The Catholic Bible comes from the Latin Vulgate (which means "vulgar")

[guanophore]

This topic was moved from the praying to saints thread, where it was off topic.

Yeah, we know FULLY WELL where the CHRISTIAN BIBLE comes from … and it ain’t the Catholic Church … okay?

The Catholic Bible comes from the Latin Vulgate (which means “vulgar”).

Because of all the OUTRAGEOUS alterations found in the Vulgate and Catholic Bible, wars and struggles errupted ALL OVER EUROPE.

The Cathollic Church had gotten their hands on the original Greek Texts back in the 2nd century and … with no one’s permission whatsoever … had HIDDEN the words of Christ and the Apostles for ONE THOUSAND YEARS.

Then, in the advent of the printing press, CHRISTIAN men such as Wycliffe / Tyndale / Luther / Rogers / Coverdale and Gutenberg, printed the Words of Christ and showed them to commoners for the FIRST TIME from 1380 to 1560.

But not without bloodshed. Historians KNOW FOR A FACT that the Catholic Church tortured and murdered over 1 million people … for daring to QUESTION some of the Catholic teachings such as:

1. Paying Indulgences “to get into heaven”.
2. Not being allowed to look at the scriptures.
3. Limbus Infantium.
4. Purgatory
5. Flagellation
6. Poverty as a “gift” and disease as a “blessing”
7. Praying to someone other than God and Christ.

The reason for the outcry against the Vatican is because these teachings are not found ANYWHERE in the words of Christ, and gross misinterpretations were also discovered.

For instance, the Vatican purported that 1st Corinthians 3:9-15 was “proof” on Purgatory. But if you read this passage, the Apostle Paul is CLEARLY talking about the Work in the Ministry and how difficult it can get sometimes.

After that, all heck broke loose and the world broke free of Catholic tyranny forever. (No doubt they would’ve stuck an apple in my mouth and BBQ’d me.)

Okay, so which part of history do we “protestants” not know?

Selma Kelly
Orange County, Cal.

I am curious, Selma Kelly from Orange County, why are you here in the CAF?

Actually, you have quoted scripture which COMMAND US those very things you call “erroneous”.

You did not include a reference, so I am sure which post to which you are responding with this comment.

We are to live by scripture ALONE - said Jesus in Matt 4:4.

Matt 4:4
‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’"

I think this is a misunderstanding. The verse says nothing about “scripture alone”. Perhaps you didn’t realize that Jesus didn’t write books? He taught everything to His Apostles orally, and that is how they passed it on. The gospel was spread not by writing, but by preaching and teaching.

We do walk by Faith and not by sight, and anything not of Faith is a sin, and God CANNOT be pleased without Faith

Then I guess it is a good thing that we have complete faith in the person of Jesus, who is that living word, by which which we shall all live.

You said: “God alone” is just as erroneous as 'faith alone" and “scripture alone”. Please see the above.

I did say that. Jesus, by the power of His Word and His breath, created a church, a body of believers. If he did not think it was necessary, He would not have done it!

About the “effectual prayer” availing much … You know what? Try praying the way Christ and the Apostles instructed.

You are making some arrogant assumptions here about my prayer life, which I will excuse, because I can see that you are ignorant about a great many things.

Here it is again. And by the way, if you do it like they told you … you won’t need dead people to help you, okay? Here you go …

Ephs 2:18: For through Him we have access by one Spirit to the Father.

1st Tim 2:5: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus…

John 14:14: Ask anything in My name and I will do it.

Your post has a condescending tone, which may draw to the attention of the moderators that you are attempting to instruct members of this Forum in anti-Catholic doctrine. Such behavior is against the forum rules, and will result in getting you banned.

 

[Ruthie]

Selma, here are two facts:

“Vulgar” is indeed the root word of “Vulgate.” But back when the first Vulgate was published, “vulgar” just referred to the common people.

The first Vulgate was the Bible translated into Latin, the common language of the time. It was translated from the documents available back then. That version is no longer in use by the Church.

And, Selma, if the Church “had HIDDEN the words of Christ and the Apostles for ONE THOUSAND YEARS,” why is “our” Bible exactly the same as “yours,” except for the books the Protestants removed?

Ruthie
Rom 14:19

 

[txstm]

When you are studying scripture, wouldn’t you rather use the Old Testament Canon that Jesus Christ himself used?
My opinion, but Protestants took out certain books of the Canon just so they could ‘square up’ their new found beliefs.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

skelly123:

Yeah, we know FULLY WELL where the CHRISTIAN BIBLE comes from … and it ain’t the Catholic Church … okay?

Okay. You say ‘we.’ I am puzzled. Is there more than one of you?

As I said, OK. But there are still some questions I have about the origins of the Christian Bible. Can you help me? How, for example, do you account for the following?

It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration.

She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From [the Catholic Church] alone we know what books belong to the Bible.

How can this be? You say that the Christian Bible comes from a non-Catholic source. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that we are talking about a whole Bible as early as the end of the 2nd Century AD. The only Church around at that time was the Catholic Church. So how could the Bible come from a non-Catholic source? Can you explain this to me?

Moreover there seems to be some differences of opinion as to which books and how many books are in the Bible, as the following sets out. Can you explain this to me?

in 1545 AD, the Council of Trent enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical”. They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New.

Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament.

Although the books of the Bible were not formally declared until the Council of Trent, the Bible had been in use by the Catholic Church for centuries before even the Reformation. Why did the Protestants take those seven books and bits of other books out of the Bible?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

On the Vetus Itala or Old Latin:

It is generally admitted that long before the end of the second century… there existed at least one version of the whole Bible, based on the Septuagint and on Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This was the Vetus Itala, or Old Latin… [which]figured importantly in the history of the Biblical Canon.

In the latter part of the fourth century, the text of the Itala was found to have variant readings in different parts of the Church. Pope Damasus therefore requested St. Jerome to undertake its revision… [from the] Greek… The unrevised text of the greater part of the [Itala] continued in use in the Western Church [from 383 AD] until it was supplanted by the Vulgate…

While revising the text of the Old Latin Version, St. Jerome became convinced of the need in the Western Church of a new translation directly from the Hebrew… Thus [in 405 AD] was formed [the Vulgate

] version of the Bible… From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions …

After the first printing of the Vulgate by Gutenberg in 1456, other editions came out rapidly. Their circulation… caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as authentic… and… free from error in doctrine and morals.

It was left to the Holy See itself to provide for a corrected revision of the Vulgate… [which] was printed in 1598 [under the pontificate of Clement VIII]… This revision is now the officially recognized version of the Latin Rite and contains the only authorized text of the Vulgate…

Did Jesus not promise to send the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from error? So, if the Protestants were correct in removing those books, then that would mean one of two things:

1. That the Holy Spirit in fact did not protect the Church from error and Jesus was not telling the truth (But we know that Jesus loved us too much to give us empty promises); or
2. That there was a ‘secret, hidden’ church which survived all those centuries until Martin Luther made it OK for that church to ‘come out of hiding.’ (But there is no historical evidence for this.)

So, do you not see that the Church which the Holy Spirit was protecting from error had to have been the Catholic Church? Or is there something I am missing?

Now, if the Protestants were still correct in removing those books then that leaves one more option: that the Holy Spirit stopped protecting the Catholic Church from error around the time of the Reformation. This would mean that the Catholic Vulgate Bible was once true but suddenly became false.

Truth, then, depended on variables such as era, culture, location. But there is a problem with that theory too. We know that Truth (with a capital ‘t’) depends only on God. And God does not change. Nor does God revoke his promises.

What does this leave us with? Unless I am sadly mistaken, this leaves us with a couple of things:

1. That before the compilation of the Bible, ordinary Christians – most of whom not only could not read but also could not afford the costly hand-copied Bibles available in those days – had to rely on Sacred Tradition as well as learning methods such as Sacred Art, Sacred Music, and Sacred Theatre – as well as regular attendance at Mass – to learn anything about the Gospels; and 3. That – when errors began to spring up among Church districts due to geographical separation – it was the Catholic Church whose responsibility it was to be a vehicle of the Holy Spirit to correct that error. The Catholic Church accomplished this by compiling and translating the books of the Bible.

Now, would you agree that the statement

"x and not-x is true"

is false? So

If we let x = a Catholic source for the Christian Bible; and

If we let not-x = a non-Catholic source for the Christian Bible;

either there is a Catholic source for the Christian Bible; or

there is a non-Catholic source for the Christian Bible.

Since the only Church on the block before the Reformation was the Catholic Church and the Bible was in use all those years, then the source for the Christian Bible is Catholic.

That is, of course if you think of ‘source’ as being singular and plural. But perhaps you can help me out here. Can there be both a Catholic and non-Catholic source for the Christian Bible? If so, what would that Bible be?

Thank you.

end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

On the Vetus Itala or Old Latin:

It is generally admitted that long before the end of the second century… there existed at least one version of the whole Bible, based on the Septuagint and on Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This was the Vetus Itala, or Old Latin… [which]figured importantly in the history of the Biblical Canon.

In the latter part of the fourth century, the text of the Itala was found to have variant readings in different parts of the Church. Pope Damasus therefore requested St. Jerome to undertake its revision… [from the] Greek… The unrevised text of the greater part of the [Itala] continued in use in the Western Church [from 383 AD] until it was supplanted by the Vulgate…

While revising the text of the Old Latin Version, St. Jerome became convinced of the need in the Western Church of a new translation directly from the Hebrew… Thus [in 405 AD] was formed [the Vulgate

] version of the Bible… From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions …

After the first printing of the Vulgate by Gutenberg in 1456, other editions came out rapidly. Their circulation… caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as authentic… and… free from error in doctrine and morals.

It was left to the Holy See itself to provide for a corrected revision of the Vulgate… [which] was printed in 1598 [under the pontificate of Clement VIII]… This revision is now the officially recognized version of the Latin Rite and contains the only authorized text of the Vulgate…

Did Jesus not promise to send the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from error? So, if the Protestants were correct in removing those books, then that would mean one of two things:

1. That the Holy Spirit in fact did not protect the Church from error and Jesus was not telling the truth (But we know that Jesus loved us too much to give us empty promises); or
2. That there was a ‘secret, hidden’ church which survived all those centuries until Martin Luther made it OK for that church to ‘come out of hiding.’ (But there is no historical evidence for this.)

So, do you not see that the Church which the Holy Spirit was protecting from error had to have been the Catholic Church? Or is there something I am missing?

Now, if the Protestants were still correct in removing those books then that leaves one more option: that the Holy Spirit stopped protecting the Catholic Church from error around the time of the Reformation. This would mean that the Catholic Vulgate Bible was once true but suddenly became false.

Truth, then, depended on variables such as era, culture, location. But there is a problem with that theory too. We know that Truth (with a capital ‘t’) depends only on God. And God does not change. Nor does God revoke his promises.

What does this leave us with? Unless I am sadly mistaken, this leaves us with a couple of things:

1. That before the compilation of the Bible, ordinary Christians – most of whom not only could not read but also could not afford the costly hand-copied Bibles available in those days – had to rely on Sacred Tradition as well as learning methods such as Sacred Art, Sacred Music, and Sacred Theatre – as well as regular attendance at Mass – to learn anything about the Gospels; and3. That – when errors began to spring up among Church districts due to geographical separation – it was the Catholic Church whose responsibility it was to be a vehicle of the Holy Spirit to correct that error. The Catholic Church accomplished this by compiling and translating the books of the Bible.
   Now, would you agree that the statement

"x and not-x is true"

is false? So

If we let x = a Catholic source for the Christian Bible; and

If we let not-x = a non-Catholic source for the Christian Bible;

either there is a Catholic source for the Christian Bible; or

there is a non-Catholic source for the Christian Bible.

Since the only Church on the block before the Reformation was the Catholic Church and the Bible was in use all those years, then the source for the Christian Bible is Catholic.

That is, of course if you think of ‘source’ as being singular and plural. But perhaps you can help me out here. Can there be both a Catholic and non-Catholic source for the Christian Bible? If so, what would that Bible be?

Thank you.

end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…And, Selma, if the Church “had HIDDEN the words of Christ and the Apostles for ONE THOUSAND YEARS,” …

Wow! I wasn’t aware of this. Well, that’s me told.

D-oh! I forgot to ask Selma for a link to that evidence.

 

[fellowChristian]

Yeah, we know FULLY WELL where the CHRISTIAN BIBLE comes from … and it ain’t the Catholic Church … okay?

You never said where? Couldn’t be from any Protestant or non-denominational church they weren’t around until after 1517

The Catholic Bible comes from the Latin Vulgate (which means “vulgar”).

Did you use the dictionary for that?
American Heritage Dictionary - vul·gate Pronunciation
n.

1. The common speech of a people; the vernacular.
2. A widely accepted text or version of a work.
3. Vulgate The Latin edition or translation of the Bible made by Saint Jerome at the end of the fourth century A.D., now used in a revised form as the Roman Catholic authorized version.
   Because of all the OUTRAGEOUS alterations found in the Vulgate and Catholic Bible, wars and struggles errupted ALL OVER EUROPE.

What history book did you read? Because everyone knows that the Bible was whole until Martin Luther took out the 7 books

The Cathollic Church had gotten their hands on the original Greek Texts back in the 2nd century and … with no one’s permission whatsoever … had HIDDEN the words of Christ and the Apostles for ONE THOUSAND YEARS.

The Apostles were the Catholic Church!!! And they added more Catholics as they spread the word the Universal Church of Christ the word “Catholic” is Greek it means “Universal”

Then, in the advent of the printing press, CHRISTIAN men such as Wycliffe / Tyndale / Luther / Rogers / Coverdale and Gutenberg, printed the Words of Christ and showed them to commoners for the FIRST TIME from 1380 to 1560.

Tyndales version has over 2000 errors in it! Luther removed 7 books, and the Bible had been printed by hand way before 1380! And Gutenburg was Catholic!!! The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible or the Mazarin Bible) is a printed version of the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible that was printed by Johannes Gutenberg and Wycliffe based his on the Latin Vulgate!!!

But not without bloodshed. Historians KNOW FOR A FACT that the Catholic Church tortured and murdered over 1 million people … for daring to QUESTION some of the Catholic teachings such as:

So did the Protestants!!! And if you knew your history you’d be thanking the Catholic Church, instead of twisting history, because of us you are able to go to the Holy Land! The Muslims were taking over that area and would not allow Christians in!

1. Paying Indulgences “to get into heaven”.

That was the human part of the church.

1. Not being allowed to look at the scriptures.

Common people could not read let alone interpret scripture.

1. Limbus Infantium.
2. Purgatory
3. Flagellation
4. Poverty as a “gift” and disease as a “blessing”
5. Praying to someone other than God and Christ.

The reason for the outcry against the Vatican is because these teachings are not found ANYWHERE in the words of Christ, and gross misinterpretations were also discovered.

Yes they are but you are not intersted in learning about it.

For instance, the Vatican purported that 1st Corinthians 3:9-15 was “proof” on Purgatory. But if you read this passage, the Apostle Paul is CLEARLY talking about the Work in the Ministry and how difficult it can get sometimes.

After that, all heck broke loose and the world broke free of Catholic tyranny forever. (No doubt they would’ve stuck an apple in my mouth and BBQ’d me.)

Okay, so which part of history do we “protestants” not know?

You don’t know alot.

And as a Christian if you lived anytime before 1517 you were Catholic!
You have alot of reading to do. Start with the History Channel’s website to learn you’re history.Then use a dictionary. And any encyclopedia please!

 

[Zooey]

The Catholic Bible comes from the Latin Vulgate (which means “vulgar”).

Then, in the advent of the printing press, CHRISTIAN men such as Wycliffe / Tyndale / Luther / Rogers / Coverdale and Gutenberg, printed the Words of Christ and showed them to commoners for the FIRST TIME from 1380 to 1560.

Omigosh!!!
Selma, which way do you want it??? Either the Bible was in the “vulgar tongue”, which means the “language of commoners”, or it wasn’t!!!
First you get upset over the Vulgate being made so that ornery, vulgar, common people like you & like me, could read it.
Then you get you knickers in a twist again, this time, because you want the Bible being made in the vulgar, common language of vulgar, common, ordinary people like you & like me!!

Which is it. Selma???

Is it horrible to translate the Bible?? Or is it horrible to not translate the Bible??? Inquiring minds want to know!! uch:

 

[demerzel85]

Which is it. Selma???

Is it horrible to translate the Bible?? Or is it horrible to not translate the Bible??? Inquiring minds want to know!! uch:

Its common for Protestants to shoot themselves in the foot. They just follow in the footsteps of their founding Deformers

And I just cant stop rolling over and laughing at the arguments.

 

[guanophore]

Its common for Protestants to shoot themselves in the foot. They just follow in the footsteps of their founding Deformers

And I just cant stop rolling over and laughing at the arguments.

I think this is an uncharitale and prejudicial remark to make about Protestants. The ignorant shoot themselves in the foot, and there are as many Catholic ignoramous as there are not.

 

[demerzel85]

I think this is an uncharitale and prejudicial remark to make about Protestants. The ignorant shoot themselves in the foot, and there are as many Catholic ignoramous as there are not.

And yet Protestant ‘theology’ is not able to hold up under close observation.

Ignorance is one thing, but as Fr Gabriele Amorth once commented in an interview, the 8th Sacrament is ignorance Unfortunately, Protestants don’t even enjoy most of the Sacraments

 

[rayne89]

Selma
Before you throw around all these crazy accusations you really need to study history because you come off sounding very uneducated. Where in the world are you getting this false information from? You need to check your sources for accuracy because the stuff your spewing isn’t anywhere near historical fact.

 

[mmortal03]

Yeah, we know FULLY WELL where the CHRISTIAN BIBLE comes from … and it ain’t the Catholic Church … okay?

Are you really “fully well” sure? You are in for a wide awakening when you start following your own advice and:

How old are you, may I ask? In what form or denomination of Christianity have you grown up in?

Edit: Be careful, fellowChristian, with how you are quoting this guy. For a minute there, I thought YOU were him.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

skelly123:

Because of all the OUTRAGEOUS alterations found in the Vulgate and Catholic Bible, wars and struggles errupted ALL OVER EUROPE.

OK, first let’s look at the alterations. Who was the author of same, I wonder?

Protestant copies usually lack… Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees and… Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42). link

…not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, “we are justified by faith,” Luther added the word “ALONE” to make the sentence read: “We are justified by faith alone.” His explanation of this insertion is found in his own words, "I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. link

And as for the wars? Let’s look at those:

… pamphlets were circulated everywhere among the people… Painters prepared… degrading caricatures of the pope, the clergy, and the monks… A distinction was no longer drawn between temporary and corrigible abuses and fundamental supernatural Christian truths… link

Were these methodologies and appeal to scapegoatism – by virtue of the fact that they were successful – one of the ‘things put in place’ on which Hitler could capitalize? Hint: Leni Riefenstahl and Propaganda .

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg/94px-EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
Poster promoting Eugenics.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/Nazi_poster_Der_ewige_Jude.jpg/84px-Nazi_poster_Der_ewige_Jude.jpg
“The Eternal Jew” poster for a movie.

The development of the State, in its modern form, among the Christian peoples of the West gave rise to many disputes between the clergy and laity, between bishops and the cities, between monasteries and the territorial lords. When the reformers withdrew from the clergy all authority, especially all influence in civil affairs, they enabled the princes and municipal authorities to end these long-pending strifes to their own advantage by arbitrarily arrogating to themselves all disputed rights, banishing the hierarchy whose rights they usurped, and then establishing by their own authority a completely new ecclesiastical organization.

Could the Church have done anything to stop the usurpation of power by the princes?

At first many bishops displayed great apathy towards the Reformers, attaching to the new movement no importance; its chiefs were thus given a longer time to spread their doctrines.

The Church had dealt with heretics before. Was Luther different from the other heretics? If so, in what way?

Finally, one of the chief means employed in promoting the spread of the Reformation was the use of violence by the princes and the municipal authorities. Priests who remained Catholic were expelled and replaced by adherents of the new doctrine, and the people were compelled to attend the new services. The faithful adherents of the Church were variously persecuted, and the civil authorities saw to it that the faith of the descendants of those who had strongly opposed the Reformation was gradually sapped. In many places the people were severed from the Church by brutal violence…

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Surely the people knew that they were being brutally forced to do things. Surely they saw the bloodshed. What failure in the Church (if there was one) and what conditions of society facilitated the remote material collaboration of the people in the manifest evil of forced conversions, landtheft, and bloodshed?

Of real freedom of belief among the Reformers of the sixteenth century there was not a trace; on the contrary, the greatest tyranny in matters of conscience was displayed by the representatives of the Reformation. The most baneful Caesaropapism was meanwhile fostered, since the Reformation recognized the secular authorities as supreme also in religious matters…

In this way the Reformation was a chief factor in the evolution of royal absolutism. In every land in which it found ingress, the Reformation was the cause of indescribable suffering among the people; it occasioned civil wars which lasted decades with all their horrors and devastations… Germany in particular, the original home of the Reformation, was reduced to a state of piteous distress by the Thirty Years’ War, and the German Empire was thereby dislodged from the leading position which it had for centuries occupied in Europe.

What about the massacre of the 100 000 peasants?

… [Luther] “dipped his pen in blood” and "calls upon the princes to slaughter the offending peasants like mad dogs, to stab, strangle and slay as best one can… His advice was literally followed. The process of repression was frightful. The encounters were more in the character of massacres than battles. The undisciplined peasants with their rude farming implements as weapons, were slaughtered like cattle in the shambles.

More than 1000 monasteries and castles were levelled to the ground, hundreds of villages were laid in ashes, the harvests of the nation were destroyed, and 100,000 killed. The fact that one commander alone boasted that “he hanged 40 evangelical preachers and executed 11,000 revolutionists and heretics”, and that history with hardly a dissenting voice fastens the origin of this war on Luther, fully shows where its source and responsibility lay. link

So we have the Thirty Year’s War, the Peasant Massce and, much later WW2, neither of which the Catholic Church caused. Let’s see what Reformation influence achieved in America.

The key element to understanding the radical Protestantism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is… the millenium… John Calvin’s doctrine of election made it possible to rethink the millenium in terms of physical reality. Now that one had living saints walking around on the earth, that is, members of the Calvinist church, one now had candidates for the one thousand year rule of saints.

Translating the rule of saints into a physical reality meant reorganizing the church into a political authority, which is one of the fundamental aspects of Calvinism… The millenarianism of the Protestant settlers of America had two other crucial aspects: the Ordeal and the final battle between good and evil…

Some Protestants believed that the conflict between Natives and Europeans would be a spiritual conflict and began to actively proseletyze Native societies. This proseletyzation, done in the best intents, seriously disrupted Native American society. Not fully welcome in their own societies, and almost completely unwelcome in European-American society, the converts found themselves between two worlds.

Those, however, who believed that the final battle would be a physical battle began a pattern of violence against the Native Americans… Native Americans… were reconfigured in the American imagination as instruments of evil.

end of post

 

[Sentinel]

Her silence speaks volumes. Typical bomb thrower…throws then runs and hides and does not to battle face to face. Somewhere under a desk no doubt…

 

[guanophore]

And yet Protestant ‘theology’ is not able to hold up under close observation.

Ignorance is one thing, but as Fr Gabriele Amorth once commented in an interview, the 8th Sacrament is ignorance Unfortunately, Protestants don’t even enjoy most of the Sacraments

I think you are making sweeping and prejudicial remarks about Protestants. There is an even broader variety of Protestants than there are Catholics, and there are some Protestants on this CAF that I have come to admire and respect greately. Having them exposed to bigoted posts like this is embarrassing to me. How are people ever to develop a desire to enjoy the remaining sacraments when pejorative remarks are “inviting” them?

I am all for refuting error, as you will know if you read my posts. On the other hand lumping everyone into the same category as some of these narrow minded and hostile fundamentalists is just not appropriate.

I was just on another thread where a poster was judging all those who pray the rosary with the empty experience she has observed. It is just not right.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Her silence speaks volumes. Typical bomb thrower…throws then runs and hides and does not to battle face to face. Somewhere under a desk no doubt…

Well, then for the lurkers among us: Here is a really good, easy to read synopsis of the history of the Bible:

During Jesus’ time there were two Old Testament’s in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , which is identical to the Protestant Old Testament, and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) also known as the Septuagint, which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament.

Comparisons of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that an accurate “eyewitness” exists to the Septuagint. Jesus quotes the Septuagint [Greek not the Hebrew] in 80% of his Old Testament References…

The Alexandrian and Palestinian canons were almost identical except the Septuagint [Greek] contained the seven Deuterocanonical books, which Protestants call the Apocrypha…

There is no single text corpus called The Septuagint (LXX). There are actually several families and the vast majority of them are Christian in origin well after the 1st Century. We know that they [Deuterocanonical books] were in virtually all of the Christian collections of the time…

… What those who hold that the [Apocrypha] are unbiblical are really saying is that they have rejected them because they support the Catholic position on Purgatory and praying for the souls there…

Evangelicals favour the Palestinian canon because it is the one that the Jews ratified in 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia. Catholics feel that this Jewish council was not binding by God because God’s authority was passed over to Christians at the Pentecost (Acts 2:1) sixty years earlier…

Professor Flint…the author of the only existing English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls… said “you cannot have a Bible without the Church… Without the Church you have a bunch of books. With the Church you have a Bible”… To me as a convert to Catholicism, this is a very important statement from a scholar like Mr. Flint because of its implications. Particularly because he is not a Catholic.

Here is a Timeline of the Bible

 

[demerzel85]

I think you are making sweeping and prejudicial remarks about Protestants. There is an even broader variety of Protestants than there are Catholics, and there are some Protestants on this CAF that I have come to admire and respect greately. Having them exposed to bigoted posts like this is embarrassing to me. How are people ever to develop a desire to enjoy the remaining sacraments when pejorative remarks are “inviting” them?

I am all for refuting error, as you will know if you read my posts. On the other hand lumping everyone into the same category as some of these narrow minded and hostile fundamentalists is just not appropriate.

Well sometimes its even possible to use the plural Protestants on a single person who is a Protestant But yes I do get you point about over generalizations. Still at the end of it all we can only thank the Lord for being able to bring out some good from the horrid Deformation era.