SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[Lisdogan]

In answer also to Lisdogan’s question around the pre-occupation with salvation, I think maybe it goes back to the foundation of the Christian life, and our motivation for living it.

Thanks for your reply to vern humphrey which I did not see before I wrote similarly below.

Perhaps pre-occupation with salvation goes way back beyond the evolution of Christian beliefs, to the earliest stages of humankind when the idea of death and the afterworld took a long time to become part of human culture (bodies were not buried, having no further value, eg).

The gradual formation of concepts of life and death, belief systems, and cultural paradigms, as well as a need to explain death and the afterworld inevitably led to a focus on defining that post-life world. As far as I can determine, virtually every culture through the ages has had its ‘creation stories’, which generally evolve around a power, and which reflect the beliefs, values and perceptions of the meaning of life and death. This is of course all social-anthropologic stuff. We do know, however, that Genesis is in fact such a ‘creation story’.

There is no agreement as to the extent to which human values came to be reflected in or the extent to which they informed the concept of a Creator Being. I find it interesting to consider however. It does not detract from my Catholic Christian faith.

If Catholics are wrong about salvation - how it happens and when, then we are probably wrong about how the saved life is to be lived as well

And if Catholics are right about salvation, then we are probably right about how life in Christ can and should be lived. Especially as we have a big book of guidelines.

In Christ Guan

 

[Lisdogan]

There is no “Catholic Bible”. That term is only used to distinguish a Bible which contains all of the Books which the Spirit Guided councils from the 4th century on confirmed as inspired, from the incomplete bibles of the protestant reformation. The King James Version is one such incomplete bible.

The fact that you are so unaware of the development of the Bible which you hold in your hand demonstrates how much you still need to learn.

Peace
James

My understanding, just having discussed it with my priest, is that there is in fact a Catholic Bible, the Douay-Rheims translation.

I am not sure which Churches insist on using this version, whose history I know nothing about, except that it may have evolved from translation of the Latin Vulgate. (Let’s go Google and find out.)

I asked on another thread why we are so disputatious, Protestants and Catholics alike, about the minutiae of what is in a Bible when we are now inundated by hundreds of English versions (King James Version is over 400 years old and has been superceded many times over, even by itself.) If you look on the parallel bible website on the Internet, you will find not only English bibles listed, but bibles in many, many other languages as well - the African Bible, as well as Bibles in Sotho, Pedi, Zulu and Xhosa are of course well known here in South Africa.

Do we make a close examination of each translation to ensure that it exactly reflects every other translation and confirms the particular set of immutable beliefs to which we have committed ourselves? I do not know how to answer this question, but assume that all translators are not divinely inspired, and therefore assume that there are differences in understanding, and therefore assume that somewhere along the line there are differences among Catholics from different language groups and different geographical regions of the world. For what it’s worth.

In our Catholic Church we use the first New Jerusalem Bible, and occasionally refer to the Good News, or New International Version. People still quote from the King James Version because it sounds more beautiful than any other.

Furthermore, as you will know from your knowledge of the history of the Bible, Luther insisted, in his vernacular translations, that he would use only original texts written in Hebrew because he did not trust the texts written in Greek. They were too far away from the original he believed. They were omitted from Protestant Bibles.

However, the Deuterocanonical Books (Apocrypha) are now included in virtually every published Bible. And about time too.

In Christ

 

[Lisdogan]

Why do people have so much trouble understanding that? Our Lord’s prayer wras that “they all might be one” not that "they all might interpret Scripture independently of the Church that wrote it.

I have problems with the earlier part of your posting, but it’s late at night here, so I will comment briefly on your final statement.

We need to remember that most of the Bible - the OT - was written before Christ, never mind before the church he founded. Therefore we cannot say that the church founded by Christ actually wrote the Bible, ne?

It would help to listen to Handel’s Messiah with its wonderful story, elaborated from the King James Version, of Christ’s life and death. Much of the text comes from the Old Testament, which of course was evolved by members of the Jewish faith by origin. Reading Pelikan’s Whose Bible is It? or Karen Armstrong’s Biography of the Bible are very helpful on the ‘ownership’ of the OT.

Nobody, no church, wrote or owns the Bible, nor did any person or group of people or any church ‘give’ the Bible to anyone else. As they say in the worlds of arts, it is in the public domain, and always has been.

In Christ

 

[JLongoria]

Cornelius and his household were filled while Peter was preaching, as I think some people are still today. In the Eastern Church, infants receive baptism, chrismation (confirmation) and eucharist all at the same time.

Notice also that they were not baptized (Acts 10:47-48), yet we do not say that baptism isn’t important, or even necessary (they were baptized immediately afterwards).

I do not doubt that there are exceptional cases for the Holy Spirit to work through people; the sacraments, no doubt, are not the only way for people to be exposed to the grace of God (do not let this mislead one in to thinking that sacraments, such as reconciliation, are not necessary; it is absolutely *required *to restore grace).

Just like how, in dire need or mortal danger, a person may be baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, conferring the saving grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, on to the recipient.

The fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit are guaranteed to be conferred (to one degree or another) on to a confirmand so long as they are in the state of grace. Yet outside of this, there is no guarantee; and I will concede that we certainly cannot limit the Holy Spirit in what He is capable of.

Yet these are exceptional circumstances, and are certainly not the norm for Christian growth.

Faith is a work of the Holy Spirit, and it is entirely possible to receive it without confirmation; I have been blessed with such a gift, and I pray that it may remain with me for all my years. I have been lucky enough to help in the conversion of a friend to Christ’s True Church, yet I won’t claim that I do not require confirmation to receive that special seal of the Holy Spirit to be brought to fullness of Christian maturity.

 

[Lisdogan]

This one made me LOL! You are asking the right question to the wrong people. Your question needs to be directed to the Reformers, and their successors, who took the books out that had been approved. There are some books that are just too “Catholic” and were a stench in the nostrils.

Eish! Where did this come from? Please see my reply at #201, to an earlier statement like this one.

In Christ

 

[JLongoria]

My understanding, just having discussed it with my priest, is that there is in fact a Catholic Bible, the Douay-Rheims translation.

I am not sure which Churches insist on using this version, whose history I know nothing about, except that it may have evolved from translation of the Latin Vulgate. (Let’s go Google and find out.)

I asked on another thread why we are so disputatious, Protestants and Catholics alike, about the minutiae of what is in a Bible when we are now inundated by hundreds of English versions (King James Version is over 400 years old and has been superceded many times over, even by itself.) If you look on the parallel bible website on the Internet, you will find not only English bibles listed, but bibles in many, many other languages as well - the African Bible, as well as Bibles in Sotho, Pedi, Zulu and Xhosa are of course well known here in South Africa.

Do we make a close examination of each translation to ensure that it exactly reflects every other translation and confirms the particular set of immutable beliefs to which we have committed ourselves? I do not know how to answer this question, but assume that all translators are not divinely inspired, and therefore assume that there are differences in understanding, and therefore assume that somewhere along the line there are differences among Catholics from different language groups and different geographical regions of the world. For what it’s worth.

In our Catholic Church we use the first New Jerusalem Bible, and occasionally refer to the Good News, or New International Version. People still quote from the King James Version because it sounds more beautiful than any other.

Furthermore, as you will know from your knowledge of the history of the Bible, Luther insisted, in his vernacular translations, that he would use only original texts written in Hebrew because he did not trust the texts written in Greek. They were too far away from the original he believed. They were omitted from Protestant Bibles.

However, the Deuterocanonical Books (Apocrypha) are now included in virtually every published Bible. And about time too.

In Christ

I humbly disagree, and I’ll tell you why.

God did not come down from Heaven and hand us the books; Christ did not tell us what books were to be considered inspired, nor anything of the sort.

There are Catholic translations available. The Dhouay-Rhimes version is an excellent one, and the New American Bible has been confirmed for usage in the United States by the USCCB. These versions - and others, I’m sure - have been considered, by the Catholic Church, to be the norm.

The thing is not until the Reformation were books that were considered actual Scripture blatantly removed by Protestants. These books are, as guanophore says, just too “Catholic” for inclusion in Protestant heretical theology.

What were these books? Well, I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and a few others. But Luther also wanted other books being removed, such as Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation. Why? They went against his beliefs in Protestant theology, and supported much of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Go figure

 

[wisdomseeker]

There is nothing wrong with tradition,but if it goes against the Word of God as many of the Catholic traditions do,then its simply not right.

and who are you to say that the CC is wrong?

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[guanophore]

Eish! Where did this come from? Please see my reply at #201, to an earlier statement like this one.

In Christ

Oh! If you click on the little blue triangle next to the post origin you cand jump back thru the posts and see where each one connects. This particular one was a reaction to the assertion that the “Catholics” could not get the Bible right the first time. The poster is assuming that Catholics “added” books to the Bible (deuterocanonicals), when in fact the Reformers and their descendants took books out. It is a common fundamentalist misunderstanding, as is the notion that the canon was not promulgated until the council of Trent, just because Trent reiterated what was done in 385 and earlier.

I apologize if my guffaw was offensive to anyone, it just made me chortle.

 

[n2thelight]

wisdomseeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by n2thelight
There is nothing wrong with tradition,but if it goes against the Word of God as many of the Catholic traditions do,then its simply not right.

and who are you to say that the CC is wrong?

It’s not me that says it,scripture declares it

 

[JLongoria]

It’s not me that says it,scripture declares it

Where? You have yet to “disprove” anything, and quite frankly, it’s getting annoying.

 

[Stephen_C]

It’s not me that says it,scripture declares it

I must have missed that passage….
Or did you mean to say your personal interpretation of the Bible…… I guess that is why there are so many non-Catholic dominations out there…all “guided” by the holy spirit coming up with different interpretations of the Bible. Who are we to believe? The Church that was founded by Jesus? Who through the guidance of the Holy spirit compiled the Bible… or you…tough question….

 

[cfrancis]

N2thelight,
Please, answer this question:

Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, and how do you know it its inspired?

Thank you.

(hums “Jeopardy” theme song)…waiting for an answer from N2thelight

 

[n2thelight]

Matthew, the author of this Gospel, and one of the twelve Disciples, was named Levi before Jesus called him to Discipleship in [Lk 5:27. Mk 2:14, Mt 9:9]. The story of Matthew’s call only appears in three out of the four Gospels. In Luke and Mark’s Gospels, Matthew is called Levi at the time of his call; but in the Gospel of Matthew, the name Levi is not used. There is a good reason for this apparent inconsistency: Luke and Mark were not among the twelve Disciples and were not present to know Matthew before his name was changed from Levi.

Matthew was writing of himself when he wrote of his call to Discipleship [Mt 9:9] and simply referred to himself by his present name (which he had been called by for 13-18 years at the time of this writing). Luke and Mark did not necessarily know that Matthew was Levi when they were divinely inspired to write of events that they themselves were not present to observe. Had St. John wrote of this event in his Gospel he would have no doubt cleared this matter up for us, as John was also one of the twelve Disciples and was present in those days. It is not a remarkable thing that Levi’s name was changed to Matthew, for it was also done with Simon changed to Peter [Mt 10:2], and Saul changed to Paul [Acts 13:9].

 

[allhers]

Matthew, the author of this Gospel, and one of the twelve Disciples, was named Levi before Jesus called him to Discipleship in [Lk 5:27. Mk 2:14, Mt 9:9]. The story of Matthew’s call only appears in three out of the four Gospels. In Luke and Mark’s Gospels, Matthew is called Levi at the time of his call; but in the Gospel of Matthew, the name Levi is not used. There is a good reason for this apparent inconsistency: Luke and Mark were not among the twelve Disciples and were not present to know Matthew before his name was changed from Levi.

Matthew was writing of himself when he wrote of his call to Discipleship [Mt 9:9] and simply referred to himself by his present name (which he had been called by for 13-18 years at the time of this writing). Luke and Mark did not necessarily know that Matthew was Levi when they were divinely inspired to write of events that they themselves were not present to observe. Had St. John wrote of this event in his Gospel he would have no doubt cleared this matter up for us, as John was also one of the twelve Disciples and was present in those days. It is not a remarkable thing that Levi’s name was changed to Matthew, for it was also done with Simon changed to Peter [Mt 10:2], and Saul changed to Paul [Acts 13:9].

Again, you left off your source for this:
biblestudysite.com/ccvvmt.htm
You just copy and pasted it right off that site under:
Preface notes on the book of Matthew

 

[guanophore]

It’s not me that says it,scripture declares it

n2thelight, the Catholic Church produced the NT. The contents come entirely out of Sacred Tradition. Nothing in the NT contradicts the Church, and vice versa. They cannot contradict one another because they come from the same Source.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew, the author of this Gospel, and one of the twelve Disciples, was named Levi before Jesus called him to Discipleship in [Lk 5:27. Mk 2:14, Mt 9:9]. The story of Matthew’s call only appears in three out of the four Gospels. In Luke and Mark’s Gospels, Matthew is called Levi at the time of his call; but in the Gospel of Matthew, the name Levi is not used. There is a good reason for this apparent inconsistency: Luke and Mark were not among the twelve Disciples and were not present to know Matthew before his name was changed from Levi.

Matthew was writing of himself when he wrote of his call to Discipleship [Mt 9:9] and simply referred to himself by his present name (which he had been called by for 13-18 years at the time of this writing). Luke and Mark did not necessarily know that Matthew was Levi when they were divinely inspired to write of events that they themselves were not present to observe. Had St. John wrote of this event in his Gospel he would have no doubt cleared this matter up for us, as John was also one of the twelve Disciples and was present in those days. It is not a remarkable thing that Levi’s name was changed to Matthew, for it was also done with Simon changed to Peter [Mt 10:2], and Saul changed to Paul [Acts 13:9].

It is required that you cite your source here.

The matter was cleared up, by the adherance to Sacred Tradition, by which we know that Levi is Matthew.

 

[n2thelight]

It is required that you cite your source here.

My bad,didnt mean to leave it out,went to edit but time elasped
have no problem with citing source.

biblestudysite.com/ccvvmt.htm

 

[guanophore]

My bad,didnt mean to leave it out,went to edit but time elasped
have no problem with citing source.

biblestudysite.com/ccvvmt.htm

Glad to hear that. It is difficult enough to deal with the anti-Catholic bigotry, without having to deal with dishonesty also.

The Catholic Church is the source of the entire NT, since the whole of it is produced from the Sacred Tradition of the Aposotlic Teaching. That is why nothing in the NT contradicts Catholic teaching, and vice versa.

 

[JLongoria]

Matthew, the author of this Gospel, and one of the twelve Disciples, was named Levi before Jesus called him to Discipleship in [Lk 5:27. Mk 2:14, Mt 9:9]. The story of Matthew’s call only appears in three out of the four Gospels. In Luke and Mark’s Gospels, Matthew is called Levi at the time of his call; but in the Gospel of Matthew, the name Levi is not used. There is a good reason for this apparent inconsistency: Luke and Mark were not among the twelve Disciples and were not present to know Matthew before his name was changed from Levi.

Matthew was writing of himself when he wrote of his call to Discipleship [Mt 9:9] and simply referred to himself by his present name (which he had been called by for 13-18 years at the time of this writing). Luke and Mark did not necessarily know that Matthew was Levi when they were divinely inspired to write of events that they themselves were not present to observe. Had St. John wrote of this event in his Gospel he would have no doubt cleared this matter up for us, as John was also one of the twelve Disciples and was present in those days. It is not a remarkable thing that Levi’s name was changed to Matthew, for it was also done with Simon changed to Peter [Mt 10:2], and Saul changed to Paul [Acts 13:9].

Pure speculation, my friend.

Luke was witness to the ministry of the Apostles, as shown from his writing of the Acts of the Apostles. What’s most important though is that Luke knew the Apostles directly, and he survived them.

Matthew, as per common sense, wrote his gospel while he was still alive; he died considerably before the writing of Luke’s gospel (it’s held that his gospel account was written in around 80 AD, around the time of death for St. John the Evangelist, the youngest of the Apostles). With that being said, it seems to make sense that he would have been aware of the name change.

The fact is that the authorship of the gospels is known through tradition, if not entirely through the writing of St. Iraeneus, bishop of Lyon.

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at his bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia.

St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3, 1, 1

Note that I’m not saying that Levi and Matthew were not one and the same. I am saying, however, that we only know this by Sacred Tradition.

 

[n2thelight]

Where? You have yet to “disprove” anything, and quite frankly, it’s getting annoying

Scripture declares that Mary had other children,yet you claim they were cousins