J
jofa
Guest
So…I take it we are going to ignore the John 6 question?..well, well, well…
Why don't you think it's not obvious to Protestants that their bible is not the bible that contains the fullness of the inspired written Word of God?
- Status
D
drbible1611
Guest
Well you have met one now!
I have never and never will say “My pastor says…” I will ALWAYS say “The Bible says”!
I would suggest you try reading the Bible from cover to cover WITHOUT any footnotes and the interpretations of the Magisterium and just let the Holy Ghost be your teacher-you will be amazed by the truths you will learn.
I don’t believe that the apostles were ‘biblical’ scholars or archeologists and yet God used them to turn the world upside down.
Read 1 Cor 1:25-31
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
That is a false statement. Trent reiterated with stronger language that which was declared even in the 4th century. Trent even SAYS it was following “the orthodox Fathers”, for example the 4th century synods of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, all which identified the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture.
It is totally false to say those books did not exist at the time of Luther. Luther even quoted from Maccabees.
D
drbible1611
Guest
Teflon93 *I deal with them all the time, here on the Forums and living in the Bible Belt.
The trouble is “rightly divide”—“Bible-believing” Christians do not agree on doctrine and dogma, despite allegedly believing in the Bible. This can be seen in their response to key passages such as John 6 or James 2, where they hew to the extra-Biblical interpretation of their favorite Reformer just like most other Protestants do.
The only thing novel about “Bible-believing” Christians is the brand name. Even the arrogance (because they call themselves "“Bible-believing”, presumably Christians who disagree with them do not believe Scripture) is old news. It is the bluster of those arriving 2,000 years too late on the scene to have any credibility.
The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.
*
**I will give you a definition of a TRUE Bible believing Christian:
“A born-again, blood washed, fire and brimstone preaching Christian who believes that the King James Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God and is the FINAL AUTHORITY on ALL matters of FAITH and PRACTICE”
With regards to John 6 and Jas 2 you ain’t seen nothing yet friend. I can blow you out of the water (Dead Sea or Red Sea) simply using my King James Bible without resorting to any Pastor, Reformer, denomination or Church.**
You are the one who would have to resort to the fallible opinions and private interpretations of popes, councils, church ‘father’s’ and Karl Keating et al to show me anything that you believe.
The trouble is “rightly divide”—“Bible-believing” Christians do not agree on doctrine and dogma, despite allegedly believing in the Bible. This can be seen in their response to key passages such as John 6 or James 2, where they hew to the extra-Biblical interpretation of their favorite Reformer just like most other Protestants do.
The only thing novel about “Bible-believing” Christians is the brand name. Even the arrogance (because they call themselves "“Bible-believing”, presumably Christians who disagree with them do not believe Scripture) is old news. It is the bluster of those arriving 2,000 years too late on the scene to have any credibility.
The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.
*
**I will give you a definition of a TRUE Bible believing Christian:
“A born-again, blood washed, fire and brimstone preaching Christian who believes that the King James Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God and is the FINAL AUTHORITY on ALL matters of FAITH and PRACTICE”
With regards to John 6 and Jas 2 you ain’t seen nothing yet friend. I can blow you out of the water (Dead Sea or Red Sea) simply using my King James Bible without resorting to any Pastor, Reformer, denomination or Church.**
You are the one who would have to resort to the fallible opinions and private interpretations of popes, councils, church ‘father’s’ and Karl Keating et al to show me anything that you believe.
D
drbible1611
Guest
Yes I do but evidently you do not!
M
mozart-250
Guest
Curious, you mention King James Bible.
What about other version like NIV, New American Standard, Revised Standard Version, new King James? Or does it have to be King James.
D
drbible1611
Guest
I guess you just don’t like the Holy Scriptures…hmmmm
D
drbible1611
Guest
Hey, I’m not avoiding the question and I’m quite willing to debate John 6 if you have an open mind and are willing to stick with Scripture ALONE!
But if you are going to start quoting the popes, church fathers etc then I am not going to waste my time.
I take it we are going to ignore the Apocrypha question?..well, well, well…
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Which statement is that?
D
drbible1611
Guest
The Syriak and OLD Latin Bible circa 100-150 AD did NOT contain the Apocrypha.
Just because Luther quoted from Maccabees doesn’t mean he believed it was the inspired word of God!
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
You mean we didn’t have a single true Bible believing Christian until 1611?
D
drbible1611
Guest
Since you haven’t read my posts I will repeat:
Mt 23:35 and Lk 24:44
You do believe what Christ said don’t you or do you think this is some invention by a protestant, hell bound heretic?
L
LaSalle
Guest
I think you’re missing the point Atemi … The Church’s act of defining anything only takes place when the issue is disputed. Christians have ALWAYS been using the LXX.Christ, the Apostles, the martyrs, and the early church did just fine without Trent.
We all still manage without the very late arriving Trent.
Christ, the Apostles et al did fine without the entire New testament!
G
GreenLantern
Guest
I didn’t really see anything that seemed Protestant in those passages. Could you explain how exactly they help your case?
Also I’d appreciate it if you didn’t imply that Catholicism teaches that Luther is Hell bound. Only God knows who goes to Hell.
G
GreenLantern
Guest
I demand explicit Biblical citation for every single one of your claims
T
Teflon93
Guest
Well, you got me—I mean, declaring the 17th century Bible translation of King James, a mere 1600 years too late for the apostolic age, to be the infallible instrument of God…
Waitaminute----why’d it take so long?
Better put away the brimstone and bring logic, reason, and evidence to bear. Bluster gets you nowhere around here. I can get bluster at any intersection in Uptown Charlotte.
T
Teflon93
Guest
What an ample demonstration you’ve provided!
I’ve lapped you several times over this thread in quoting Scripture.
You may need to change your handle to DrBluster2008.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Just in case drProtestantbible doesn’t have John handy, I’ll quote it here, King James Version no less, so we won’t have any silly excuses:
We Catholics do as Christ bid us, and eat of the bread of life. Indeed, every Mass is divided into the Liturgy of the Word, where we glory in Scripture, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where we partake of the flesh and blood of Christ. We believe the Bible.1: After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
2: And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
3: And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
4: And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
5: When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6: And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7: Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
8: One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him,
9: There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10: And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
**11: And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12: When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13: Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. **
14: Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
15: When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
16: And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,
17: And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
18: And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.
19: So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20: But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.
21: Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.
22: The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23: (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks
24: When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25: And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26: Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
**27: Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28: Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29: Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30: They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31: Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33: For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34: Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36: But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. **
37: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38: For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39: And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the 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 is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43: Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
**47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48: I am that bread of life.
49: Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50: This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and 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, which I will give 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 unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at 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, dwelleth 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, even he shall live by me.
58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. **
59: These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
**60: Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61: When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62: What and if ye 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 speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65: And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66: From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67: Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68: Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69: And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70: Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Atemi-
You’re in luck…I sent the full text of your post about Luther to Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, and got an immediate reply. Here is the essence of what Gary said:
This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our seperated brethern. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.
However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian O.T. and N.T… These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoratatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoratatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was question by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.
Propably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said,
“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).
So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later that a book is canonical and authoratative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.
Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on do adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuteros over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attachted an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.
I hope this helps (and makes sense). :tiphat:
D
drbible1611
Guest
Yup!
God only inspired and preserved one Bible for the English speaking folk THE KING JAMES BIBLE.
I would never read a version that is based on the corrupt Vaticanus manuscript which omits entire books and hundreds of verses and also contains gnostic writings eg Shepherd of Hermes.
Funny it was the Catholic church that is /was the custodian of that wonderful manuscript???
- Status