The Bible is a “Catholic Book”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TriuneUnity said:
You mentioned this on another thread, Jimmy in response to me.

It’s a catholic book. Not a Roman Catholic one 😃
Click to expand...
The Bible is a Roman Catholic Book.

As for the word “Roman,” that is an Anglicanism—considered superfluous by all continental Europeans. It is like calling a man by his confirmation name, in addition to his baptismal and family names.

The word “Roman Catholic” really came from the legislative enactments of Protestant England. They tried to pretend that there was another “Catholic” Church, namely, the “English Catholic.” Hence the name “Roman” was needed to distinguish the two. We still employ the consequences of their fiction.
 
Gara3987 said:
The Bible is a Roman Catholic Book.

As for the word “Roman,” that is an Anglicanism—considered superfluous by all continental Europeans. It is like calling a man by his confirmation name, in addition to his baptismal and family names.

The word “Roman Catholic” really came from the legislative enactments of Protestant England. They tried to pretend that there was another “Catholic” Church, namely, the “English Catholic.” Hence the name “Roman” was needed to distinguish the two. We still employ the consequences of their fiction.
Click to expand...
Henry the VIII even made himself the pope. with that he created a new religion which he was the head.

Please, dont follow Henry the VIII, he was an evil man.

blessings.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Absolutely. One of those things as a Catholic, according to Pope Leo XIII, that cannot be called into question.
Click to expand...
So that addition is acceptable but the others that you listed are not?

Interesting.

For the record, Leo’s pronouncement about it was not ex cathedra, and it was reopened for debate 30 years later. THe oldest latin and greek texts do not have it.
 
ralphinal said:
So that addition is acceptable but the others that you listed are not?

Interesting.

For the record, Leo’s pronouncement about it was not ex cathedra, and it was reopened for debate 30 years later. THe oldest latin and greek texts do not have it.
Click to expand...
What “additions” are we referring to? The four areas I listed cannot properly be classified as additions. They do open up a number of topics. For example, since you appeal to the oldest texts; do the “oldest texts” of the LXX have the same deuterocanonical books? No.
Do we have any intact or lists of what compromised the LXX from the era of Christ? No.
You are engaging in speculative apologetics when anyone contends we can prove what books compromised the LXX of the time of Christ. I think you know that.
And as far as the earliest additions not having the passage we are referring to I included a quote but the whole issue centers around which manuscript stream one adheres to

OLD LATIN MANUSCRIPTS EVIDENCE: The “three heavenly Witnesses” is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome’s original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. (Hills, Jones) This historic usage of the text in the Western Church lay behind its final inclusion in the Greek Text of Erasmus. Here is 1 John 5:7-8 in Latin: “Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.”
  1. Included in the 2nd century Old Latin Bible.
  2. Old Latin MS r has the verse (AD 550).
  3. Old Latin MS l has the verse.
  4. Latin Vulgate from AD 800 on.
GREEK MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE: There are at least 10 confirmed Greek MSS that contain the Comma.
  1. 61 (late 15th century) (Aland’s Text, 3rd edition, p. 824)
  2. 629 (14th century) (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  3. 918 (Aland’s; 3rd ed., p. 824)
  4. 221 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  5. 2318 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  6. 634 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
  7. 636, margin (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  8. 88, margin, Codex Ravianus, 12th century (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  9. 429, margin (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  10. Omega 110 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
  11. 635, margin (Holland)
  12. Codex Wizanburgensis (8th century) (Cloud)
 
I am beginning to wonder if Bible is even the proper word to use for the Protestent versions. As they had to take certain books out just to begin to make their version make sense.

So I think “Bble” is more accurate for Protestent version discussions.

But back to the OP, since Protestents use a different “Bble” than Catholics, I would definately say the BIBLE is a Catholic book.
 
Ted_in_Charlott said:
I am beginning to wonder if Bible is even the proper word to use for the Protestent versions. As they had to take certain books out just to begin to make their version make sense.

So I think “Bble” is more accurate for Protestent version discussions.

But back to the OP, since Protestents use a different “Bble” than Catholics, I would definately say the BIBLE is a Catholic book.
Click to expand...
Hello Ted in Charlott,

Good point, Protestants have not only removed entire books from the Bible, they have also removed verses, look for Daniel 13 or 14 in a Protestant Bible, it ain’t in there. Additionally, subtle changes also occur in Protestant Bibles, where a single word like, “tradition” has been replaced in every instance by the word “teaching”, apparently because, “tradition” makes it “too Catholic”…

I own a King James Version Study Bible, along with more than ten Catholic Bibles; the St. Joseph’s Edition NAB, the New Jerusalem, the Catholic NIV Study Bible …etc… Whenever you have a discussion with a "bible alone” Christian, one must actually point out what is written in the Protestant Bible as well as, point out, what is written in the footnotes and then compare it to a Catholic Bible and footnotes.

Additionally, John 3:16 for example, is one of the Protestants favorite verses. I have run into Protestant and “Born-again” Christians in store parking lots and other places, where they will hand me a recruitment brochure with John 3:16…. and the brochure in wrong.

Modern NIV Protestant Bibles now have the correct translation, which is “might not” or “should not” parish and not - “shall not parish”. However, the flyers or recruitment brochure will have “shall not parish”.

Ask a Protestant to recited John 3:16 and they will usually say, “shall not parish” even though their new Bible doesn’t have it translated in that way.

Don’t you see, “shall not parish” sounds way more “Protestant” than “might not “or “should not parish”…this is just one of many…many examples.

Whenever, I see this I will ask the person "how old is your Bible? Because, if their bible is fairly new, it is more consistent with the Catholic Bible. Protestant Bibles get more “Catholic” every year. Maybe this is why more and more Protestants today, are rejecting fewer and fewer aspects of Catholicism.

John 3:16 (Catholic NAB)

“For God so loved the world that he gave 7 his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”

John 3:16 (King James Version)

“16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

The Bible is a Catholic Book!
 
Rightlydivide said:
What “additions” are we referring to? The four areas I listed cannot properly be classified as additions. They do open up a number of topics. For example, since you appeal to the oldest texts; do the “oldest texts” of the LXX have the same deuterocanonical books? No.
Do we have any intact or lists of what compromised the LXX from the era of Christ? No.
You are engaging in speculative apologetics when anyone contends we can prove what books compromised the LXX of the time of Christ. I think you know that.
And as far as the earliest additions not having the passage we are referring to I included a quote but the whole issue centers around which manuscript stream one adheres to

OLD LATIN MANUSCRIPTS EVIDENCE: The “three heavenly Witnesses” is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome’s original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. (Hills, Jones) This historic usage of the text in the Western Church lay behind its final inclusion in the Greek Text of Erasmus. Here is 1 John 5:7-8 in Latin: “Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.”
  1. Included in the 2nd century Old Latin Bible.
  2. Old Latin MS r has the verse (AD 550).
  3. Old Latin MS l has the verse.
  4. Latin Vulgate from AD 800 on.
GREEK MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE: There are at least 10 confirmed Greek MSS that contain the Comma.
  1. 61 (late 15th century) (Aland’s Text, 3rd edition, p. 824)
  2. 629 (14th century) (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  3. 918 (Aland’s; 3rd ed., p. 824)
  4. 221 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  5. 2318 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  6. 634 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
  7. 636, margin (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  8. 88, margin, Codex Ravianus, 12th century (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  9. 429, margin (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)
  10. Omega 110 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
  11. 635, margin (Holland)
  12. Codex Wizanburgensis (8th century) (Cloud)
Click to expand...
Then why do most modern Bible Scholars think that it does not belong?

Why is the KJV the only major translation to still include it?
 
ralphinal said:
Then why do most modern Bible Scholars think that it does not belong?

Why is the KJV the only major translation to still include it?
Click to expand...
Differing presuppositions. The vast majority of scholars accept the Alexandrian text. Heck, even folks like James White do.
They would have no reason, based upon their presuppositions, to include it. So you find an odd assortment of folks that support it. Oh by the way, the Orthodox Study Bible does as well. Those of us Byzantine stream folks…odd assortment indeed!
 
mozart-250 said:
At this point, this is all based on your say so.

In other words, the a neutral, impartial observer must conclude that the Bible historically belongs to all three of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant unless it can be clearly proven that the claims of one or more of these groups is illigitimate.

Your say so is not the same as clearly proven.

Oh, and the word “sects” is a pejorative and is condescending.
Click to expand...
I am sorry my use of the word ‘sect’ offends you. No offence was or is intended.

But my reference to sect is that given in the Chambers twentieth century dictionary 1977 edition, page 1224 para 5, which defines ‘sect’ as 'any part of a whole which is cut or breaks away.

By this definition I mean it as the dictionary intends. I see absolutely no harm or offence in what I have said. There are groups who have broken away from the Whole.Church.

I do not see by what other name they can be referred. I deliberatly did not use the name ‘Church’ as I believe there is but ONE Church which is both Orthodox and Catholic.

Perhaps you would kindly give me an alternative name which is more acceptable.

Again please accept my sincere apologies. No offence was intended.

Blessings and peace
 
Rightlydivide said:
Differing presuppositions. The vast majority of scholars accept the Alexandrian text. Heck, even folks like James White do.
They would have no reason, based upon their presuppositions, to include it. So you find an odd assortment of folks that support it. Oh by the way, the Orthodox Study Bible does as well. Those of us Byzantine stream folks…odd assortment indeed!
Click to expand...
For the record, I do like it. I just like the discussion on it.
 
I could say that I no longer believe what the Catholic or Orthodox Church believes and says, but I DO believe every word she/they have written. :rolleyes: Bit of a contradiction but lets just say it for now.

I am going away to found my own sect. We will not believe in any or some of the Sacraments. We do not recognise Rome and other things. But we DO believe in the authority of the Bible, well more or less, we do not accept Pauls teachings ‘to hold fast to tradition’ as that kinda pre-supposes the Church existed before the Bible and that is not a point we want to admit to as it does rather undermine our sola scriptura protestations of tradition.

We believe the very name ‘Bible’ comes from the word ‘Biblica’ which in the language of the small community which lives at the bottom of Mount tomeyeko, means ‘biscuit’ so that we only meet to worship in shops that sell biscuits.

So, now we have moved and set up shop somewhere else -pun intended. We have prayed about it and come up with our own dogma. We accept her book and actually claim that it is in truth OUR Book.

We believe that the Sabbath is on Wednesday’s because the Bible doesn’t say He rested on Saturdays, only that He rested on the 7th day. We figure He started on Thursday so the 7th day has to be Wednesday.

Therefore we were Catholic before we rejected Catholic Church but we DO still have her book therefore we have legitimate claim that it is also our book until you prove otherwise.

Oh by the way, someone dropped it and all the pages fell out. We DO still have the cover so that is our Bible. It doesn’t contain all the books [well any books-seeings they blew away in the wind when the pages fell out] but we accept the cover as our version of the Bible.

Blessings and peace.
 
Of course it is a Catholic book. The writers of the New Testament, as well as those who approved the canon we now have, were Catholic.

I suppose I should note that it loses its Catholic-ness if the deterocanonicals are taken out. That’s the censored protestant version. 😛
 
Lilyflower said:
I am sorry my use of the word ‘sect’ offends you. No offence was or is intended.

But my reference to sect is that given in the Chambers twentieth century dictionary 1977 edition, page 1224 para 5, which defines ‘sect’ as 'any part of a whole which is cut or breaks away.

By this definition I mean it as the dictionary intends. I see absolutely no harm or offence in what I have said. There are groups who have broken away from the Whole.Church.

I do not see by what other name they can be referred. I deliberatly did not use the name ‘Church’ as I believe there is but ONE Church which is both Orthodox and Catholic.

Perhaps you would kindly give me an alternative name which is more acceptable.

Again please accept my sincere apologies. No offence was intended.

Blessings and peace
Click to expand...
OK. I understand (do not necessarily agree but understand).

You (obviously) have Catholic assumptions on both the Orthodox and the later Protestant divisions that historically have occurred in the church. The Catholic assumption obviously is that God favors the Catholics. Of course the Orthodox and Protestants also want to put God on their sides.

Somehow I feel very uncomfortable claiming to speak for the Almighty here. Without a word directly from God, I think I will just continue to assume that maybe He does not have a favorite denomination myself.

Oh yes…I would have used the word “denominations” 🙂
a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
Click to expand...
But the more I think about it, perhaps I was being hyper sensitive here…and so I would like to apologize for that.🙂
 
Jimmy_B said:
The Bible is a “Catholic Book”, therefore, everything in the Bible, in one way or another supports Catholicism.

Ignorance of Catholicism is ignorance of the Bible.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Absolutely wrong.
 
Jimmy_B said:
The Bible is a “Catholic Book”, therefore, everything in the Bible, in one way or another supports Catholicism.

Ignorance of Catholicism is ignorance of the Bible.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I THINK YOU ARE*** RIGHT.***👍
 
Too bad we don’t spend more time reading it rather than claiming who is responsible for compiling it. Such divisive arguments don’t do anything whatsoever to engender brotherhood and sisterhood among Christians.
 
JimmyB:
I would like to hear a non-Catholic, Protestant response.
Click to expand...
Of course you would! :rolleyes: The thread title was loaded with bait towards them and left little doubt as to your intention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top