Why do non-Catholics try to use our Scriptures against us?

[colliric]

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.

It is not coincidental because of the fact that the apostles actually had the Greek Septuagint which included the book of Tobit. John quotes from the Septuagint in his own Gospel.

Are you suggesting that the Apostle John never read the book of Tobit before he wrote that rather direct Tobit reference? Are you suggesting the Apostle john was not familar with a book he had in his own copy of the Old Testament? It is clearly a materially direct reference to something the Apostle understood to have been holy revelation. It is not coincidental simply because the apostle had a copy of the old testament in Greek(He quotes from it in his own gospel!), and surely read the whole thing through at least once, after all he was an Apostle!

This was why Martin Luther wanted to label Revelations as “Apocrypha” too…

 

[cleargospel99]

I don’t know if John read Tobit or not. I can’t tell where he quotes it directly.

Show me in John’s writing the direct quote from Tobit. And I will stand corrected.

So far, all you demonstrated is a couple of passing references to images of God’s throne and the prayers of the saints. Coincidence? Not even a completely formed thought.

Looks to me like you did a keyword search without and came up with a couple of hits that in no way bear any contextual relationship to each other.

Nothing like James quoting the prophet Amos (9:11-12) in Acts 15:16-18. Which is what I would call a DIRECT reference.

 

[Chancellare]

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!!

Are you now telling us Paul, Peter James… were Protestants?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

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!!

No, it does not depend upon who you talk to. Imagine a scenario like the following. If you are married imagine introducing your spouse as your spouse. She promply replies, “No I’m not your spouse. I’m single.” or “I’m married to Joe.” Who’s right? It has nothing to do with who you or she says she’s married to. It has everything to do with to whom she’s married.

Suppose a person went to court to force a DNA test and the DNA test demonstrated that so and so was the father of a particular child. So and so insists despite the evidence that he is not the father than John is. So the judges rules "Since so and so insists that he is not the father and John is and that the DNA proves that so and so is the father I rule that both John and so and so are the biological father.

Makes alot of sense.

Look, I don’t know if you just get pleasure out of being silliy or not. I’ve been more than patient with your silliness. Just drop it, please.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

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?

And this is all completely irrelavent.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

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

Your position is meaningless.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Are you now telling us Paul, Peter James… were Protestants?

I suppose Peter and Paul only lived 1500 years after Jesus’ birth. This is all silly.

The early answers about the defensiveness of the protestant attitude and the indefensibility of their use of Scripture to attack the very writers of Scripture is about right. The rest are just rabbit trails.

CDL

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I know that this question is raised often but usually within the context of other questions. It just puzzles me why people think they should do it or even could do it.

As a United Methodist Pastor I knew that the Catholics were right years before I converted. I never used the Scriptures to attack the Church. I couldn’t understand then nor do I understand now why non or anti-Catholic think they can use the Scriptures against those by whom and for whom they exist.

Perhaps someone has an answer for this.

CDL

Maybe they don’t regard them as the “property” of the CC.​

The OT grew up among the Jews - the CC didn’t compose it. ##

 

[Chancellare]

Maybe they don’t regard them as the “property” of the CC.​

The OT grew up among the Jews - the CC didn’t compose it. ##

Don’t worry, the devil also used Scriptures to attack Christ’s faith but failed. A few more sects using the same tactic will not be any better or worse.

It’s called vested interests, ad absurdum. .

 

[boppaid]

Look, I don’t know if you just get pleasure out of being silliy or not. I’ve been more than patient with your silliness. Just drop it, please.

To be honest, I’m feeling the same way about your “silliness” (sorry to borrow your term, but it just fits). I’m really wondering myself if you are “for real” or if you’re trying to get under people’s skin. You post ridiculous comments that don’t contribute at all such as “Your position is meaningless” (to Jabulani), “And this is all completely irrelavent”, etc., yet I am not finding anything relevant to your contributions either. Most people, though, are more charitable to you than you have been to others. I enjoy a good debate. But I enjoy debating with people who contribute knowledgeably, charitibly, with compassion, while remembering that Christ lives within each of us, God’s children. With you, it’s childish banter. Honestly, I hate that I’m sounding so harsh because you’re probably a very nice person, but try to rmember that just because you are posting on a faceless “board” doesn’t mean that there aren’t real people on here trying to have profitible discussions. Some people come on these boards as unbelievers, trying to learn about Christ. I shudder to imagine what they walk away with at times.

 

[cleargospel99]

boppaid,
Well said. We should keep scripture in mind:

1 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

1 John 4:19-20

9We love because he first loved us. 20If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

IMHO for a thread on scripture, nobody here appears to use it very much. I would suggest that if you percieve that non-Catholics are able to use Scripture “against” you, then it is a sure sign that you may need to repent.

God Bless You All

 

[cleargospel99]

IMHO If you are not comfortable reading scripture, or find it difficult to comprehend, I recommend getting a copy of “The Message” by Eugene Peterson.

However, you will want to supplement that reading with a more precise translation like the NIV. I really like my using my wife’s Life Application Study Bible.

Hope this helps.

 

[chimera]

I am confused. A priest used a swear adjective to me to describe the Bible. Many statements say that Scripture is explained in the light of Tradition. How much ownership of Scripture does the Church hold?
chimera

 

[colliric]

I don’t know if John read Tobit or not. I can’t tell where he quotes it directly.

Show me in John’s writing the direct quote from Tobit. And I will stand corrected.

So far, all you demonstrated is a couple of passing references to images of God’s throne and the prayers of the saints. Coincidence? Not even a completely formed thought.

Looks to me like you did a keyword search without and came up with a couple of hits that in no way bear any contextual relationship to each other.

Nothing like James quoting the prophet Amos (9:11-12) in Acts 15:16-18. Which is what I would call a DIRECT reference.

This is silly… that’s like saying that because the Centurion in the passion 4 narratives said 4 diffrent lines all of which lead to the same meaning, because the exact same thing was recorded diffrently each time, he must have said “truly this man was the son of god” 4 times over in 4 diffrent ways because “the quotes are ever so slightly diffrent and he’s therefore not saying it once”. He can’t have said one thing because the bible records 4… so four times over he must have practically repeated what he said and each of the writers must have only gotten wind of 1 of the 4 diffrent quotes.

This is because according to what you have said, there is no 1 original frame of reference in terms of doctrine that each following mention of the same doctrine develops or repeats… No, each time doctrine is mentioned in the bible, it MUST NOT take into account the previous times the doctrine was mentioned and MUST have been purely coincidental that it has appeared twice. sorry but that is truly stupid.

The contextual relationship is clear to the Catholic who knows how exactly the books fit into the bible and why they are there. The fact of the matter is the Apostle John HAD THE BOOK OF TOBIT because the book of Tobit was part of the Greek Septuagint which was used by the apostles(300 times quoted in the new testament).

This is another silly flaw of Sola Scriptura, it takes entire passages of the bible OUT of their true context. Heck, the main protestant arguement against the Assumption and Coronation of Mary is that it was only written about by the Apostle John and the other apostles had no idea about it and did not write about ti in their books, so therefore it’s not right… But hang on, doesn’t the John gospel say “Mother this is your son, Son this is your mother”? ummm isn’t this the same apostle who wrote about the assumption and was likely the only apostle there at her side as she died(In the catholic belief Mary died in old age after she left Jerusalem with the Apostle John who took her away from the violence against Christians and also the sacking of it by Rome in 65 - 70AD)? wouldn’t he be the ONLY ONE to know about it?

 

[chimera]

John and the Coronation - do you mean Apocalypse, Rev. 12.1?
The woman is crowned and gives birth and the child is taken to heaven before the dragon can devour it at birth. This is the vision seen by resurrected Christ in heaven of things to come, given to John as an old man. You are not starting a new doctrine that Mary gave birth to Jesus again in heaven , after he arrived there, are you?
Chimera

 

[GregoryPalamas]

To be honest, I’m feeling the same way about your “silliness” (sorry to borrow your term, but it just fits). I’m really wondering myself if you are “for real” or if you’re trying to get under people’s skin. You post ridiculous comments that don’t contribute at all such as “Your position is meaningless” (to Jabulani), “And this is all completely irrelavent”, etc., yet I am not finding anything relevant to your contributions either. Most people, though, are more charitable to you than you have been to others. I enjoy a good debate. But I enjoy debating with people who contribute knowledgeably, charitibly, with compassion, while remembering that Christ lives within each of us, God’s children. With you, it’s childish banter. Honestly, I hate that I’m sounding so harsh because you’re probably a very nice person, but try to rmember that just because you are posting on a faceless “board” doesn’t mean that there aren’t real people on here trying to have profitible discussions. Some people come on these boards as unbelievers, trying to learn about Christ. I shudder to imagine what they walk away with at times.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Boppaid,

Since my question has been answered and I really have nothing more to say and since you and others wish to persue other topics not related to my initial quetion I will post elsewhere unless others wish to address the topic.

It is a shame that some folks use our Scriptures to attack us but it should seem clear that there is no good reason for it.

CDL

 

[Spirithound]

I am confused. A priest used a swear adjective to me to describe the Bible. Many statements say that Scripture is explained in the light of Tradition. How much ownership of Scripture does the Church hold?
chimera

You should probably start a new thread on this, but that priest’s language was absolutely shameful.

 

[colliric]

John and the Coronation - do you mean Apocalypse, Rev. 12.1?
The woman is crowned and gives birth and the child is taken to heaven before the dragon can devour it at birth. This is the vision seen by resurrected Christ in heaven of things to come, given to John as an old man. You are not starting a new doctrine that Mary gave birth to Jesus again in heaven , after he arrived there, are you?
Chimera

No, What the passage is actually saying is that this woman appeared to John from heaven with a crown on her head and a “flashback” vision followed, this is very clear and it indicates he saw her in her beutified heavenly state rather than as he had known her, but the vision he had was a recounting of the passion and what then later occured to Mary.

The narrative that follows actually recounts the life of Jesus and what was happening to Mary during that time(“Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus.”). The Crowning actually occurred after the woman was taken up to heaven having been “given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent” but when she reappeared to be part of the vision she was with the crown.

This is a summary of the Catholic interpretation, which is the straightforward and clear interpretation:

1. The Ark of the Covenant has been restored to the temple
2. The temple is now heaven (See also Heb 9:1-12)
3. A woman with a crown is there - the new Ark
4. She gave birth to the son who will rule the nations and is at God’s throne
5. The devil is very interested in destroying her but she is safe
6. Her children are all faithful Christians.

That’s from
davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_in_the_bible.htm

The prophercy of this passage is not what protestants think it is. The Prophercy of it is actually only the last line of it:
“Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus.”

In otherwords… Rough times ahead for the christian faithfull, the ones who follow Jesus and truly understand the role and what occurred to his mother who is also our mother.

 

[dessert]

boppaid,
Well said. We should keep scripture in mind:

1 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

1 John 4:19-20

9We love because he first loved us. 20If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

IMHO for a thread on scripture, nobody here appears to use it very much. I would suggest that if you percieve that non-Catholics are able to use Scripture “against” you, then it is a sure sign that you may need to repent.

God Bless You All

It all depends on who you can consider your brother?
This has been a discussion in itself among my non-C friends and CC friends and sisters and brothers in the truth. Dessert