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

[Lisdogan]

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

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.

Why? They went against his beliefs in Protestant theology, and supported much of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Well, Catholics over here are taught that they were removed because they were not available in the original Hebrew text. They were in Greek, and Martin Luther therefore did not trust them to be accurate reflections of the truth - whether or not they have been blessed by the Church.

They were therefore omitted in early versions of vernacular Bibles.

But what is all this about anyway? They are all included in current published Bibles, and so even I, a ‘Protestant Catholic’, know which books they are. And that they are usually included in a separate section in the Bible between OT and NT. Go look.

In Christ

 

[Lisdogan]

Then why do they pray for those who sick or in difficulties? When you ask God to help, have mercy on, or bless someone else, you are interceding for that person. That is intercessory prayer.

You are praying to God. When you pray for help for yourself, you are not interceding on your own behalf. When you pray for the health of the world community, you are not interceding for the entire global community. The prayer is between the faithful and God.

And when I pray in my Catholic Church, I do not ask my priest to intercede, nor Mary, because I believe that God hears my cry, I believe that Abba Father is with me, that I am with Him, always, and that he knows my prayer before I do (see Henri Nouwen, Catholic theologian, d 1998, and or Thomas Merton, Catholic theologian, died tragically 1968 in India).*

• 31 January 1915 – 10 December 1968) was one of the most influential Catholic authors of the 20th century.

In Christ

In Christ

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, Catholics over here are taught that they were removed because they were not available in the original Hebrew text. They were in Greek, and Martin Luther therefore did not trust them to be accurate reflections of the truth - whether or not they have been blessed by the Church.

And that’s a mistake. Sirach, which was the most-used book of the Old Testament in the early Church is one that was “thrown out.” Yet we now know Sirach was originally written in Hebrew – in fact, a fragment of Sirach in Hebrew was found at Masada by Yagael Yaddin when he excavated there – and Masada fell in 73 A. D.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are praying to God. When you pray for help for yourself, you are not interceding on your own behalf.

When you pray** for **someone else, you are interceding for that person. And when you are asked to pray for someone else, the person asking is praying to you – whether he prays with you or not.

When you pray for the health of the world community, you are not interceding for the entire global community.

Yes you are. When you pray for someone – even for the whole world – you are interceding for them.

The prayer is between the faithful and God.

Which does not invalidate the fact that it is intercessory prayer.
.

 

[Lisdogan]

And that’s a mistake. Sirach, which was the most-used book of the Old Testament in the early Church is one that was “thrown out.” Yet we now know Sirach was originally written in Hebrew – in fact, a fragment of Sirach in Hebrew was found at Masada by Yagael Yaddin when he excavated there – and Masada fell in 73 A. D.

Sorry for this, but information is as follows, and indicates that Martin Luther had no access to the Hebrew version which was not extant at the time he was publishing his vernacular Bible:

Until the close of the nineteenth century Sirach was known only in translations, of which this Greek rendering was the most important. From it the Latin version was made. Between 1896 and 1900, again in 1931, and several times since 1956, manuscripts were discovered containing in all about two thirds of the Hebrew text, which agrees substantially with the Greek. One such text, from Masada, is pre-Christian in date.

Though not included in the Hebrew Bible after the first century A.D., nor accepted by Protestants, the Book of Sirach has always been recognized by the Catholic Church as divinely inspired

In Christ

 

[Lisdogan]

When you pray** for **someone else, you are interceding for that person. And when you are asked to pray for someone else, the person asking is praying to you – whether he prays with you or not.

Yes you are. When you pray for someone – even for the whole world – you are interceding for them.

Which does not invalidate the fact that it is intercessory prayer.
.

Me, I just pray, and know that God hears. I think that on the whole I am not really interested in disputes of this kind, but I am grateful for your elucidation.

In Christ

 

[Sir_Knight]

Matt 13:53-58
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. (KJV)

Matt 12:46
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. (KJV)

Gal 1:19
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. (KJV)

Jude 1:1
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called (KJV)

How can these scriptures mean anything other thanwhat they say?

And this one leaves no doubt

Matthew 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name JESUS.”

You can twist this anyway you want,but I bet a 5 year old could see the truth

Acts 1:13-15 … When they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty.)

… the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sorry for this, but information is as follows, and indicates that Martin Luther had no access to the Hebrew version which was not extant at the time he was publishing his vernacular Bible:

Which is neither here nor there. It was believed that Sirach was originally composed in Greek.

Until the close of the nineteenth century Sirach was known only in translations, of which this Greek rendering was the most important. From it the Latin version was made. Between 1896 and 1900, again in 1931, and several times since 1956, manuscripts were discovered containing in all about two thirds of the Hebrew text, which agrees substantially with the Greek. One such text, from Masada, is pre-Christian in date.

**Though not included in the Hebrew Bible after the first century A.D., **nor accepted by Protestants, the Book of Sirach has always been recognized by the Catholic Church as divinely inspired

To make this statement, we would have to have the Scriptures in a single book dating from the first century. But no such book existed. “The Bible” – in the sense of a single book containing all Scripture – did not exist in the first century A.D. and would not exist until the late 4th century, when bookbinding technology was perfected.

The evidence is that Hebrew Scriptures – many scrolls – continued to be rather loosely bounded, and there were many books that were either accepted as Scripture and later rejected, or were rejected and later accepted well after the first century.

 

[Lisdogan]

Acts 1:13-15 … *

… the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.*

What on earth is the medallion at the bottom right of your signature, with the pistol (nochal) pointing towards heaven over the head of what seems to be a skeleton? What place does it have on this Forum? What purpose does it serve?

 

[guanophore]

Well, Catholics over here are taught that they were removed because they were not available in the original Hebrew text. They were in Greek, and Martin Luther therefore did not trust them to be accurate reflections of the truth - whether or not they have been blessed by the Church.

They were therefore omitted in early versions of vernacular Bibles.

But what is all this about anyway? They are all included in current published Bibles, and so even I, a ‘Protestant Catholic’, know which books they are. And that they are usually included in a separate section in the Bible between OT and NT. Go look.

In Christ

The thread is about Sacred Tradition, though it does not say that specifically. It is from Sacred Tradition that we know things that Jesus taught that are not in the Bible. One of these things was that the Septuagint was the authorized version. This collection, used by Christ and HIs Apostles, contained books that spoke about HImself, and about God’s revelation that were not accepted by some of the Jews in His day.

The Deuterocanonicals are not contained in all bibles, especially protestant bibles here in the United States, where fundamentalism is flourishing. Most fundamentalists here think that Catholics “added” these books, and are not aware that their spiritual fathers took them out, or that they were used by Jesus and His Apostles.

This is relevant to the OP because the contents of the canon is one of the elements not contained in the canon. We know which books belong in the bible because of sacred tradition.

 

[guanophore]

You are praying to God. When you pray for the health of the world community, you are not interceding for the entire global community. The prayer is between the faithful and God.

Why not? Who ARE you praing for when you do that?

Do you think that the faithful who have parted this world are less faithful, or less able to pray?

And when I pray in my Catholic Church, I do not ask my priest to intercede, nor Mary, because I believe that God hears my cry, I believe that Abba Father is with me, that I am with Him, always, and that he knows my prayer before I do .

What do you do during the part of the Mass where we customarily ask for the intercession of Mary and the saints?

With regard to the OP, one of the strands of evidence that started very early, and is still preserved today is the liturgy itself. The oldes one we have is the Liturgy of St. James in the Eastern Churches. The liturgies have preserved the Apostles way of doing things from their day until this. Asking for the intercession of the saints is included in all of them.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry for this, but information is as follows, and indicates that Martin Luther had no access to the Hebrew version which was not extant at the time he was publishing his vernacular Bible:

In Christ

No need to be sorry. I think it is just a misunderstanding. Luther’s reason for not including the deuteros is because he, along with most scholars at his time, did not think they were in the original Hebrew. He was mistaken, because they were. He had no scientific evidence of it, and this evidence did not emerge until very recently. The problem was that he chose to accept scientific evidence available (or not) to his own generation above what had been revealed to the infallible council. Along with this, he chose to reject a number of infallible teachings of the Church. That was a mistake too, but not the one to which Vern was referring.

Me, I just pray, and know that God hears. I think that on the whole I am not really interested in disputes of this kind, but I am grateful for your elucidation.

In Christ

It is great that you have this solid prayer experience. What is it about this thread that interests you?

It is hard for me to believe that you, as a historian, are not interested in how the early church did things, and the history behind decisions that were made that still impact us today.

 

[guanophore]

What on earth is the medallion at the bottom right of your signature, with the pistol (nochal) pointing towards heaven over the head of what seems to be a skeleton? What place does it have on this Forum? What purpose does it serve?

Most people’s signatures reveal something important to them about their personal beliefs or devotions. Your query sounds quite indignant!

Did you consider looking up St. Gabriel Possenti before you posted these questions?

I had the same ones when I saw it! Never met him before.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What on earth is the medallion at the bottom right of your signature, with the pistol (nochal) pointing towards heaven over the head of what seems to be a skeleton? What place does it have on this Forum? What purpose does it serve?

It is a holy medal of St. Gabriel Possenti, an OFFICIALLY recognized saint of the Catholic Church, who used a gun to save his village from twenty terrorists. I have a blessed version hanging from the mirror in my car.

What place does it have on this forum? Catholic Forum … Catholic Saint. Don’t see the disconnect anywhere.

Most people’s signatures reveal something important to them about their personal beliefs or devotions. Your query sounds quite indignant!

Did you consider looking up St. Gabriel Possenti before you posted these questions?

I had the same ones when I saw it! Never met him before.

Thank you for that.

 

[JLongoria]

Well, Catholics over here are taught that they were removed because they were not available in the original Hebrew text. They were in Greek, and Martin Luther therefore did not trust them to be accurate reflections of the truth - whether or not they have been blessed by the Church.

They were therefore omitted in early versions of vernacular Bibles.

But what is all this about anyway? They are all included in current published Bibles, and so even I, a ‘Protestant Catholic’, know which books they are. And that they are usually included in a separate section in the Bible between OT and NT. Go look.

In Christ

Too bad Luther wasn’t the infallible council, and bears no reflection on what are the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

Luther openly opposed sentire cum ecclesia, “thinking with the Church,” in his actions; instead of saying, “I will believe the Holy Mother Church, and try to use my God-given reasoning to understand why these should be included,” he started from his own position of, “those yahoos in Rome are ludicrous!”

I’m not saying we should blindly follow everything that a priest, a bishop, or a cardinal says; that would make us like those who followed Luther. Yet throwing away 1500 years of knowledge about God and the Christians that suffered for His sake is not a particularly good way of coming to learn about who God really is.

When an infallible Church council promulgates something, you believe them. No ifs, ands, or buts; it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and we are no one to question it. We use our reasoning to say then, “Holy Spirit, help me to understand these things which are currently beyond my understanding; if not, keep me in good faith of their truth,” not, “these things are wrong because they are incompatible with what I believe.”

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, Catholics over here are taught that they were removed because they were not available in the original Hebrew text. They were in Greek, and Martin Luther therefore did not trust them to be accurate reflections of the truth - whether or not they have been blessed by the Church.

They were therefore omitted in early versions of vernacular Bibles.

But what is all this about anyway? They are all included in current published Bibles, and so even I, a ‘Protestant Catholic’, know which books they are. And that they are usually included in a separate section in the Bible between OT and NT. Go look.

In Christ

But they are not considered “Inspired”. Also, I wonder what people that don’t think it’s inspired due to its non-Hebrew text feel about the Dead Sea Scrolls which had parts of several of the Deuterocanonicals in Hebrew.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry for this, but information is as follows, and indicates that Martin Luther had no access to the Hebrew version which was not extant at the time he was publishing his vernacular Bible:

In Christ

So… Martin Luther, instead of trusting the authority of the Church, went on a false assumption and came up with the wrong conclusion. And as a result, millions of Christians have looked over a beautiful piece of God’s Word!!! Now that’s sad.

 

[JRKH]

Well, Catholics over here are taught that they were removed because they were not available in the original Hebrew text. They were in Greek, and Martin Luther therefore did not trust them to be accurate reflections of the truth - whether or not they have been blessed by the Church.

They were therefore omitted in early versions of vernacular Bibles.

But what is all this about anyway? They are all included in current published Bibles, and so even I, a ‘Protestant Catholic’, know which books they are. And that they are usually included in a separate section in the Bible between OT and NT. Go look.

In Christ

What this is about is Post number 176. In this post, the n2thelight who is the thread originator, asked this

First I would like to thank you for answering my questions.

Now my next question,You all stated that it was the Catholics who put the Bible together,as far as what books were allowed in and those not.

If this is the case,**why have a Catholic Bible,why not just put it together right the first time,**in thus doing,make the Catholic Bible unnecessary?Or do you not accept the KJV?

Basically, after we stopped laughing, we have explained to the OP that the Catholic Bible IS the origional, correct and complete Christian Bible.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

What this is about is Post number 176. In this post, the n2thelight who is the thread originator, asked this



Basically, after we stopped laughing, we have explained to the OP that the Catholic Bible IS the origional, correct and complete Christian Bible.

Peace
James

We did get it right – after all, we wrote it.

 

[mercygate]

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

I do understand your wider point here. But as for “the Church that wrote the Bible” – what I mean is that the only reason we receive the OT is because of Jesus. Christians receive it because He not only received it but because none of it makes sense for Christianity AT ALL except for the person of Jesus Christ. What Scripture “says” is completely different for a Christian from what it says to a Jew. Therefore, it can be said that “the church” does “own” the Bible in that the New Testament – written by the Church, for the Church – reveals the Old Testament as it had not been revealed before.

I entirely disagree that it is “in the public domain” in the sense that it makes sense to anybody who is not in the Body. The idea that individual interpretation is even possible for Christianity is, to my mind, entirely outside the very idea of “church”, which has always meant those who believe the faith of the Church. The transmission of the Gospel has been a hand-to-hand and mouth-to-mouth operation since Pentecost.