G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
But of course. That’s easy. The Scriptures are ours, so why wouldn’t we be able to discuss our Scriptures?
CDL
- Status
CDL
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
So what?
If Protestants were at all serious about this they would seek to correct the Church from within the Church. Choosing another religion and then coming back to use the Church’s Scriptures against the Church is unproductive and disingenuous. Either they should logically become part of the Church if they really wish to change it. Or borrow our Scriptures which if followed will inevitably lead them to us. Or remain a separate religion and write their own Scriptures.
Oh, yes, I know that as they seriously study our Scriptures they will become Catholic. Our attitude should be one of patience and prayer. But it is very convusing why a group that chooses another religion would use our Scriptures not only to develop this new religion but to attack those who wrote it. That’s the only issue. I don’t know why you would make a silly analogy as you have but the issue hasn’t anything to do with impetuosity or feelings. It has everything to do with logic and common sense. As I’ve said, I’m happy and I’m sure the Lord is happy that these folks are reading the Scriptures but there are two dangers afoot.
The Cathars, Arians, Gnostics, etc. read Scripture as well. They believed and practiced all sorts of strange and often very dangerous and deadly doctrines. Without the Church people can fall into all sorts of foolishness even as they use and misuse Scripture. Ones individual conscience is not enough. Secondly, this haphazard misuse of Scripture causes divisions in the Body of Christ and makes all of us vulnerable to the wiles of the devil and the attacks of both secularists and other very false religions.
Keep thinking. Try to leave feelings at the end of the train rather than substituting them for the engine.
CDL
K
KarenNC
Guest
Funny, I am constantly seeing posts blasting those Protestant sects that do not believe Catholics to be Christian, but a separate religion entirely. Interesting to see a Catholic then claim the same thing, particularly one who was a Protestant minister. Did you worship a different God when you were Methodist? Was Jesus different? The Holy Spirit? Did you believe in a Trinity? Those are what I understand to be the basics for being considered a Christian.
Whether you approve of their form of worship, points of doctrine or not, Greogry, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican—they are all sects of the religion of Christianity. They are not separate religions. Until you are able to see that, it is no wonder you have problems having a dialogue with other Christians, much less with non-Christians.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Did I say I was having trouble having a dialogue with other Christians? If I did write that I take it back. I have no trouble at all.
CDL
M
Melchior
Guest
Not silly to them or you when you were a protestant. You are imposing Catholic presuppositions on them which is not fair. The believe they are being more faithful to scriptures than Catholics who they believe went wrong by trusting the institution over the Word. I am not saying they are right, but they are sincere and often put Catholics to shame when it comes to knowing the scriptures.
C
cleargospel99
Guest
Are the scriptures not the true Word of God? Cannot God speak for Himself. Read Jesus parable story of Lazarus and the Rich man. Luke 16:19-31.
Moral of the story: If you listen to God’s Word, you have the knowledge necessary for salvation.
Moral of the story: If you listen to God’s Word, you have the knowledge necessary for salvation.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
So what? Why don’t you stick to the subject?
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
I can understand why a pagan would argue against the Catholic authorship of Scripture. I can understand why and how protestants and cynics argue against the Catholic authorship of Scripture. But I do not understand why a Catholic would argue against the Catholic authorship of Scripture. Can someone help me out here?
Perhpas a simple question could be posed that would help us all. Could someone name for me one known Protestant who wrote any part of Scripture? It would make your case and blow mine out of the water if anyone could. Go ahead, give it a try.
CDL
Perhpas a simple question could be posed that would help us all. Could someone name for me one known Protestant who wrote any part of Scripture? It would make your case and blow mine out of the water if anyone could. Go ahead, give it a try.
CDL
B
boppaid
Guest
Well, you must really be wrong if even Catholics disagree w/ your viewpoint!!
(note the smilies, please)A Catholic would answer that there is no protestant who wrote scripture. A Protestant would answer, “Paul, Peter, James…” (in other words, all the authors). See? It depends who you talk to!!
B
boppaid
Guest
You know, GP, the problem here is that none of us were there. We are all relying on our own Church’s history books. Believe me when I tell you there are some history books out there that don’t support Catholic version of history. I’m not saying they are right or wrong, but that they exist. Have you ever read “Church History in Plain English”? Stuff like that. You can’t expect a non-Catholic to read Catholic sources for the history of the Church. They read sources from their own writers. And Catholics do the same. It’s human nature to trust the sources you trust. Can you see what I’m saying?
C
cleargospel99
Guest
Maybe if you actually read the scriptures, which are readily available rather than make unsupportable assertions about them you would understand the situation better.
R
RNRobert
Guest
Uh, most Catholics on this forum HAVE read the Scriptures quite thoroughly, which is why many of them (including myself) converted to Catholicism from Protestantism.
B
boppaid
Guest
Edited because I misread the post. Sorry.
N
nerfherder
Guest
Reading this thread makes me sorrowful:
(1) we are all Christians, those who are Catholic, those who are of the reformed churches. (I will not call them protestant or non-Catholic, for that identifies them in terms of the Catholic Church, when they are legitimate and authoritative churches in their own right. Some of us conclude that the Catholic Church is one denomination of the Christian community.)
(2) you have not addressed, as far as I have read, the issue of other-than-Christian value systems cum religions - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc.
(3) you have not recognised that the so-called Catholic scripture is in fact also the scripture of the Jews and in part, of Islam (the Q’uran includes a significant number of Biblical elements).
(4) you have not recognised that the Scriptures were not in fact written by Catholics or reformers but by early Christians. Yes, the Bible was perhaps codified at Nicaea, but stripped down to its original Hebrew elements during the reformation.
(5) you have not recognised that other Christians will laugh you to scorn if you purport to claim that the scriptures somehow ‘belong’ only to Catholics.
(6) you have not recognised that in this day and age this kind of puerile wrangling, based on jejune beliefs about the nature of Christian denominations, not to mention the characteristics of other major global belief systems, is inappropriate. It is time to let this kind of hatred and ignorance go - just let it go. Comfort people, guide them, mentor them, teach them, serve the suffering, make haste to follow Christ’s example of healing and compassion.
GregoryPalamas, nothing at all will be achieved by this kind of argumentation, and I think you know that. You are articulate, but perhaps your mouth opens before your brain gets to it! I would put a smiley, but I am not into that.
Blessings
Jabulani
(1) we are all Christians, those who are Catholic, those who are of the reformed churches. (I will not call them protestant or non-Catholic, for that identifies them in terms of the Catholic Church, when they are legitimate and authoritative churches in their own right. Some of us conclude that the Catholic Church is one denomination of the Christian community.)
(2) you have not addressed, as far as I have read, the issue of other-than-Christian value systems cum religions - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc.
(3) you have not recognised that the so-called Catholic scripture is in fact also the scripture of the Jews and in part, of Islam (the Q’uran includes a significant number of Biblical elements).
(4) you have not recognised that the Scriptures were not in fact written by Catholics or reformers but by early Christians. Yes, the Bible was perhaps codified at Nicaea, but stripped down to its original Hebrew elements during the reformation.
(5) you have not recognised that other Christians will laugh you to scorn if you purport to claim that the scriptures somehow ‘belong’ only to Catholics.
(6) you have not recognised that in this day and age this kind of puerile wrangling, based on jejune beliefs about the nature of Christian denominations, not to mention the characteristics of other major global belief systems, is inappropriate. It is time to let this kind of hatred and ignorance go - just let it go. Comfort people, guide them, mentor them, teach them, serve the suffering, make haste to follow Christ’s example of healing and compassion.
GregoryPalamas, nothing at all will be achieved by this kind of argumentation, and I think you know that. You are articulate, but perhaps your mouth opens before your brain gets to it! I would put a smiley, but I am not into that.
Blessings
Jabulani
C
colliric
Guest
I will disagree here, it was at the Council of Nicaea where the Bible canon was “formalised” and restructured into the book we call “The Holy Bible”, and unfortunately for Protestants, the original 325AD canon of the Holy Bible included the “deutrocanon”, which was only “reconfirmed” as holy canon after the Luther controversy.
There is no debate on this. The New Testament was official structured and selected at that council. That is where the debate officially ends, because this council which gave us the structure and official canon of the New Testament, which even protestants accept, ALSO CANONISED THE DEUTROCANON.
It was only later on did the Orthodox accept more books into their “open canon bible”. The fact is the church that decided which order the New Testament was to be set as, was the same church that also decided that Maccabees 1 and 2(but not 3 and 4),was Canon at the exact same council.
The Catholic church finalised the New Testament, reordered the old, and decided that the canon included Maccabees 1 and 2 at the same council … no question about it.
Then the Vulgate came and stayed at the top for 1200 years until some German dude decided he didn’t like some bits of the bible and tossed them out and came up with an “edited” bible which he sold as if it was 'full" when in fact it refuses to accept that the same organization god used to craft the NT at the exact same time decided that Tobit and Maccabees should be in the bible. And they are supposed to be followers of “Sola Scriptura”, it’s hardly “sola scriptura” to chuck out parts of the bible that didn’t sit right with your beliefs, as Luther did. Sola Scriptura, except for the parts we don’t like, they can be thrown out even though the NT quotes the Septuagint and the Apostle John refers to Deutrocanon Doctrine…
D
dessert
Guest
Because God said either you are for me or against me hot or cold not lukewarm.
Easter Blessings to you too. :console: Dessert
C
colliric
Guest
No it was not, the Bible that the Apostles used WAS the greek septuagint which at that specific time was essentially the Canon of the Hebrews. It was in the second century that the so called “hebrew canon” was actually canonised by it’s own religion as OPPOSED to the Greek Canon which was widely circulated and used, this was AFTER THE TIME OF CHRIST. The fact is the Apostles had these books and at least 1 of them was under the impression that at least 1 of these books was written by god… keep reading.
We know they used it because they quote from it 300 times.
That bible included the books that make up the Deutrocanon. But the real nail in the coffin is the book of Revelations.
The Apostle John makes direct references to deutrocanon doctrine from the book of Tobit chapter 12 several times over in his narrative, DIRECT references. Read Tobit 12, then re-read the book of Revelations. Tobit 12 is were catholics draw the doctrine of Prayers for the dead from, it is also the Chapter which catholics draw one of the most important doctrines from, which is the Purgatory doctrine. It is one of the most Catholic chapters of the bible, and RIGHT SMACK BANG IN THE MIDDLE OF IT:
Verse 5: I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was** I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord**; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.
Verse 15: I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord."
and now Revelations 8:
2 And I saw that** the seven angels who stood before God** were given seven trumpets.
3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, 3 holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.
4 The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.
Why are protestants ignorant of such a direct reference to Deuterocanon? Martin Luther wasn’t, he wanted to toss Revelations originally because he knew it confirmed the Catholic canon.
C
cleargospel99
Guest
The Apostle John makes direct references to deutrocanon doctrine from the book of Tobit chapter 12 several times over in his narrative, DIRECT references. Read Tobit 12, then re-read the book of Revelations. Tobit 12 is were catholics draw the doctrine of Prayers for the dead from, it is also the Chapter which catholics draw one of the most important doctrines from, which is the Purgatory doctrine. It is one of the most Catholic chapters of the bible, and RIGHT SMACK BANG IN THE MIDDLE OF IT:
Verse 5: I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was** I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord**; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.
Verse 15: I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord."
and now Revelations 8:
2 And I saw that the seven angels who stood before God were given seven trumpets.
3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, 3 holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.
4 The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.
Why are protestants ignorant of such a direct reference to Deuterocanon?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand the relationship. Could you be more specific.
Verse 5: I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was** I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord**; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.
Verse 15: I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord."
and now Revelations 8:
2 And I saw that the seven angels who stood before God were given seven trumpets.
3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, 3 holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.
4 The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.
Why are protestants ignorant of such a direct reference to Deuterocanon?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand the relationship. Could you be more specific.
C
cleargospel99
Guest
I don’t understand the reference between Tobit and Revelation. Can you elaborate on the relationship? I thought you said that Revelation references Tobit directly–and I understood that to mean that it quoted Tobit, but I don’t see a quote. At most you have a coincidental relationship, but not what would be called a materially direct reference.
C
colliric
Guest
I hope you don’t take my previous posting in the incorrect way, I’m just giving you the strongest argument for the Catholic(Or Orthodox, open canon) Canon, and correcting your incorrect assertion that it was a good thing reverting to the “Hebrew Canon” used by the Hebrews currently, that was canonized well after Christ’s time. The reason being that the Apostles had, quoted from and used the Greek Septuagint which was accepted by the Hebrews at that time(until anti-roman and anti-christian sentiment saw them create a definitive Hebrew canon around the year 97AD only 20 years after Jerusalem was savaged by Rome.)
- Status