The Bible is a Catholic Document

[Greg_McPherran]

Becky:

Wow, that’s a pretty big claim, but you provide no evidence to back it up. Impressive LM.

However, I would agree with that though. Catholic meaning all Christians (Church=ekklesia=called out ones), but not Roman Catholic-those who follow the traditions and teachings of the denomination centered in Rome :yup:. The Bible is a Catholic document, but not a Roman Catholic one.

Toodles,
Becky

Hi Becky and welcome,

Are you interested in becoming Catholic?

Greg

 

[Becky]

La Chiara:

Becky–Did you bother to read any of the posts that provided the evidence to the very first post which you responded to?

Nope, and I shouldn’t have to :yup: . The OP should provide her evidence in the opening post-along with her claim.

There are 70 plus responses and you only looked at the first one??? Some of them provided strong evidence supporting that indeed the Bible is very much a Catholic document.

That’s nice, but they aren’t the ones making the claim in the OP, LM is, and I am asking her to provide evidence for her claim. If she already has then please point it out to me.

Check out especially post #68 by Tantum Ergo. And may I point out that you provided no evidence for your assertion that the Bible is NOT a Catholic document–just your opinion. :tsktsk:

Yeah, it is my opinion, and I’m right!

God Bless,
becky

 

[Becky]

Greg_McPherran:

Hi Becky and welcome,

Are you interested in becoming Catholic?

Greg

Thanks for the welcome

Why do you ask?

Becky

 

[1962Missal]

Becky:

Wow, that’s a pretty big claim, but you provide no evidence to back it up. Impressive LM.

Toodles,
Becky

I think the claim was provided without support precisely in order to encourage other posters to provide evidence to either support or attemt to refute it.

Originally Posted by La Chiara
Becky–Did you bother to read any of the posts that provided the evidence to the very first post which you responded to?
Nope, and I shouldn’t have to . The OP should provide her evidence in the opening post-along with her claim.
Quote:
There are 70 plus responses and you only looked at the first one??? Some of them provided strong evidence supporting that indeed the Bible is very much a Catholic document.
That’s nice, but they aren’t the ones making the claim in the OP, LM is, and I am asking her to provide evidence for her claim. If she already has then please point it out to me.

Perhaps you really ought to interact with the posts here instead of acting as self-appointed parliamentarian of Catholic Answers.

Yeah, it is my opinion, and I’m right!

Little troll…come heeeere little troll…WHACK!!!

Justin

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Becky,

Becky:

Thanks for the welcome
Why do you ask?
Becky

Two reasons:

If I ask someone if they are interested in becoming Catholic it may prompt them to consider becoming Catholic.

Also, if someone tells me that they are not interested in Catholicism, then they may not be open to consider universal Christian theology. Therefore, it might not make sense to explain universal Christian theology to them.

The word “catholic” means “universal”, by the way. The Church is called “catholic” because the truths of Jesus apply to all human beings. There is really no such thing as a denomination, true Christians are one church by definition. This is why Paul warned against the evil of divisions. To create divisions is anti-Christian because it interferes with the universal mission of Jesus. Anyone who truly loves Jesus would not want to interfere with His mission.

You certainly are free not to answer the question as it is not our business per se. However, sometimes on these forums people will indicate that they are interested in becoming Catholic or in RCIA etc.

By the way, I did respond to your post about not erring on the side of caution.

Greg

 

[jimmy]

Becky:

Nope, and I shouldn’t have to :yup: . The OP should provide her evidence in the opening post-along with her claim.

That’s nice, but they aren’t the ones making the claim in the OP, LM is, and I am asking her to provide evidence for her claim. If she already has then please point it out to me.

Yeah, it is my opinion, and I’m right!

God Bless,
becky

Becky this is supposed to be a discussion, not just a statement of what you believe. Little Mary made the post because she wanted to discuss the issue.

 

[Becky]

Justin,

1962Missal:

I think the claim was provided without support precisely in order to encourage other posters to provide evidence to either support or attemt to refute it.

Here it how it works on every other message board I’ve been too. A person makes an initial claim and then they themselves provide evidence for that claim in the OP.

Perhaps you really ought to interact with the posts here instead of acting as self-appointed parliamentarian of Catholic Answers.

What is wrong with asking the OP to back her claim up? If she makes a bold claim that it is a *fact *that the Bible is a Roman Catholic document then she ought to be able to give be evidence to support her opinion. Seems like a fair question to me.

Little troll…come heeeere little roll…WHACK!

Justin, thank you for your warm and Christ-like welcome . Unofrtunately, I see a lot of this type of rubbish on the RC boards that I visit. You will be placed on ignore. May God bless you and yours.

becky

 

[Becky]

jimmy:

Becky this is supposed to be a discussion, not just a statement of what you believe. Little Mary made the post because she wanted to discuss the issue.

Hi Jimmy,

How can anyone discuss something with LM if she doesn’t provide any historical evidence to support her claims? She is the one who made the original claim, therefore, she has to be the one to back up her claim. If someone simply offers an opinion then I immediately brush it off.

Gracious, if a non-RC came onto this forum and started a thread claiming that the pope is not infallible without offering evidence I would bet that RCs here would (rightly so IMO) be calling on them to produce evidence to support their claim. Why can’t we ask the same thing when a RC makes a claim that we believe is false?

becky

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Becky,

Becky:

Wow, that’s a pretty big claim, but you provide no evidence to back it up.

She did provide evidence. She stated that it is a historical fact that Bible was compiled by Catholics. She used the historical fact as evidence.

You also said that the Bible is a Catholic document, but not a Roman Catholic document. Could you elaborate on that? It may be that we are in agreement and not realize it.

Thank You,
Greg

 

[Becky]

LM:

Would anyone like to comment on the historical fact that the Bible is a Catholic document compiled by Catholics for Catholics?

Greg_McPherran:

She did provide evidence. She stated that it is a historical fact that Bible was compiled by Catholics. She used the historical fact as evidence.

She did not provide any historical evidence. She merely claimed that it is a historical fact that Bible was compiled by (Roman) Catholics (see above for direct quote). That is not historical evidence, that is an opinion. Historical evidence is primary source documentation-letters of the church fathers, documents of church councils, etc., etc., etc., etc.

I can just as easily say:

Would anyone like to comment on the historical fact that the Bible is a NOT a Roman Catholic document compiled by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics?

Did I provide any historical evidence? No, I just made a claim without offering evidence to support that claim.

You also said that the Bible is a Catholic document, but not a Roman Catholic document. Could you elaborate on that? It may be that we are in agreement and not realize it.

Thank You,
Greg

“Catholic” means universal. “Roman Catholic” refers to the Christian denomination centered in Rome. The early Christians may be described as Catholic, but not RC.

 

[La_Chiara]

Becky:

Justin,

Here it how it works on every other message board I’ve been too. A person makes an initial claim and then they themselves provide evidence for that claim in the OP.

What is wrong with asking the OP to back her claim up? If she makes a bold claim that it is a *fact *that the Bible is a Roman Catholic document then she ought to be able to give be evidence to support her opinion. Seems like a fair question to me.

becky

Becky, if you don’t like what Little Mary did then report a bad post using the little triangle box. It seems to me that you are trying to set up the rules for how this thread (if not the forums) should be run. But that is the moderators’ job. Nobody else is complaining about this thread or Little Mary’s original post. You have made your point but keeping at it does not serve to advance the topic of the thread any further.

 

[jimmy]

Becky:

Hi Jimmy,

How can anyone discuss something with LM if she doesn’t provide any historical evidence to support her claims? She is the one who made the original claim, therefore, she has to be the one to back up her claim. If someone simply offers an opinion then I immediately brush it off.

Gracious, if a non-RC came onto this forum and started a thread claiming that the pope is not infallible without offering evidence I would bet that RCs here would (rightly so IMO) be calling on them to produce evidence to support their claim. Why can’t we ask the same thing when a RC makes a claim that we believe is false?

becky

I would also, as a Catholic provide my own proof to back up my point to refute her statement. I would also look at the rest of the arguements against the pope in the thread and I would try to answer those if I could.

 

[Becky]

You have made your point but keeping at it does not serve to advance the topic of the thread any further.

I am simply answering the questions posed to me by you and other posters. I have yet to receive any type of response from the OP, and I would like to dialogue with the OP of this thread. I don’t know why this seems to anger you.

LM, would you please bring forth your evidence that the Bible is a Roman Catholic document? I am really very open to considering your position if only you would share with me your “historical evidence”

Thank you and may God Bless you,
Becky

 

[jimmy]

Becky:

I am simply answering the questions posed to me by you and other posters. I have yet to receive any type of response from the OP, and I would like to dialogue with the OP of this thread. I don’t know why this seems to anger you.

LM, would you please bring forth your evidence that the Bible is a Roman Catholic document? I am really very open to considering your position if only you would share with me your “historical evidence”

Thank you and may God Bless you,
Becky

Becky, we are not angry, but there is no reason why it can’t be a group discussion between several people instead of everyone just responding to Little Mary.

 

[1962Missal]

Especially since LM hasn’t posted on this board in over two weeks.

Justin

 

[MariaG]

original post of LM Post #1
Would anyone like to comment on the historical fact that the Bible is a Catholic document compiled by Catholics for Catholics?

posted by Becky post #89

Would anyone like to comment on the historical fact that the Bible is a NOT a Roman Catholic document compiled by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics?
*
Becky,
Why are you rewriting the question? It reflects an obvious prejudice that you brought with you to this board. I am disappointed (I wish all Catholics at all times could reflect His love), but not surprised at the posts directed at you. You complain about the lack of Christian love being expressed to you yet you are close to bearing false witness against others (if you already haven’t, only God knows your intent). We certainly should love those whether or not love is shown to us first. But I have yet to see any Christ like behavoir in your posts at all.

Maybe the attitude you get back is simply an unflattering reflection of that which you are giving out. You have this problem on all Catholic boards? Maybe the common denominator is not the Catholics, but you.
A servant of Christ,
Maria

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Becky,

Becky:

She did not provide any historical evidence. She merely claimed that it is a historical fact that Bible was compiled by (Roman) Catholics (see above for direct quote). That is not historical evidence, that is an opinion.

Firstly, isn’t is quite obvious that the Bible was not originally compiled by Protestants? They did not even form until the time of Luther in the 1500s and Luther himself used the Scriptures of the Catholic Church at that time.

Secondly, for the sake of starting a thread on a Catholic web site about something that is an accepted truth by Catholics, there is really no need to give evidence.

However, I will grant you that the thread title is not completely clear as to the intent of the thread.

Mary, what was the purpose of this thread?

Greg

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Please bring this thread back to a charitable level. It is in danger of being closed if the civility is not taken back up.

 

[Little_Mary]

Hi there

I have not logged on to these forums in several weeks partially because my computer required a trip to ICU and partially because I have a very busy fall in front of me. Anyway…

Becky, I’m sorry if I have upset you by my question. I guess my question was formulated on the fact that, often, some non-Catholics use the bible to refute Catholic teachings and beliefs. Some non-Catholics take a “bible only” approach to their beliefs. That being said, I was just wondering how many people (both Catholic and non-Catholic) have stopped to ask where the bible came from.

Yes, we all agree that it was divinely inspired. There were many writings that were said to be divinely inspired. But how did
the set of books that we know as Scripture become Scripture? How do you know what is Scripture and what is not Scripture? Well, you look at the bible. Who compiled the bible? Catholics. That’s a fact.

Remember that back in 397-400 AD, besides the Catholic church, other christian denominations were scarce. That’s why my question states that the Bible was compiled by Catholics for Catholics. Other christians weren’t excluded because there were no “other” christians to exclude. Martin Luther didn’t come along for another 1,100 years.

For those of you who demand historical evidence for this, please feel free to look it up for yourself. Or, if we are blessed with any historians reading this, maybe they would be so kind as to offer a source or two for those who must have such evidence. I am neither a full time historian nor a theologian - my knowledge of my faith has come from praying, reading, listening, questioning and living. I do not have a pile of books beside me with highlighted passages and dog eared pages. Any way you go about it, the Catholic church teaches the truth and the truth will always become apparent to those who seek it. So, study away. Collect your evidence. But don’t demand it from me just because you don’t like the question. Check it out for yourself.

Again my apologies to all those offended. I hope this thread can move to a more charitable level.

 

[Little_Mary]

Becky,

Please take another look at my original post. I did not use the word “Roman” although many of your posts infer that I did. Please do not add words to my posts.

Thank you
LM