Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed?

[brotherhrolf]

Thank you Al…succinct and to the point. Good morning reformation! We can swap scripture verses until the cows come home. What was the reality in late 15th century England? Haven’t gotten an answer on that yet. All those literate farmers, yeomen, merchants lapping up their Chaucer… yep, late 15th century England was just a hot bed of literacy.

Pardon me folks, but exactly when will we demur to Lady History? All this scripture quoting back and forth does…what? WHAT WAS THE LITERACY RATE IN TUDOR ENGLAND - much less late 15th century England? Did Piers Plowman have his letters and numbers?

This is not a question of dwarves standing on top of giants; this is a basic question of who could read at the end of the 15th century in England.

Let’s make this even. What was the literacy rate of late 15th century Spain, Portugal, France, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. etc. etc.? Give me a break from the myth that yeoman farmers were able to read the Bible and interpret it on their own…This is nothing more than 17th century revisionist history - written by the victors.

Prove me wrong, Old Scholar. Prove me wrong. One country - England - in the late 15th century after the War of the Roses. Prove me wrong. Show me where the English farmer, plowman, and yeoman read the Bible and discovered the “inaccuracies” taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[wanner47]

Please give us an example of your claim so we can see what you are talking about.

Start a new thread, and I will.

Better yet, you can do a search on these forums and find myriad threads about the subject.

 

[Thing]

Old Scholar:

Quote:
Lk. 22:19-20

This one doesn’t support transubstantiation either. Later on at the same time, he calls what is in the cup, “the fruit of the vine.”

Hello Old Scholar, I understand how difficult it is to put new wine into old skins - but God loves a tryer…

---

He calls what is in the cup “the fruit of the vine” …
and says of Himself “…I am the vine…”.
The cup is the blood of the vine - His own blood.

 

[Thing]

…
Prove me wrong, Old Scholar. Prove me wrong. One country - England - in the late 15th century after the War of the Roses. Prove me wrong. Show me where the English farmer, plowman, and yeoman read the Bible and discovered the “inaccuracies” taught by the Catholic Church.

Hi Brother, was this by any chance around the time when 40,000 of those very same farmers, ploughmen, and yeomen took up their pikes and forks and marched in protest on the king and prepared to fight to the death. Their demands were simple - leave their Catholic Faith alone. 6,000 of the kings soldiers rode out to meet them - the 40,000 were given a solemn promise by His Majesty that their Catholic Faith was not under threat from him. The 40,000 went home. Within a few months all the leaders of those farmers were murdered and protestantism took root in England, by the actions of a very tiny minority who lied to their own countrymen and killed them.

 

[Zooey]

If you really are serious about knowing which books were banned, go to this site:

beaconforfreedom.org/

The list over **55,000 **books banned by the RCC. You will find most Bibles in that list.

[sign1]Part of OS’s post in Red=Piffle! Pshaw!! Pfui!!![/sign1]

I checked your wee site, laddie. It has 55,000 books banned, TOTAL!!
Such things as: Hitler’s Mein Kampf (banned by the Soviets…Gee, who knew that the bloody Communists were obeying orders from the Vatican??).
And then Marx’s Das Kapital (banned by** the last Czar of all the Russias**…He no doubt never ever regretted lifting the ban, as the Marxists murdered his family & himself…Oh, but,but-- wait! He was Russian Orthodox; one of their saints, even).
The United States of America banned Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer until 1961…(Well, we all know what a hotbed of Catholicism that Washington DC is; that no doubt-- Ooops!! 1961!!! That would be the very year that John Kennedy–our Catholic president took office. It was the Episcopalians & those dadgum Presbyterians doing the banning!)

Well, that sure proves it to me. When the Pope manages to run the Russian royal family, and the Communist Party, and the Supreme Court of the USofA…I will, no doubt, be:shrug: more than a little surprised.http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

 

[Canto]

the Catholic Church is copying from the Protestants, heck Protestans wrote your current liturgy they can’t be all that bad right?

I had to reply to this eroneous (sp?) comment

If you read the text to the Novos Ordo and compare it to the Tridentine Ordo you will see that they are virutally the same, though the NO is briefer in parts. You will also see that the Mass is in no way Protestant, and that it was written by Catholics.

“Therefore I ask blessed Mary ever Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.”

“Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you,
graciously make holy by the dew of your Spirit,
these gifts,
these offerings,
these holy and undefiled sacrifices,
we have brought to you for consecration,
that they may become the Body and Blood
of your Son our Lord, Jesus Christ
at whose command we celebrate these mysteries, He Himself left us as an eternal covenant.”

Very Protestant hey (excuse sarcasm )

It seems to me that without the Catholic Church there would be no Protestantism. They take what they like i.e. the Bible (minus some books) and get rid of what they don’t like.

 

[dessert]

Literacy was minimal and the books of the Bible had to be hand written copies. Very slow and very expensive. Not in English, for the most part.

I agree with you and mostly they copied by hand the Psalms.

I would say we should talk of the years 1200 - 1700 when we speak of middle ages not just 1500 as I think some of the posters are referring.

 

[Zooey]

Actually you have explained what the problem wa—tho not intentional I suspect. It was after the Bible was made so that most people could read it that they started seeing how they had been mislead by the RCC and that is when all the trouble started. People understood that many of the doctrines and dogmas they had been taught were not Biblical. That’s what started Martin Luther and the others on their path. You only have to read the Bible to see the falsehoods taught by the RCC.

Now look; which is it??
First you tell us, there were no Bibles (because, apparently, the Big, Bad Catholics huffed and puffed till they blew the house down–Oops!, that was the Big, Bad Wolf!! My bad…)…
And then you say, everybody had all these Bibles & read them, and found out that the Wolf was at the door–( Oops!!) Found out that the Catholics were all wrong, & so Martin Luther wrote out the Bible for them to read…No,http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/5.gif wait, why did he have to write out the Bible if everybody all ready had them??
OK, that’s wrong; obviously, http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/6.gif nobody had a Bible until Martin Luther gave them one…But then http://bestsmileys.com/textinbubble2/2.gifwhy did Martin Luther have to give them Bibles when they all had Bibles, and were reading them, & knew all about how wrong everything was??? http://bestsmileys.com/textinbubble2/8.gif

From the Encyclopedia, this is about Tyndale:

Seems he should have been given kudos instead of being murdered. He only wanted common man to be able to read the Bible. He spoke against the pope and that was why he was executed.

Ummm…Do you happen to remember that Tyndale was executed by King Henry the 8th??
And do you remember anything interesting about King Henry the 8th???

[SIGN1]King Henry the 8th was Protestant!! If Tyndale “spoke out against the pope”, Henry would have given him a bloody medal!!![/SIGN1]

…some people really ***do ***need to read history…

 

[Canto]

I’m sure then you won’t mind showing Scriptures that support the following

askacatholic.com/holyquotes/documents/_all_catholic_verses.htm
www.scripturecatholic.com

These resoruces will show our beliefes in scripture rather than us retyping them here.

Here a a few bits though…

When Paul says all scripture, inspired by God, is suitalbe to teach etc, he does not say scripture only and if your read beforehand he references tradition with “Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses” 2 Tim 1:8

ACTS 20:35 a saying of Jesus not recorded in the Gospels
ROMANS 10:17 faith comes from what is heard
1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-2 gospel preached orally and believed
2 THESSALONIANS 2:15 hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by epistel
2 TIMOTHY 1:13 follow my sound words; guard the truth
2 TIMOTHY 2:2 what you heard entrust to faithful men
1 PETER1:25 God’s eternal word equals the word preached to you and endures forever2 PETER 1:20 no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
JOHN 21:25 not everything Jesus said was recorded in Scripture

**JUSTIFICATION **
JAMES 2:24 the only time the words faith alone are used in the entire bible and James condemns the concept
JAMES 2:26 “as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead”
EPHESIANS 2:10 we are created in Christ Jesus in good works (not works of the old law)
ROMANS 2:2-8 God will render everyone according to their works
REVELATION 21:12 render everyone according to their works
1 PETER 1:17 render everyone according to their works
MATTHEW 19:16-17 if you want eternal life Jesus says “keep the commandments”
JOHN 14:21 if we love Jesus we will keep the commandments
JAMES 2:8 the royal law is to love your neighbour as yourself – note no mention of faith in the ROYAL law
1 CORINTHIANS 13:13 of faith, hope and charity (love) the greatest is CHARITY not faith
GALATIANS 5:6 In Christ Jesus “faith that works in charity” avails
2 PHILIPPIANS 2:12 “work your salvation”
JOHN 10:37 “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not”

CHURCH
MATTHEW 16:13-20 You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail against her
MATTHEW18:17-18 tell the Church > don’t accept Church’s ruling > just like the heathen
MATTHEW 28:18-20 Go Baptize and teach all nations / Was your Church around then to do this?
MARK 16:16 Go to the whole world and proclaim the gospel / Does your Church do this?
JOHN 14:16,16, 26 Holy Spirit will be with you always to teach and reminder you of everything.
JOHN16:12 - the Spirit of Truth with guide you to all truth.
1 TIMOTHY 3:15 Church is the pillar and foundation of truth

TRANSUBSTANTIATION
The bread and wine become body and blood and this process needed a name so we called it transubstantiation

The theology is very deep, rooted in a fufilment of the old covenant, the supper of the Lamb in revelation and so on, here is just a hint of the theology

1 COR 11:27 Therefore **whosoever shall eat **this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

How can you be guilty if it is not his true body and blood?

1 COR 10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not **the communion of the blood of Christ? **And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

John Ch6 Jesus says his is the bread from heaven and his bread is body. He says unless we eat his flesh we wont have life in us. The Jews found it hard but he continuted to reapeat himslef. Some left at 666. At no stage did Jesus say hang on it’s just a symbol. Peter believed, do you?

Malachi 1:11 God wants a sacrafice of a clean oblation everywhere and everyday.
Exodus 12:5 in the OT a lamb umblemished was sacrificed
Christ is the Lamb of God, the word made flesh
He makes the old covennt a NEW and eternal covenant
1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul says “For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.” He explains from Jesus that the bread and wine Christ’s body and blood

Luke 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Here we see Christ consecrating the bread and wine transubstantiating into body and blood

 

[Canto]

John Chapter 6
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.
32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world.
34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not.
39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that 41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he: I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned cometh forth me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father: but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.57 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
62 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
65 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
66 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.67 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?68 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

 

[Canto]

The Catholic Church protected the scripture from the Romans and Barbarians

The Catholic Church defined the cannon (council of Rome 382 AD)

The Catholic created the first ever Christian Bible (the Biblia Sacra Vulgata c. 405 AD)

French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish, developed out of Latin, and of course English, around 60% of which comes from Latin

Isaac Newton in 1687 wrote his work Principlicae Mathematica in Latin, so as to reach as many people as possible.

In the 600s the Church began translating the scriptures into English, about a millenium before the reformation

King Henry the VIII banned some translations and so did the Church.

The Church opposes dodgy translations. It gives nihil obstats and imprimatur on good translations

The Church even grants indulgences for reading the bible

The Church added the numberings to the scriptures

Throughout it’s history (most of which most people have been illiterate) it has activly evangelised the scriptures.

4 scripture readings each day at Mass, plus the whole text is from the bible

Queen Elisabeth banned the 1582 Douay Rheims. Those who circulated it were sentenced to torture.

Life in the middle ages was a lot different to 2008

The 1611 King James wasn’t banned even though it drew heavily on the douay rheims and used “a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying,” (preface 1971 RSV bible )

The King James translators noted that while Hebrew was the oldest and Greek the most copious, Latin was “the finest.” (1611 preface JKV)

The Church has only offically defined about seven verses from the bible. Provided it is not against Church teaching Catholics are free to write books and articles on the scriptures with their view such as the book of Revelation

Would we have the Bible or Christianty without the Catholic Church, or would the faith had died out and the scriptures too?

Where We Got the Bible, TAN Publishers -
In the 1500’s in Italy, there were more than 40 vernacular editions of the Bible. France had 18 vernacular editions before 1547, and Spain began publishing editions in 1478, with full approval of the Spanish Inquisition. In all, 198 editions of the Bible were in the language of the laity, 626 editions all together, and all before the first Protestant version, and all having the full approval of the Church.

The Church (see the Catechism) says ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

The Church loves the Bible, what is doesn’t love is people corrupting the bible in translation or interpretation.

“…And Yogi Bear knew Snaglepuss not until he brought forth his first born Flintstone…”

If the Church banned such a dodgy bible (extreem eg I know)would anyone jump up and down. Why then do some jump up and down over the banning of dogy translations from times gone by?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Yes, the Apostles were given the authority to bind and loose. However, they were not given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. That alone was given to Peter and to his successors.

He is the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter is the bishop of the entire Church.

The infallibility of the Pope declare that when the he speaks in moral and faith issue, it is infallible. The Council also share this infallibility when she speaks.

The infallibility stems out of binding and losing is based out of Matthew 16:18. Whatever your bind and lose on earth. This authority gives the Church to pass down Church law and use it mainly to guide the faithful.

It has. However, Matthew’s Gospel is not only the only passage in Scripture that support Peter’s primacy.

Peter is mentioned 155 times more than the other Apostles. He is listed first when the Apostles and Judas is always placed last. When the tax collector came to collect Jesus tax, he came to Peter first in Matt. 17:24-27. This is after Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. In Matthew 18:21, Peter ask about the rule of forgiveness, one of the many example that shows Peter’s leadership. In Matthew 19:27, Peter speaks in behalf of the Apostles that they have left everything for Jesus.

Jesus held Peter accountible for allowing John, James, and himself to fall sleep in Matthew 14:37. In Mark 16:7, the angel instruct Mary tell the Apostles and Peter. You wonder why he mentioned Peter rather than just mention the Apostles. There is a hidden meaning to this.

I can go on giving you the spill on Peter’s primacy in the Gospels. The primacy of Peter is very much implied in the Scripture. You just got to look at the key chapter and verses.

I would agree with you that Peter was mentioned more and that he was the first apostle. That’s the gist of Matthew 16:18. Christ was to build His church on Peter’s confession of faith and Peter was the first convert. But you can’t use implications to say that Peter was given any more authority than the other apostles. In fact Christ was asked specifically which one of them was the greatest and He certainly didn’t tell them Peter was.

Had Peter had any primacy over the other apostles, it is unlikely that the Scriptures would not have mentioned it somewhere. Christ never did.

Regarding the keys, to this day, no one has any idea what Christ was talking about when he said He would give Peter the keys. We can only speculate. Most believe the church has the keys and the keys are the path to salvation. Using Roman Catholic speculative and implicative belief, we can assume that if Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter, then surely He did to all the other apostles and disciples. Wouldn’t He have given them to Mary also? Certainly He would have wanted Paul to have them. After all if you want to find someone considered special in Scripture, it has to be Paul. Christ went way out of the normal way in order to make Paul an apostle. Is that any harder to believe than to believe Peter was made special? No it isn’t.

Speculation and assumptions are not what theologists and scholars are looking for in interpreting Scripture. They are looking for facts. In the absence of facts, we should believe what we are actually told in Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Thank you Al…succinct and to the point. Good morning reformation! We can swap scripture verses until the cows come home. What was the reality in late 15th century England? Haven’t gotten an answer on that yet. All those literate farmers, yeomen, merchants lapping up their Chaucer… yep, late 15th century England was just a hot bed of literacy.

Pardon me folks, but exactly when will we demur to Lady History? All this scripture quoting back and forth does…what? WHAT WAS THE LITERACY RATE IN TUDOR ENGLAND - much less late 15th century England? Did Piers Plowman have his letters and numbers?

This is not a question of dwarves standing on top of giants; this is a basic question of who could read at the end of the 15th century in England.

Let’s make this even. What was the literacy rate of late 15th century Spain, Portugal, France, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. etc. etc.? Give me a break from the myth that yeoman farmers were able to read the Bible and interpret it on their own…This is nothing more than 17th century revisionist history - written by the victors.

Prove me wrong, Old Scholar. Prove me wrong. One country - England - in the late 15th century after the War of the Roses. Prove me wrong. Show me where the English farmer, plowman, and yeoman read the Bible and discovered the “inaccuracies” taught by the Catholic Church.

They had no English copies in the 15th century but when they were made available in the 16th century, then they could read them and the result was the reformation. Then it became apparent they had been taught wrong.

 

[heisenburg]

I see that the spirit of Korah, Dathan and Abiram still moves amung us…

In Christ

 

[Old_Scholar]

Yes, the Apostles were given the authority to bind and loose. However, they were not given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. That alone was given to Peter and to his successors.

Tell us what the keys are and show us the Scriptures that say Christ gave them to Peter’s successors.

He is the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter is the bishop of the entire Church.

Sorry but you can’t show Scripture for that.

The infallibility of the Pope declare that when the he speaks in moral and faith issue, it is infallible. The Council also share this infallibility when she speaks.

And they waited until 1870 to decide that. Wonder why???

The infallibility stems out of binding and losing is based out of Matthew 16:18. Whatever your bind and lose on earth. This authority gives the Church to pass down Church law and use it mainly to guide the faithful.

Sorry but there is no mention there of the church having the keys. Did that come later? What is the Scripture?

It has. However, Matthew’s Gospel is not only the only passage in Scripture that support Peter’s primacy.

OK, give us the other Scriptures. I don’t see it in Matthew at all but maybe I can see it in the other Scriptures you mention.

Peter is mentioned 155 times more than the other Apostles. He is listed first when the Apostles and Judas is always placed last. When the tax collector came to collect Jesus tax, he came to Peter first in Matt. 17:24-27. This is after Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. In Matthew 18:21, Peter ask about the rule of forgiveness, one of the many example that shows Peter’s leadership. In Matthew 19:27, Peter speaks in behalf of the Apostles that they have left everything for Jesus.

The fact that they asked Peter first doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps he was simply the first one they encountered. In 19:27, it could have been the same. There is no doubt that Peter was probably the biggest speaker of the apostles, ignorant though he was. He spoke well but could not write well; being so ignorant. But then right after this, Christ said that all the 12 apostles would be equal in the kingdom. He said they would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. That doesn’t elevate Peter any higher than the others.

Jesus held Peter accountible for allowing John, James, and himself to fall sleep in Matthew 14:37. In Mark 16:7, the angel instruct Mary tell the Apostles and Peter. You wonder why he mentioned Peter rather than just mention the Apostles. There is a hidden meaning to this.

**Yes there is definitely a hidden meaning in this one but it is clear to any theologian. You must remember that Peter had just denied Christ three times and this was done to be sure Peter knew Christ had arisen so that he could later return to his role as an apostle. Peter was ashamed and the angel was making sure he knew of the resurrection.

Matthew 14:37 must be an error. It isn’t the Bible.**

I can go on giving you the spill on Peter’s primacy in the Gospels. The primacy of Peter is very much implied in the Scripture. You just got to look at the key chapter and verses.

Why do you accept implications? Almost anything you want to believe could be implied in Scripture. Scripture must be studied, in the context it is written, the meaning derived first literally and if not literally, then hermenuetically according to your rule of faith. The truth is that Scripture never says anything explicit about Peter having any primacy. Rather it scolds Peter on more than three occasions and that alone should show that Christ did not consider Peter first among the apostles. Why do you suppose Christ had to convert Paul??? Do you suppose He was not happy with the way Peter was teaching? That could be implied as well as anything else and Scripture surely seems to affirm that.

 

[Old_Scholar]

[sign1]Part of OS’s post in Red=Piffle! Pshaw!! Pfui!!![/sign1]

I checked your wee site, laddie. It has 55,000 books banned, TOTAL!!
Such things as: Hitler’s Mein Kampf (banned by the Soviets…Gee, who knew that the bloody Communists were obeying orders from the Vatican??).
And then Marx’s Das Kapital (banned by** the last Czar of all the Russias**…He no doubt never ever regretted lifting the ban, as the Marxists murdered his family & himself…Oh, but,but-- wait! He was Russian Orthodox; one of their saints, even).
The United States of America banned Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer until 1961…(Well, we all know what a hotbed of Catholicism that Washington DC is; that no doubt-- Ooops!! 1961!!! That would be the very year that John Kennedy–our Catholic president took office. It was the Episcopalians & those dadgum Presbyterians doing the banning!)

Well, that sure proves it to me. When the Pope manages to run the Russian royal family, and the Communist Party, and the Supreme Court of the USofA…I will, no doubt, be:shrug: more than a little surprised.http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

At least you should try and be truthful and show that the books I said were banned were also banned. They are all on the list as well as the ones you mentioned. Why won’t you admit that?

 

[Old_Scholar]

askacatholic.com/holyquotes/documents/_all_catholic_verses.htm
www.scripturecatholic.com

These resoruces will show our beliefes in scripture rather than us retyping them here.

Here a a few bits though…

When Paul says all scripture, inspired by God, is suitalbe to teach etc, he does not say scripture only and if your read beforehand he references tradition with “Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses” 2 Tim 1:8

ACTS 20:35 a saying of Jesus not recorded in the Gospels
ROMANS 10:17 faith comes from what is heard
1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-2 gospel preached orally and believed
2 THESSALONIANS 2:15 hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by epistel
2 TIMOTHY 1:13 follow my sound words; guard the truth
2 TIMOTHY 2:2 what you heard entrust to faithful men
1 PETER1:25 God’s eternal word equals the word preached to you and endures forever2 PETER 1:20 no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
JOHN 21:25 not everything Jesus said was recorded in Scripture

**JUSTIFICATION **
JAMES 2:24 the only time the words faith alone are used in the entire bible and James condemns the concept
JAMES 2:26 “as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead”
EPHESIANS 2:10 we are created in Christ Jesus in good works (not works of the old law)
ROMANS 2:2-8 God will render everyone according to their works
REVELATION 21:12 render everyone according to their works
1 PETER 1:17 render everyone according to their works
MATTHEW 19:16-17 if you want eternal life Jesus says “keep the commandments”
JOHN 14:21 if we love Jesus we will keep the commandments
JAMES 2:8 the royal law is to love your neighbour as yourself – note no mention of faith in the ROYAL law
1 CORINTHIANS 13:13 of faith, hope and charity (love) the greatest is CHARITY not faith
GALATIANS 5:6 In Christ Jesus “faith that works in charity” avails
2 PHILIPPIANS 2:12 “work your salvation”
JOHN 10:37 “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not”

CHURCH
MATTHEW 16:13-20 You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail against her
MATTHEW18:17-18 tell the Church > don’t accept Church’s ruling > just like the heathen
MATTHEW 28:18-20 Go Baptize and teach all nations / Was your Church around then to do this?
MARK 16:16 Go to the whole world and proclaim the gospel / Does your Church do this?
JOHN 14:16,16, 26 Holy Spirit will be with you always to teach and reminder you of everything.
JOHN16:12 - the Spirit of Truth with guide you to all truth.
1 TIMOTHY 3:15 Church is the pillar and foundation of truth

TRANSUBSTANTIATION
The bread and wine become body and blood and this process needed a name so we called it transubstantiation

The theology is very deep, rooted in a fufilment of the old covenant, the supper of the Lamb in revelation and so on, here is just a hint of the theology

1 COR 11:27 Therefore **whosoever shall eat **this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

How can you be guilty if it is not his true body and blood?

1 COR 10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not **the communion of the blood of Christ? **And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

John Ch6 Jesus says his is the bread from heaven and his bread is body. He says unless we eat his flesh we wont have life in us. The Jews found it hard but he continuted to reapeat himslef. Some left at 666. At no stage did Jesus say hang on it’s just a symbol. Peter believed, do you?

Malachi 1:11 God wants a sacrafice of a clean oblation everywhere and everyday.
Exodus 12:5 in the OT a lamb umblemished was sacrificed
Christ is the Lamb of God, the word made flesh
He makes the old covennt a NEW and eternal covenant
1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul says “For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.” He explains from Jesus that the bread and wine Christ’s body and blood

Luke 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Here we see Christ consecrating the bread and wine transubstantiating into body and blood

Christ also said He was a lamb. Do you suppose he was an ewe? He also said He was a light. Incadescent or florescent? Also right after He said “drink His blood” He called what was in the cup, “the fruit of the vine.” You cannot read Scripture that way. You need some standard in order to properly read it. What is your rule of faith?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Christ also said He was a lamb. Do you suppose he was an ewe? He also said He was a light. Incadescent or florescent? Also right after He said “drink His blood” He called what was in the cup, “the fruit of the vine.” You cannot read Scripture that way. You need some standard in order to properly read it. What is your rule of faith?

Just remember in John 6, when Jesus told folks to eat His Body and drink His Blood, the people walked away … but Jesus did not say “Come back…just kidding”.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Just remember in John 6, when Jesus told folks to eat His Body and drink His Blood, the people walked away … but Jesus did not say “Come back…just kidding”.

I’ll simplify it for you. The bread was Christ Himself, God sent down from heaven.

The blood was the word of Christ. If you believe in Christ, sent from God and live as His word says, then you will not perish but will receive eternal life.

Eating the bread is believing in Christ and what He teaches. Drinking the wine is listening to and accepting His word and living accordingly.

Not that can’t be too hard to understand—can it?

How could anyone get "transubstantiation out of that?

 

[Thing]

The blood was the word of Christ. If you believe in Christ, sent from God and live as His word says, then you will not perish but will receive eternal life.

Eating the bread is believing in Christ and what He teaches. Drinking the wine is listening to and accepting His word and living accordingly.

Not that can’t be too hard to understand—can it?

How could anyone get "transubstantiation out of that?

That teaching is too hard, it scandalizes me - forget it - I’m off…

And thats coming from a follower of Christ - a believer too?