The Bible is a Catholic Document

[mercygate]

bbas 64:

Good day, MercyGate

I would assert more than proposed ,but used with in the time frame of his life.

Peace to u,

Bill

Time frame of whose life? And how does John of Damascus’ list differ from the canon of the late 4th Century? Maybe I’m missing something here; it’s been a long day. Be gentle in pointing out what I seem to be missing. Thanks.

 

[Exporter]

Lots of words have been exchanged on this thread. I saw someone add the word “Roman” to another’s "Catholic.

I am not a Vatican enuncio, but I have read documents signed by our Holy Father John Paul II. He signed the papers as a Catholic - not as a Roman Catholic. And , yes , I am Roman Catholic!

I detect there is a reason for this which I don’t know. I know in some Orders a Priest will sign his name with a lower case “f” instead of Fr. as a recognition the the real Father resides in heaven. It is aa sign of respect and humility.:clapping:

 

[mayra_hart]

the first bibles were all produced by catholics. the first person to translated any part of the bible into english was the catholic priest Bede, in the eighth century. centuries later,the printer Gutenberg was a catholic, and he printed the first catholic bible. in 1478 , a low german bible was printed ,so that any literate german could read it. years later, even Luther admitted that without the CATHOLIC CHURCH we would not even have the bible.:clapping:

 

[Maccabees]

The first Bible as everyone knows was the protestant King James Bible the very words Christ wrote to King James himself. How did the Bible being with Catholicsim you guys don’t use it anyway.

 

[bbas_64]

mercygate:

Time frame of whose life? And how does John of Damascus’ list differ from the canon of the late 4th Century? Maybe I’m missing something here; it’s been a long day. Be gentle in pointing out what I seem to be missing. Thanks.

Good Day, MercyGate

Did you even read the quote from John Damascus? What is the last book in the list of books in the NT in his quote?

Bill

 

[Maccabees]

Wow that’s a new conspiracy theory the Catholic Church was founded at Trent?

At lest give us Constantine the usual ant-catholic assertion.
Funny how protestants always quote catholic church fathers when the canon debate and not protestants.

 

[mercygate]

bbas 64:

Good Day, MercyGate

Did you even read the quote from John Damascus? What is the last book in the list of books in the NT in his quote?

Bill

Sorry to be so dense. The type on that list was teeny-tiny,and it was very late. Again I ask, whose lifetime you were referring to? And do tell us more about this interesting list. It’s not related to the Codex Sinaiticus, is it? No. Can’t be.

 

[Steve_M]

Maccabees:

The first Bible as everyone knows was the protestant King James Bible the very words Christ wrote to King James himself.

A Methodist friend of my actually had somebody arguing with here that the KJV was the only divinely inspired Bible. My friend was rather shocked. I almost couldn’t stop laughing when I heard that people really do believe that.

 

[mayra_hart]

to maccabees: get your history fact correct. accordigly to a fundamentalist the first bible were all catholics. the king james bible was printed in 1611.the kjb follows the canon established by martin luther in 1534 when he translated the bible into german.this happen years laters.an even do luther admitted that WITHOUT the catholic church we would not even have the bible. is amazing but it takes a fundamentalist to tell me this

 

[Maccabees]

mayra hart your remindied me that one of the least known facts is that their were 14 vernacular German translations prior to Luther one of the biggest lies of the reformatnion is that Luther was the first one to translate the Bible in the common tongue.

What they forget that latin was the common tongue for readers in the west till about the 1300’s - 1400’s when the vernacular gradually took a hold of local writings. And that the church was adpating to the changing times by translating it into more regional languages.

In fact another reformer Zwinglii chided Lutehr for taking so much credit for Bible translation when he pointed out that there were many differnt translations already in existence before his Bible but he rewrote history as acting he translated the first modern Bible.
Luther did like rewrite history.

When the people on your side are pointing out your lies you know your full of it.

 

[homer]

If the Bible is a Catholic book:

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor.
   3:11).
10. Why does it addresses only God Himself as the “Holy Father.” (John 17:11).
11. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
12. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, purgatory, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Homer,

Those are incorrect understandings that are explained. For example, St. Paul told people he was a father to them. Was he disobeying Scripture?

Jesus, in John 6, repeats and emphasizes and even says “Amen, amen” that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood, yet Protestants have their own explanation for that.

You must see Jesus in His Church.

Greg

 

[mercygate]

Hi, Homer,

A lot of us here are former “Bible” Christians who, to our shock and surprise, found the Catholic Church to be more “Bible believing” than our former denominations ever could be. A small effort on your part will clear up all of your questions forthwith. Why not start with “call no man father?” catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

You might not be convinced that Catholics are right about this but at least you will know what we really believe, and you might be persuaded that we are not mindlessly following vain “traditions of men” out of ignorance or arrogance. Looking at the Catholic faith from a Catholic perspective can be wonderfully liberating.

 

[Maccabees]

homer you need dose of
Catholcism and Fundamentalsim. By Karl Keating.
Read a catholic apologetics book they will answer all these constantly recycled myths that the Bible teaches this but you do this.

For one thing a lot of arguments you have anargument of silence.

1. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
   The Catholic church beleives in the priesthood of all beleivers its in the cathechism.
2. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
   Considergin Jesus was celebrating the Passover rites at the Last supper and he also celebrated the Jewish Festival of Lights earlier in his ministry. I guess Jesus has a big problem of celebrating holy days. Shame on him according to your warped view of scripture.
3. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
   Don’t ask your friends to pray for you then.
   The whole idea of the communion of saints is that the saints and our friends are in the body of CHrist the one mediator thus they can pray for us.
4. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, purgatory, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

The Bible mentions or alludes to everything you mentionted not that you will buy our explanation just read Karl’s excellent book.
THe lone exceptions might be the rosary which is used as a prayer tool and all the prayers are based on verses taken from the Bible and the eary Apostles Creed while meditating on the story mostly taken from the gospels. Heck Martin Luther still said the rosary after his break from the church its not sacreligious. Nor a requirement of the faith. I see protestants praying the prayer of Jabez and that is not Christ centered (unlike the rosary) at all what gives?
No music instruments heh? Man what kind of Taliban Christiantiy are you under? Do you ban birds from singing? They are not human voices so sush birdy.

 

[bbas_64]

mercygate:

Sorry to be so dense. The type on that list was teeny-tiny,and it was very late. Again I ask, whose lifetime you were referring to? And do tell us more about this interesting list. It’s not related to the Codex Sinaiticus, is it? No. Can’t be.

Good Day, MercyGate

I would say in the life of John Damascus and the time in which he lived. You asked to show a list offered that was different from that of Hippo thru the 16 th century, this is one of many. As far as Codex Sinaiticus not sure how that is germaine to the subject you asked about. There may be some things about this list that I am not aware of but, this list does fall with in the time period you asked about. If there is information that you know that I may not know please share it.

If John Damascus was corrected by some one on the list that he published that would be interesting and I would consider reading that correction and his reply to it with regaurd to his NT and OT list. Which are both different than those of Hippo and Trent.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[TobyLue]

To all non-catholics–
re:

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor.
   3:11).
10. Why does it addresses only God Himself as the “Holy Father.” (John 17:11).
11. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
12. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, purgatory, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Why do non-Catholics keep parroting the same things time, and time, and time again? All these things have been explained, proven false debunked, and I still keep hearing things that truly dumbfound me. For years, and years, since I was a young child non-Catholics keep saying “Catholic worship Mary, they repeat prayers in vain, they worship idols” . Not once, never, never, never, did my parents, priests, nuns, religious educators ever, ever put Mary as an equal to God nor was I told that we are to worship her. And most recent (well not that recent), "the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon, the Pope is the anti-christ…:whacky: "

Why do you non-Catholics keep repeating ad nauseum the same things over and over that have been explained, proven false backed up by Biblical scripture, etc? To me this just shows ignorance, bull headedness, plain refusal to as least “try” to understand and pardon my saying, just plain stupidity to keep repeating the same things over and over again.:banghead:

I just had to vent…. Sorry if I offended anybody…

The peace of Christ.
P.S. Maybe some of the former non-catholics can explain since they repeated the same things time and time again until something clicked and now they are staunch defenders of the Church that Christ founded…

 

[Maccabees]

Toby Lue here is an explanation is is part of their cathechism as a former protestatn you are simply tuaght the so called traditions of men that catholics believe in.

Most fundamentialist can tell you more about what they don’t beleive ie Catholicism then what they actually do believe and its just the solas scriptura and fide.

THey are parroting what their educators purport as the authentic teachings of catholicsim without every consulting a catholic educator.
What perputuates this myth is all the catholics they end up converting can’t defend the faith and go along with their teachings as yeah we do worship Mary don’t we?
So you have a large percentage of their own church former catholics who never knew the faith and will testify to the so called truths of catholics being unbiblical. Sadly to say a big part of this is catholic ignorance of their own faith.

 

[mercygate]

Becky:

Greg,

You are assuming that the early church was Roman Catholic, and thus you are arguing from that position. It was the Council of Trent which formally canonized the RCC’s version of the Bible nearly 1500 years after Christ founded His Church.

Becky,

There is an enormous amount of literature on the subject of canonicity and how the Bible (especially the New Testament) was developed and received. Perhaps it would help if we change the phrase “Roman Catholic” to “the early Church,” for the purpose of this discussion. Though it is the same Church, the Catholic Church did not need the distinction “Roman” until much later in history. That is another discussion entirely.

Protestants sometimes think that because something is defined by an ecumenical council, the idea is a new one. In practice, council decrees are most often forced by external pressures and relate to long-held beliefs. For example, Protestants will sometimes conclude that the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was a product of the Fourth Lateran Council because that council defined transubstantiation – the MODE of Christ’s presence. But the Real Presence was never in question. The definition was prompted by confusing ideas of the Real Presence being discussed at the time.

As others on this thread have stated, the fact that Trent affirmed the canon of Scripture does not mean that it created the canon.

If you want an excellent Protestant overview of how the canon of Scripture was codified, go to R. C. Sproul’s discussion of canonicity. Dr. Sproul is a card-carrying Sola Scriptura/Sola Fide Protestant and a fine scholar. You will find that his historical summary in every way parallels that of the Catholic Church. His conclusion, based on his Protestant ecclesiology, is that for Protestants the Bible is a **fallible **collection of infallible books but that for Catholics the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. I am fond of pointing out to Protestants that the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy was defeloped by the Catholic Church.

Becky, as a former “Sola Scriptura” Protestant myself, I learned the hard way that what I had been told the Catholic Church taught was often nothing remotely like what she actually teaches. Long before I converted, I learned that even where I didn’t agree with the Church, she at least had a rational explanation for her beliefs that I could respect.

 

[mercygate]

TobyLue:

Maybe some of the former non-catholics can explain [why the same tired list of “Scriptural” proofs against Catholicism keeps re-appearing] since they repeated the same things time and time again until something clicked and now they are staunch defenders of the Church that Christ founded…

Although I was an Anglo-Catholic for decades (often explaining Roman Catholic doctrine to Catholics), I was a Sola Scriptura/Sola Fide Protestant before that. It was not my Protestant denomination that handed me that same list of tiresome and outworn accusations, it was my English Anti-Catholic grandmother (of blessed memory). I believe there ARE denominations that promulgate this stuff, but I think it’s a recruitment tactic. If our Fundamentalist brethren really believe that the Scripture says the Church is non-Scriptural, then they hope to save us. They also know that the average Catholic is an easy target and their little laundry list can be quite effective.

 

[mercygate]

bbas 64:

Good Day, MercyGate

Did you even read the quote from John Damascus? What is the last book in the list of books in the NT in his quote?

Bill

Bill, I am very interested in this Greek (?) Canon of John Damascus. I actually asked a Greek Orthodox Priest about it. His response was that canonicity is authenticated by what survives. Since the both the Orthodox and the Western Church affirm the same canon, then what’s the question? (That’s such an Orthodox way of looking at it – I love it!)