Why can't we all just get along...

[CopticChristian]

Friend,
Venting is good, people need to get things off of ther chest. Hope you feel better now
Kind Regards

Makko,

You mean that you agree and cannot prove the book you have is the word of God. I do understand the frustration you feel. I do understand your inability to prove something. I would probably attack the person and not address the message if my ability to explain and suggest otherwise was lacking.

You attack the messenger because the message is true. Your feelings have been hurt by the message and you believe by suggesting I am venting you are deflecting the truth.

The truth remains. You cannot prove the Protocanonicals are the word of God.

 

[Makko52]

Makko,

You mean that you agree and cannot prove the book you have is the word of God. I do understand the frustration you feel. I do understand your inability to prove something. I would probably attack the person and not address the message if my ability to explain and suggest otherwise was lacking.

You attack the messenger because the message is true. Your feelings have been hurt by the message and you believe by suggesting I am venting you are deflecting the truth.

The truth remains. You cannot prove the Protocanonicals are the word of God.

Friend,
This is interesting, you are stating something i never commented on. also, you are claiming something but are not providing any proof to back up what you are claiming. YOU made the claim, so the burdon of proof is on you.
Start a new thread, since this subject is kind of out of the scope of the OP
Kind Regards.

 

[CopticChristian]

Friend,
This is interesting, you are stating something i never commented on. also, you are claiming something but are not providing any proof to back up what you are claiming. YOU made the claim, so the burdon of proof is on you.
Start a new thread, since this subject is kind of out of the scope of the OP
Kind Regards.

Makko,

I suggest you study this thread…no need for a new one. I have already explained this…found here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609262

ag.org/top/

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_P…_inerrancy.pdf

1. We refer to original autographs. While the science of textual criticism assures
   us of a trustworthy text, inerrancy can be claimed only for the original writings (Jeremiah
   36:2).

1. Since we do not have the original autographs, any doctrine of inerrancy is
   without value.

and

champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF

No translation is perfect. It may even be persuasively argued that no exact
copies of the original autographs still exist. This view
has led to the deplorable situation where some “translations” have only
scant resemblance to the sacred truth enshrined in the Scriptures.

If no manuscript in the original language is a perfect reproduction of the original writings, then it is impossible for any translation from these imperfect manuscripts to be perfect.

These passages do not prove anything to support that the Bible is the word of God…

1. 2 Timothy 3:16
2. Acts17:11
3. 1 Corinthians 4:6
4. Mark 7

So, as you think this through, dismiss using these passages…as they mean nothing to prove the point…and this won’t work…

Paul identifies Luke as Scripture:

Paul being confirmed by writer of Peter

and

But who wrote Hebrews and how do we know that it is Scripture. The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus are often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles, and, after Hebrews are the most disputed of all the epistles attributed to Paul. So if Paul did not write them how do we know that they are Scripture?

James and Jude were not Apostles. The second epistle of Peter may not have been written by Peter

no need for a separate thread…I have already done that as seen above and the truth remains…

You cannot prove that the Protocanonicals are the Word of God…all you have is a translation…that may have error…and if there is error and it cannot be trusted all your doctrines are suspect???

When you have completed study of the above thread then go to this thread where I point out the fallacy of the Protocanonicals as the word of God…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609709

Protestant canon using Masoretic text v.s Catholic Canon Septuagint…is this pretty much why Protestants deny the Catholic Canon, deuterocanonical books (DB)?

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew.

1. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.

1. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

in conclusion ask yourself when looking at the King James online

Here is a question. If the DB were between the pages of the Holy Bible, God’s Word, of the English translations, what were they doing there…just taking up space?

I have provided all the information you need, without starting another thread and the truth remains.

You cannot prove that the Protocanonicals are the word of God.

 

[TexanKnight]

I find this curious. I live in a country with an overhelmingly Lutheran population, the total number of Catholics in Finland being a few thousand (I have in my whole life met one Finnish Catholic). I think that in these circumstances it is natural that there are lot of prejudices and ignorance about Catholicism, and also some curiosity (the reason I am here).

But you in the USA live in such a multicultural society that interactions with people having different faiths are daily and unavoidable, and personal friendships are formed across the boundaries of faith (a relatively uncommon thing in Finland, the people you know are Lutherans or even more Lutherans). That should rub off some misunderstandings.

But, it appears to be also vice versa. I have a couple of times times in CAF been told that I, or at least Martin Luther, have left the Only True Church founded by Christ. No need to hear then anymore what I might (together with Martin Luther) have to say, except responding in a contentious (and some times contemptious) spirit. Luckily these have been exceptions. Mostly I have met frendliness and patience.

I think some of the issue is kinda like this:

If I go to your house, and you tell me, for example, that you support banning all guns, I will politely disagree and say no more. It is, after all, your house.

If you come to my house and say the same thing, I will vigorously debate you and not back down.

I do not go to Lutheran Boards and tell Lutherans they are wrong. I do not go to LDS boards and tell them they are wrong. I do not go to any other religious boards to tell people they are wrong.

This is a Catholic site. If a non-Catholic comes here to discuss their faith and talks about their faith, I will vigorously defend. There are a lot of Catholic readers here who might be struggling with their faith. Or perhaps those who are like what I was and trying to learn the Catholic faith. They need to see vigorous defense. I know the written word comes across harsher than the spoken word at times. So sometimes the words appear more vigorous than if I spoke to someone in person, but that is just the way it is.

I hope that explains it a little.

 

[TexanKnight]

Friend,
Venting is good, people need to get things off of ther chest. Hope you feel better now
Kind Regards

I saw nothing in his comments that was “venting”.

I saw comments of fact and even questions.

And I saw you condescendingly dismiss him.

How is that helpful?

I will pray your heart becomes full of The Spirit

 

[ffg]

The not getting along is what has been a great light in my life.

I have a much better appreciation for my faith. Hopefully my kids will encounter that appreciation at a younger age than I.

 

[JillianRose]

Again, this “friend” sent me …wait for it…

ROMANS 9…

She asked me how I would interpret it.

Then this dawned on me. I don’t have to INTERPRET it. That would be bad. I look to the Church for direction, and my CATHOLIC BIBLE to tell me what it means. I will read it, but I will interpret the way the church tells me the “CORRECT” interpretation is. I mean, who an I? how can a 34 year old tell the Church what the bible “really” should mean?

Also, I figured that I have to talk the “sola scriptura” language. I told her no one can force her to be Catholic and accept Catholic truths. But she is “bearing false witness”, to others and her own children. That seemed to nip it.

I told her that one day if her child is faced with a Catholic and they tell her Children that she lied to them, any other truths she did tell them would be questioned.

And that my friends, closed the discussion. lol

 

[CopticChristian]

Again, this “friend” sent me …wait for it…

ROMANS 9…

She asked me how I would interpret it.

Then this dawned on me. I don’t have to INTERPRET it. That would be bad. I look to the Church for direction, and my CATHOLIC BIBLE to tell me what it means. I will read it, but I will interpret the way the church tells me the “CORRECT” interpretation is. I mean, who an I? how can a 34 year old tell the Church what the bible “really” should mean?

Also, I figured that I have to talk the “sola scriptura” language. I told her no one can force her to be Catholic and accept Catholic truths. But she is “bearing false witness”, to others and her own children. That seemed to nip it.

I told her that one day if her child is faced with a Catholic and they tell her Children that she lied to them, any other truths she did tell them would be questioned.

And that my friends, closed the discussion. lol

Jillian,

Tell her that you interpret in light of Church teaching…

 

[odile53]

My sympathies and my apprecaition to your tolerance. By the way, I really have to emphasize that by far the most responses that I have got to my postings from Catholics have been positive, friendly and polite, even when the views expressed differ from those of mine. Generally I think that people, who are really comfortable with their own faith, are the ones, who can be tolerant and patient with people from other Churches or Denominations. They do not think that a differing opinion is a direct challence to their own security or peace of mind.

And I would not like a long discussion on the Communion and trans-or cosubstantiation. I really think that these are both very inadequate words to describe the mystery that we face in the Eucharist, and it is absurd that questions like these play such a role in the differences between Christians. Why is it not enough that we are commanded to celebrate this holy meal untill the end of time? If we are prescribed medicines, we should take them without pondering whether we know or even less whether we understand the pharmacological principle behind the healing effect. OK, I said more than I intended. Forget it, please.

Please, no insult was intended, and I really just retold that story to demonstrate how two people who love each other very much can get a little extreme when it comes to an argument! That Christmas night, we were both just cranky and tired, and both of us were spoiling for an argument. Any argument would have served its purpose, we just happened to get into one over our own perceived theologic differences! Neither my husband nor I are trained theologians, what do we know? I wanted to illustrate how ridiculously people can behave over doctrinal differences, and I agree that it is enough that we were commanded to celebrate the Eucharist till the end of time, and that people far smarter than I have spent their lives pondering this mystery and still could not completely understand it.

But I still believe that we Catholics, and all Christians, particularly the first-line Protestants, probably have more in common than we differ. That’s a very broad base on which to build, and I pray that before the end of time, all people of faith can be reunited in the Body of Christ.

 

[Attejohannes]

Please, no insult was intended, and I really just retold that story to demonstrate how two people who love each other very much can get a little extreme when it comes to an argument! That Christmas night, we were both just cranky and tired, and both of us were spoiling for an argument. Any argument would have served its purpose, we just happened to get into one over our own perceived theologic differences! Neither my husband nor I are trained theologians, what do we know? I wanted to illustrate how ridiculously people can behave over doctrinal differences, and I agree that it is enough that we were commanded to celebrate the Eucharist till the end of time, and that people far smarter than I have spent their lives pondering this mystery and still could not completely understand it.

But I still believe that we Catholics, and all Christians, particularly the first-line Protestants, probably have more in common than we differ. That’s a very broad base on which to build, and I pray that before the end of time, all people of faith can be reunited in the Body of Christ.

Thank you.
I was really moved by your response. I often wonder, how a non-Christian, who is exposed to the basic Christian doctrine for a first time, might see our differences. He would go to the Lutheran Church and then to Catholic Church, hear the same creed, readings of the same Bible, the same Lord’s prayer, the same adoration of the Mystery of Trinity, observe outwardly very similar Eucharist. I think that his obvious question would be, why do we not worship in the same Church. And then when we start to tell him, that - for one thing - we Lutherans think that we receive Christ together with the bread and wine and that the Catholics think the bread and wine becomes Christ, and before we agree on this we cannot even think to approach other matters that divide us. Well, a penny of his thoughts…

 

[CopticChristian]

Thank you.
I was really moved by your response. I often wonder, how a non-Christian, who is exposed to the basic Christian doctrine for a first time, might see our differences. He would go to the Lutheran Church and then to Catholic Church, hear the same creed, readings of the same Bible, the same Lord’s prayer, the same adoration of the Mystery of Trinity, observe outwardly very similar Eucharist. I think that his obvious question would be, why do we not worship in the same Church. And then when we start to tell him, that - for one thing - we Lutherans think that we receive Christ together with the bread and wine and that the Catholics think the bread and wine becomes Christ, and before we agree on this we cannot even think to approach other matters that divide us. Well, a penny of his thoughts…

Jones,

Here I would differ. It is not the same Bible, as you know there have been translations, distortions, subsitutions, removals so that the Protocanonicals are based on Hebrew OT without any authority to do so and have removed the Deuterocanonicals.

I would also differ, in consideration that the Eucharist is not the same, based on lack of a priesthood, as I see it.

I would also honestly say…

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic Latin/East…The Eucharist is the Central focus of the Chrisitan Faith from which all else flows and is the central point of worship from which all else flows…This is a belief that directs all thinking in the Faith.

There is a difference bewteen thinking and believing. I may think you are brilliant however I may believe you are brilliant. My thinking is not believing. My believing directs my thinking. Beliefs are formed at a higher level in the mind than thinking. We all think and emote. These are the basic things we do in the head. To establish a belief, I have to add meaning to a thought and that thought then gets registered as a belief, based on something that I provide to add that meaning.

I think something doesn’t equate to belief. I believe something and that directs my thinking. If I believe that the world is round, then all thinking is oriented around that belief.

I think the world is flat. That is just a thought, not necessarily a belief and it does not direct other thinking.

 

[Hascard]

Dear O.P.,

I, too, am sick of having to fight. We are brethren in the blessed Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ. We just cannot get along because of the Holy Scriptures. Our contentions with Rome over the Bible are just too great - and the issues too monumental - for there to be such a slackening.

The big question is: truth, or charity? Most Christians have vacillated between the two. Either we are utterly “getting along” and loving, or we reject all heresy in a grand schism. If Getting Along means abandoning our core principles to come celebrate the Mass, submit ourselves to the Magisterium & her Infallibility, and silently sit by while the Rosary is recited, then I’d much rather we stay in this sort of bizarre enmity.

We certainly pray for you on the Protestant side, and perhaps less “may they be converted from their wicked pagan errors” than you may think; more, “may they possess the fulness of the Gospel and of Thy salvation, O Lord Heavenly Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ”. That is ultimately how we can get along: “suffer one another”, in agape.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dear O.P.,

I, too, am sick of having to fight. We are brethren in the blessed Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ. We just cannot get along because of the Holy Scriptures. Our contentions with Rome over the Bible are just too great - and the issues too monumental - for there to be such a slackening.

The big question is: truth, or charity? Most Christians have vacillated between the two. Either we are utterly “getting along” and loving, or we reject all heresy in a grand schism. If Getting Along means abandoning our core principles to come celebrate the Mass, submit ourselves to the Magisterium & her Infallibility, and silently sit by while the Rosary is recited, then I’d much rather we stay in this sort of bizarre enmity.

We certainly pray for you on the Protestant side, and perhaps less “may they be converted from their wicked pagan errors” than you may think; more, “may they possess the fulness of the Gospel and of Thy salvation, O Lord Heavenly Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ”. That is ultimately how we can get along: “suffer one another”, in agape.

Hascard,

You need a touch of reality…check out a post I made a while back…here in the good Old USA…many years ago…Protestants were a majority…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=670759

Young adults aren’t sticking with church

USA today

Just over half (51%) of Protestant young people surveyed (both the church dropouts and those who stayed on in church after age 22) saw church members as “caring” or had other positive descriptions, such as “welcoming” (48%) or “authentic” (42%).

Among dropouts, nearly all (97%) cited life changes, such as a move. Most (58%) were unhappy with the people or pastor at church. More than half (52%) had religious, ethical or political reasons for quitting.

usatoday.com/news/religio…dropouts_N.htm

I found that the issues such as authenticity not being the most relevant was interesting…Welcoming garnering a greater percentage…what’s up with that?

Do you like the Everly Brothers…

Dream, Dream, Dream, Dream, Dream…

or

Chuck Mangione

Land of Make Believe…

Get on Board Little Chilin, Get on Board…

 

[Attejohannes]

Jones,

Here I would differ. It is not the same Bible, as you know there have been translations, distortions, subsitutions, removals so that the Protocanonicals are based on Hebrew OT without any authority to do so and have removed the Deuterocanonicals.

I would also differ, in consideration that the Eucharist is not the same, based on lack of a priesthood, as I see it.

I would also honestly say…

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic Latin/East…The Eucharist is the Central focus of the Chrisitan Faith from which all else flows and is the central point of worship from which all else flows…This is a belief that directs all thinking in the Faith.

There is a difference bewteen thinking and believing. I may think you are brilliant however I may believe you are brilliant. My thinking is not believing. My believing directs my thinking. Beliefs are formed at a higher level in the mind than thinking. We all think and emote. These are the basic things we do in the head. To establish a belief, I have to add meaning to a thought and that thought then gets registered as a belief, based on something that I provide to add that meaning.

I think something doesn’t equate to belief. I believe something and that directs my thinking. If I believe that the world is round, then all thinking is oriented around that belief.

I think the world is flat. That is just a thought, not necessarily a belief and it does not direct other thinking.

I am not going to start an argument of the validity of sacraments and the ordination, not because I do not have anything to say, but because it would hardly be profitable for either of us, or any reader of the posts. I still believe that for a complete outsider, we have much more things that are common than separate us, but - as I have said several (too many) times in a separate thread - the differences, whatever an outsider might think, prevent anyway any real union between us. Despite of that we could still get along, as was the wish in the first posting of this thread. We have already stopped the hallowed practice of burning at stake, jailing and exiling. Slow progress, but progress still.

A factual correction, however. In my fac simile copy of the first translation of the whole Bible in Finnish from 1642, all the Deuterocanonicals are there. Together with commentaries stating pros and cons of their inclusion in the Canon, and what has been the Fathers opinion. The conclusion was that these books have been contested, but they are still useful to read for instruction and general edification. Although, in most Bibles nowadays these books are absent, you can always by an edition that contains them and they are in no way proscribed reading.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am not going to start an argument of the validity of sacraments and the ordination, not because I do not have anything to say, but because it would hardly be profitable for either of us, or any reader of the posts. I still believe that for a complete outsider, we have much more things that are common than separate us, but - as I have said several (too many) times in a separate thread - the differences, whatever an outsider might think, prevent anyway any real union between us. Despite of that we could still get along, as was the wish in the first posting of this thread. We have already stopped the hallowed practice of burning at stake, jailing and exiling. Slow progress, but progress still.

A factual correction, however. In my fac simile copy of the first translation of the whole Bible in Finnish from 1642, all the Deuterocanonicals are there. Together with commentaries stating pros and cons of their inclusion in the Canon, and what has been the Fathers opinion. The conclusion was that these books have been contested, but they are still useful to read for instruction and general edification. Although, in most Bibles nowadays these books are absent, you can always by an edition that contains them and they are in no way proscribed reading.

Jones,

What was the first time in history that the Deuterocanonicals were contested or there was need for pros and cons?

Riddle me this…

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). This bible and the ones that followed contained the deuterocanonicals.

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

Council Trent 1545-1563

King James 1611

The deuterocanonicals were part of the English Bible and were removed by Protestants.

In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They were removed because of the cost of pritning and that is why Protestants do not have them.

More on this can be found here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609709

 

[Attejohannes]

Jones,

What was the first time in history that the Deuterocanonicals were contested or there was need for pros and cons?

Riddle me this…

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). This bible and the ones that followed contained the deuterocanonicals.

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

Council Trent 1545-1563

King James 1611

The deuterocanonicals were part of the English Bible and were removed by Protestants.

In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They were removed because of the cost of pritning and that is why Protestants do not have them.

More on this can be found here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609709

Regarding the early understanding of the position of the Deuterocanonicals, St. Jerome had his scruples regarding their place in the Canon. Although the Orthodox churches include the books in the Canon, they consider them of “secondary rank”, to my mind resembling the Luther’s view “useful to read”. I do not know, what the British protestant did, but at least in Finland there has always been a possibility to get a Bible, where these books are included. Several old people used to be rather fond of citing Sirach…

 

[Attejohannes]

By the way.

Isn’t this discussion drifting rather far from the original question.

 

[hn160]

Regarding the early understanding of the position of the Deuterocanonicals, St. Jerome had his scruples regarding their place in the Canon. Although the Orthodox churches include the books in the Canon, they consider them of “secondary rank”, to my mind resembling the Luther’s view “useful to read”. I do not know, what the British protestant did, but at least in Finland there has always been a possibility to get a Bible, where these books are included. Several old people used to be rather fond of citing Sirach…

I just wanted to point out that LC-MS Concordia Publishing House has recently publish a Reader Edition of the Apocrypha with Lutheran Notes, this is a companion to the Lutheran Study Bible with Lurheran Notes.

 

[pablope]

I

A factual correction, however. In my fac simile copy of the first translation of the whole Bible in Finnish from 1642, all the Deuterocanonicals are there. Together with commentaries stating pros and cons of their inclusion in the Canon, and what has been the Fathers opinion. The conclusion was that these books have been contested, but they are still useful to read for instruction and general edification. Although, in most Bibles nowadays these books are absent, you can always by an edition that contains them and they are in no way proscribed reading.

Jerome…during his work in completing the Latin Vulgate in AD 395 or so…included the DCs…and said this…"What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? "

Jerome submitted to the judgement of his bishop…and included them without question.

After Jerome submitted the judgement of the churches…they have not been as contested…so why do you still contest them and not submit to the judgment of the churches…as Jerome did?

And by what authority did protestants have in removing the DCs from Bibles today?

 

[pablope]

Regarding the early understanding of the position of the Deuterocanonicals, St. Jerome had his scruples regarding their place in the Canon. …

What scruples are you talking about?

Jerome said this…“What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?”

during his work on the Latin Vulgate…does that show scruples?

Here is the thing I do not understand…protestants always cite Jerome’s scruples, some ECFs about their opinions of the DCs…yet ignore that Jerome submitted to the authority of his bishop and pope and translated the DCs and did not contest them after…