W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Oh they are missing many more all the NT too.
- Status
T
thecoach
Guest
But the NT is not the point of the question, since the only difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bible are 7 OT books.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
i believe that they now have those books too.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello John,
You know that “catholic” (lower case “c”) and “Catholic” (upper case “C”) mean different things to different people…right?
You aren’t trying to slip one by me here… are you?
I am a Roman Catholic (upper case “C”), which is, by the way the same as, the “catholic” (lower case “c”) or "universal Church.
Are you “Catholic” or are you “catholic”?
Peace
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello again,
The point in question here is, the Formation of the Bible (the Roman Catholic Church), where it came from (the Roman Catholic Church) and who has properly interpreted it (The Roman Catholic Church).
A trifecta…
Your Thoughts?
Peace
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello O.S. Luke,
All of the Bible “suports” Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The book that we call “The Bible” is a Christian book, period. If you believe in Christianity, then you must acknowledge that Chirst is “Lord and Saviour”. Read John 1: 1-50,
John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
“in the beginning”
Now try to put this in context with your comments. Thank you.
Peace
S
SIA
Guest
YES! Why can’t Catholics get this?? The Protestants didn’t take from Scripture, the RCC added to it!
E
exoflare
Guest
Look up the Council of Jamnia. Jews took those same books out of their scriptures long before Protestants decided to follow suit. And like another person mentioned not that long ago, if you’re going to use the current Jewish canon as your benchmark you should at least be consistent and throw out the entire New Testament as well. You can’t have it both ways.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
The Roman Catholic Church “added” everything between the front cover to the back cover of the Bible, about 500-700 years before Protestants existed and the original papyrus no longer existed by that time.
The Protestant, non-Catholic, King James Version - Bible (the KJV) was named after an anti-Catholic, Protestant King of England, the Protestant’s third Pope with King Henry XIII being the first Protestant Pope. Protestants belong to a fabricated, man-made religion, invented and started by and for men, anti-Catholic men, to have God on their terms and not on God’s terms, 1500 years after Jesus.
Protestantism is all about “protesting” and rejecting Christian truths found in Catholicism, truths that are as true today as they were two thousand years ago.
Christianity, was not meant to be whatever, someone who happens to interpret the Bible, says it is; a “man-made" Protestant, non-Catholic type of Christianity.
Too many today, have become members of the “religion of their own intellect” and self described “prophets”, or those who follow another man’s intellect…. that’s what Protestantism is.
Non-Catholic-Protestant Christianity, in all of the many thousands of different forms, are nothing more than many different examples, where men have changed Christian truths and replaced them with their own man-made “truths”; to suit their own needs, because they have refused to submit or surrender to God’s will.
Denominations created by men are not created by God.
The Bible is a Catholic book and Protestant have try to change and twist it, in such a way, to try to make it into a Protestant book and it can‘t be done. Just cause you say it’s so, doesn’t make it so.
As time goes on though, and new Protestant Bibles come out, it is amazing, how much more “Catholic” they become every year, now, why do you think that is?
The Protestant, non-Catholic, King James Version - Bible (the KJV) was named after an anti-Catholic, Protestant King of England, the Protestant’s third Pope with King Henry XIII being the first Protestant Pope. Protestants belong to a fabricated, man-made religion, invented and started by and for men, anti-Catholic men, to have God on their terms and not on God’s terms, 1500 years after Jesus.
Protestantism is all about “protesting” and rejecting Christian truths found in Catholicism, truths that are as true today as they were two thousand years ago.
Christianity, was not meant to be whatever, someone who happens to interpret the Bible, says it is; a “man-made" Protestant, non-Catholic type of Christianity.
Too many today, have become members of the “religion of their own intellect” and self described “prophets”, or those who follow another man’s intellect…. that’s what Protestantism is.
Non-Catholic-Protestant Christianity, in all of the many thousands of different forms, are nothing more than many different examples, where men have changed Christian truths and replaced them with their own man-made “truths”; to suit their own needs, because they have refused to submit or surrender to God’s will.
Denominations created by men are not created by God.
The Bible is a Catholic book and Protestant have try to change and twist it, in such a way, to try to make it into a Protestant book and it can‘t be done. Just cause you say it’s so, doesn’t make it so.
As time goes on though, and new Protestant Bibles come out, it is amazing, how much more “Catholic” they become every year, now, why do you think that is?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
may i add this to it.
Galatians 1
6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
this says all. if anyone preach any other gospel different from the teaching Church found by Christ, St Paul says let him be condemned.
Peace
C
cath2lic4ever
Guest
yes…absolutely it’s a CATHOLIC book, it is part of our church and it belongs to us. all are suggested to read it but not mess (edit) with it.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
yes…absolutely it’s a CATHOLIC book, it is part of our church and it belongs to us. all are suggested to read it but not mess (edit) with it.
C
ChristianRoots
Guest
HISTORY LESSON 101:
There was no such thing as an officially- approved Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments until the late 4th century.
After the last Apostle died in A.D. 100 and before the first Bible was officially compiled in the late 4th century (with only the 27 current books of the New Testament) what did the early Christian communities use as their sole rule of faith?
The answer to this question, as it always was since Pentecost, is the Catholic Church.
If you fail to recognize this answer, then you will be inadvertently saying that the limited sacred writings each early community had in its possesion between A.D. 100 and ca. A.D. 382 were sufficient for the faith. Are you prepared to say this? Keep in mind that some of these communities had writings in their possesion that they thought to be sacred but never made it into the Bible!
It was the Catholic Church that decided those 7 “additional” books of the Old Testament were canonical. They were always part of the Septuagint and never were officially repudiated by the Jews until 70 years after Jesus’ Resurrection. The Jesus movement was a huge factor for rejecting these books.
These books were first offically canonized by the Catholic Church WITH and ALONGSIDE the 27 books of the New Testament in the late 4th century, not afterwards (see Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage). The Catholic Church DID NOT add these books to the Bible during the reformation era, it simply declared that the list from the late 4th century was INFALLIBLE.
This is a historical fact. You can look it up and see for yourself if you are willing to allow the scales to fall from your eyes.
What “history” books are you reading or “who” are you listening to that makes you think otherwise?
I
inchrist101
Guest
Absolute rubbish. You need a little history lesson yourself. The early churches had plenty of access to scripture. They may not have been fortunate enough to have copies of all the works that eventually became what we now know as official canon. But your argument is that no one had access to scripture until the late 4th century when the church created the official canon. Then all the sudden voila here is the Bible. It’s not that way my friend. Point of historical fact as you like to say. One criteria that was used to ratify the canon were the books that the churches in different regions of the world had accepted. When the churches in Asia Minor for instance saw that the churches in Africa were using the same Gospels to preach from they were more comfortable with including those Gospels as canon. Not implying that was the only criteria of course. The reason we have so many copies of Paul’s letters was because they were in such wide spread circulation amongst Christian churches.
With regard to the 7 DC books being part of the septuagint, that again is completely false. There were many versions of the septuagint and the earliest manuscripts did not include the DCs. Jerome himself allong with many early Popes cautioned using the DCs for doctrine. Jerome stated that the DCs were useful with respect to some historical information but never to be used in formulating doctrines on matters of faith.
C
ChristianRoots
Guest
=inchrist101;3987520]
I never said the early Christian communites did not have plenty of access to Scripture. I know they did. What I said was that none of the early Chrisitan communites had access to the complete New Testament Scriptures as we know them today, you know the 27 current books, not 10, 18, 26 or 28 books, etc.
The first instance we have of all 27 books being considered canonical was in the late 4th century by the Catholic Church. (And, by the way that list included the deuteros…why do Protestants keep saying the Catholic Church added them at the Council of Trent?) Before the Council of Rome in A.D. 382, there was no list of these 27 books considered canonical anywhere throughout the Christian world. Is it just a coincidence that today Protestant communites have those same 27 books in their Bibles? I don’t think so.
At the very least, you must concede that the Catholic Church was the first to compile all 27 books.
If you agree with my statement that none of the early communites had access to the complete New Testament, then this poses a challenge to Protestantism. Would you then say, as a Protestant, what limited sacred writings, (you now, anything LESS than 27 books, am I getting through to you?) these early communities had in their possesion was sufficient for their faith? If a community had the Old Testament and 18 New Testament books, etc, was that enough for the Christian faith? Do you consider them equal Christians to yourself today with your 27 books?
The only rubbish I see is your convoluted view of history.
P.S. Please read my comments thoughtfully before posting your own comments.
The study of history and ability to read thoughtfully are obviously not your strongest attributes.
I never said the early Christian communites did not have plenty of access to Scripture. I know they did. What I said was that none of the early Chrisitan communites had access to the complete New Testament Scriptures as we know them today, you know the 27 current books, not 10, 18, 26 or 28 books, etc.
The first instance we have of all 27 books being considered canonical was in the late 4th century by the Catholic Church. (And, by the way that list included the deuteros…why do Protestants keep saying the Catholic Church added them at the Council of Trent?) Before the Council of Rome in A.D. 382, there was no list of these 27 books considered canonical anywhere throughout the Christian world. Is it just a coincidence that today Protestant communites have those same 27 books in their Bibles? I don’t think so.
At the very least, you must concede that the Catholic Church was the first to compile all 27 books.
If you agree with my statement that none of the early communites had access to the complete New Testament, then this poses a challenge to Protestantism. Would you then say, as a Protestant, what limited sacred writings, (you now, anything LESS than 27 books, am I getting through to you?) these early communities had in their possesion was sufficient for their faith? If a community had the Old Testament and 18 New Testament books, etc, was that enough for the Christian faith? Do you consider them equal Christians to yourself today with your 27 books?
Thanks for emphasizing my point.
You did not thoughtfully read my comments. I never said that.
The early communities had similar sacred writings in their possession but they also had differing books that each thought to be canonical. Agree or disagree? In your opinion, did this then make one community more Christian than another?
Agree.
You are wrong and obviously “study” history through a biased lens.
You are wrong again. Jerome at first did express doubt but he eventually yielded to the authority of the Catholic Church and then wholeheartedly believed in the deuteros because the Catholic Church said they were canonical. You should learn from Jerome’s example.
The only rubbish I see is your convoluted view of history.
P.S. Please read my comments thoughtfully before posting your own comments.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello inchrist101,
We Catholics know that, it was the Catholic Church who was the keeper of the “Scriptures”. We are the ones (Catholics) who passed the Bible down to the Protestants, who then changed it…and misinterpreted it.
Don’t you mean the early Church (Catholic Church), not churches? If your denomination has beliefs, which arose out of the “Protestant Movement”, then your “church” wasn’t around, until more than 1500 years after the fact…now was it?
I am always amused (in general) when non-Catholic (Protestant) Christians here, who reject Christian traditions, write about Christian history…aka…Christian traditions.
They (Protestants), in almost every case, get it wrong…that’s why they don’t follow Christian traditions. :doh2:
If you truly knew and understood Christian history…then you would know that it is also Catholic history and you’d be Catholic.
BTW…there is some “early scripture’, which didn’t make it’s way into the Bible. It was the Roman Catholic Church who decided what “scripture” made it into the Bible and excluded others.
Peace
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
One cannot connect the “Christian dots", without connecting the “Catholic dots”.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
C
ChristianKnight
Guest
I think the bible is a holy book, not a certain people’s book. blame me for believing that the bible is holy and not a certain religion/denomination’s book.
Catholics, you guys might have compiled the stories, but at least respect protestants, they believen the same Christ as you.
btw: Jimmy, stop making threads
Catholics, you guys might have compiled the stories, but at least respect protestants, they believen the same Christ as you.
btw: Jimmy, stop making threads
- Status