribal errors, such as missing a line; or copying into the main body of text, notes that were scribbled in the margins of Holy Scripture.
Some manuscripts contain scathing comments by authors, who found their writing altered by a scribe.
The author of Revelation is making it very clear that not one word of his writing is to be altered.
The whole point is that were are not to alter Holy Scripture, the Divinely inspired Word of God.
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
JustaServant,
Some, but I wouldn’t say most.
Remember the CCC uses the RSV and NRSV by permission of the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. These are ecumenical translations, and Protestant Scholars were among those involved in the translation.
Quote from the CCC:
The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible (there may be other titles at this point).
There were very few changes made to produce the RSV-Catholic Edition. Most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes in the case of variants among early manuscripts. While commentaries reflect Catholic theology, the translation remains essentially unchanged.
Even though the RSV and NRSV are considered “ecumenical” translations, the Catholic Bible Association found the need to explain their use of translations, used primarily by non-Catholics—as reflected in this quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament (which I have and use quite often):
With all the resources of the Catholic Church; I’m surprised by the Catholic Bible Association’s adoption of the RSV and NRSV, rather than using a translation purely from Catholic sources.
So, I wouldn’t say, “Most PROTESTANT Bible scholars assert the above verses are speaking of the Book of Revelation.”
Peace,
Anna
M
MacroConnectome
Guest
I don’t mean any disrespect, but I don’t see how anyone could logically come to the conclusion that the “book” refers to the entire Bible, which itself is a collection of books that did not exist when the Apocalypse was penned.
L
Link0126
Guest
And this is exactly what they did before the Bible was mass produced and before most people could even read!
Personal interpretation is fine within the confines of what is acceptable in the Catholic faith.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
It is an astute observation and point, respectfully rendered. Given your stated religion, it also draws credibility as such, coming from an unbiased observer in respectful fashion.
Thanks for the post!
M
MacroConnectome
Guest
Thank you, but to be fair, I am in RCIA. I haven’t changed the religion tag because I’m still wrestling with unbelief. Unlike most converts, I think, I’m approaching the issue from back to front. Whereas most come to RCIA already with a belief in God (and sometimes more specifically Jesus Christ) but need convincing that the Catholic Church is the most authentic expression of Christianity, I came to RCIA already with the conclusion that the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church is authentically Christian. Without a belief in God, however, this conclusion is about as useful as saying the FLDS are the most authentic form of Mormonism (another opinion I espouse).
Sorry for the derail, though
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
No derail - your honesty is refreshing, and your point was very relevant to this discussion.Sorry for the derail, though
We pray that you find the faith you seek, and pray for grace to come your way!
S
SaintPatrick333
Guest
I think the OP should read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper”. It will help you understand what the book of revelations means. It is not meant to be about destruction and death and mythical multi headed beasts. It is, in fact, speaking about what we Catholics experience at Mass with the sacrifice of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Scott Hahn was a former protestant minister as well so his writings should be more your style. I think you would be enlightened.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
I have listened to Scott Hahns sermons The Lords Supper, and well according to my CC Bible intro to Revelation it says nothing about the Mass, so now there is a new even another new interpretatin of the book of Revelation. After listening to his sermons I said to myself well may as well throw the Bible out, its all about the Mass and the Eucharist. Yes I was very enlightened to find out the CC still feels a need for a daily sacrifice.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Luvtosew,
Awaiting response to the above.
Sidebar: No Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or other Christians, who believe in the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist, believes Christ is daily sacrificed or repeatedly sacrificed. This is a common misconception perpetuated by some Protestant leaders; and even when the misconception is corrected; these same Protestants continue to bear false witness regarding the Mass/Eucharist/Lord’s Supper.
Peace,
Anna
J
JustaServant
Guest
Here is a rough timeline of NT and extra-NT writings from the first century:
40s or 50s - James
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s -** Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
c. 69 - Jude
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century -** 1, 2, and 3 John**
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
To the OP, could you please explain how or which of these writings Revelation 22 is speaking to when the NT works were still not collected?
40s or 50s - James
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s -** Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
c. 69 - Jude
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century -** 1, 2, and 3 John**
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
To the OP, could you please explain how or which of these writings Revelation 22 is speaking to when the NT works were still not collected?
- Status