2
- Status
H
HannahLisa
Guest
A lot of this is still stuff I’m working through and trying to understand more fully. It is a journey, and I’m definitely not at the end!
I place my faith in the Bible inasmuch as I believe it is the inspired word of God. I trust and hope that He will use it to teach me. I know for certain that God exists – I have seen Him working in ways which to me are very obvious, so I cannot doubt Him. I believe that He is the Christian God, and since the Bible claims to be His Inspired Word, I treat it as such. I trust the translators, as well. Perhaps that is not as it should be, but since I don’t have the knowledge to translate the Bible myself, I don’t really have another choice. To be quite honest, I have no way of being absolutely without a doubt positive that the Bible is fully trustworthy. I believe that it is. In any case, centuries of Christians agree with me that the Bible is what it claims to be. Perhaps I am flawed in wanting to study it for myself, perhaps not. I have a brain, I’m going to use it to the best of my ability. This includes learning from others, but it does not mean only learning from others and never going to the source myself.
Christians disagree on a LOT of things. I can’t trust a denomination because they say they’re right, because everyone says they’re right. However, since all the denominations agree on the Bible being the inspired Word of God, I think I can agree on that as well, since I am a Christian.
When I mentioned that about Jesus, I meant that I do not know of any sources outside of the Gospels or non-canonical “Gospels” which quote Jesus. For instance, I do not think any Early Church Fathers quoted Jesus except in quoting from the Gospels.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I place my faith not only in the Bible. I place my faith in Jesus Christ, and His Church. The 27 NT text derives from the oral tradition of the Church.
I don’t think Christianity have a monopoly of God. Rather, God is the God of the Abraham, God of Issac, Jacob. Our God is the God of the Jewish People.
We know the Bible to be true and infallible and to be the inspired Word of God because the Church says so.
They do believe the Bible as inspired Word of God but they differ on certain theological views. One Denomination would say Baptism saves you but the other says it doesn’t. Either one of them is correct.
Philippians 1:27 states:
27 Only let your conversation be worthy of the gospel of Christ: that, whether I come and see you, or, being absent, may hear of you, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind labouring together for the faith of the gospel.
In other words, no Christian ought to differ in their belief. The Christian faith has to be unified. It must profess one faith, one baptism, and one doctrine.
Everything we ought to know as Christians is not fully said in Scripture. Even St. John said that there are other things that Jesus had done which are not written. Had they been written, no book could not contain them.
The ECF quoted Jesus from Gospels, and they also quoted or cited the 7 Deutrocanonical Books, which Protestants remove in the late 1600s.
H
HannahLisa
Guest
I place my faith in Jesus Christ, then in the Bible. I am not Catholic, therefore I do not place my faith in the Catholic Church, or any other church.
The important thing to me is what the denominations DO agree on, as opposed to what they do not. Regardless of their interpretations on the Bible, they can all agree that it is inspired. The difference in interpretations shows that there are flaws in some denominations, not in the Bible itself.
The Gospels and Acts are the only places that I know of where Jesus’ actual words are quoted. There is no oral tradition that I know of passing down Jesus’ words apart from the Gospels.
The important thing to me is what the denominations DO agree on, as opposed to what they do not. Regardless of their interpretations on the Bible, they can all agree that it is inspired. The difference in interpretations shows that there are flaws in some denominations, not in the Bible itself.
The Gospels and Acts are the only places that I know of where Jesus’ actual words are quoted. There is no oral tradition that I know of passing down Jesus’ words apart from the Gospels.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I am a Catholic Christian.
Jesus didn’t wrote any book. He did wrote on the dirt when the Jews were going to stone the adulteress. I do like to ask why does your Bible neglect the 7 Deutrocanonical Books?
If you truly consider yourself a Bible believer why don’t use the same text as the Apostles and Jesus used.
Consider the following passages.
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Wisdom, 1 and 2 Macc, Tobit, Sirach are completely absent in your Bible translation.
H
HannahLisa
Guest
Manny,
I think the Apocrypha should be in Protestant Bibles.
I am not very familiar with it, but I do recognize it as Scripture. Thank you for the list of quotes, though. I thought that some of the deuterocanonical books were quoted in the NT, but I wasn’t sure where.
Also, some Protestant Bibles do have the Apocrypha in them, though it is put in its own section.
I think the Apocrypha should be in Protestant Bibles.
I am not very familiar with it, but I do recognize it as Scripture. Thank you for the list of quotes, though. I thought that some of the deuterocanonical books were quoted in the NT, but I wasn’t sure where.Also, some Protestant Bibles do have the Apocrypha in them, though it is put in its own section.
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
Did you know that the Dueterocanonical Book were always in The Holy Bible?Manny,
I think the Apocrypha should be in Protestant Bibles.
Also, some Protestant Bibles do have the Apocrypha in them, though it is put in its own section.
Even the Protestants kept them for the first hundred years, then took them out, then put them back in, then took them out, then put them back in again. How can they be trusted with the revelation of The Word of God if they keep taking books out and putting them in?
And if you believe they “are” Scripture, then guess what…you can no longer call them apocryphal because according to your heart, they are not in question. They are only “in question” to non-Catholic religions.
Get ready to receive your “Swim Team of Tiber '08” designation!
(if you accept them as Scripture, guess what else you accept…Purgatory, Prayer for the dead, and just about every other Catholic teaching that non-Catholics reject, but that Christianity has always beleived for the past 2,000 years)
H
HannahLisa
Guest
If it was proved to me that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims to have, and is what it claims to be, then yes. Though I would still object to the idea that the Lord works ONLY in the Catholic Church, since I have seen much evidence to the contrary.
No.
Actually, I believe the Orthodox/Catholic split occurred without books being taken out of the Bible. So not all denominations were created because of that. Also, it is only those deuterocanonical books that have been taken out with any degree of permanency. Everything else remains the same, yet we still have many denominations.
Yes, though I still think studying the Bible on one’s own is good.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to ask here.
I am aware of this. The question then becomes, which oral traditions are the ones we get from the apostles? I haven’t seen anything which specifies this. There is this thing called Tradition, but I don’t see how it is defined, other than the fact that most of what the Catholic Church teaches is assumed to come from these oral traditions in some way.
H
HannahLisa
Guest
I did not always know that, but I discovered that – partly through my own research and partly through my Catholic college’s theology class.Did you know that the Dueterocanonical Book were always in The Holy Bible?
Even the Protestants kept them for the first hundred years, then took them out, then put them back in, then took them out, then put them back in again. How can they be trusted with the revelation of The Word of God if they keep taking books out and putting them in?
And if you believe they “are” Scripture, then guess what…you can no longer call them apocryphal because according to your heart, they are not in question. They are only “in question” to non-Catholic religions.
Get ready to receive your “Swim Team of Tiber '08” designation!
(if you accept them as Scripture, guess what else you accept…Purgatory, Prayer for the dead, and just about every other Catholic teaching that non-Catholics reject, but that Christianity has always beleived for the past 2,000 years)
I don’t necessarily trust all the Protestants say. (Indeed, considering the conflicts within what is classified as Protestant, it would be impossible to do so!) That is why I am here, and that is why I am learning – because everyone claims they are right, but some are obviously not. I am searching for truth. I don’t think the fact that someone is confused about one thing necessarily invalidates everything they say, though it may call into question their reliability.
I call them apocryphal because that is a term that can be used to refer to them, and that is the term I grew up with. Perhaps I am mistaken in doing so, though, considering the apparent connotation.
I’m not quite to the point of accepting those doctrines. But again, it’s a learning process. Perhaps I will accept them, perhaps not – I don’t know yet. One of my Catholic friends likes to say that I’ll be Catholic before I graduate. Maybe that’s true. I wouldn’t be averse to it
We’ll see…
V
VWcrazy
Guest
Please show us the exact Book, Chapter, and verse stating that “the Bible is the ultimate authority”.
Unless you can show the exact phrase within Scripture, I find this very troubling.
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
That would be to limit God. God works through The Catholic Church, through His angels, through humans outside of The Church. It would be totally arrogant for one to make such a statement.
God works through what He chooses (not what man proclaims even if a man would proclaim that He only works through The Catholic Church only).
2
2ndGen
Guest
H
HannahLisa
Guest
The Bible is not the ultimate authority, God is. But the Bible is a way for God to speak to us, and I think one of the more reliable ways. If Scripture and Tradition conflict (not saying they do), which one is picked? I don’t have a book, chapter, and verse saying this. Do I need to?
H
HannahLisa
Guest
2ndGen, thank you for that post about the Catholic Church being the Church mentioned in Scripture. I will look into that more. I already had the ScriptureCatholic site bookmarked
The Catholic Church “created” the Holy Bible inasmuch as they declared to be canon what were already widely accepted as divinely inspired. I think that removing the deuterocanonical books was an error.
The Catholic Church “created” the Holy Bible inasmuch as they declared to be canon what were already widely accepted as divinely inspired. I think that removing the deuterocanonical books was an error.
2
2ndGen
Guest
How can you trust a “book” when it can be edited by man?
It is just paper and ink.
I could insert the verse “Jesus rode a bike to temple” and guess what, if I passed that bible out for free to 10 million people, 10 million people would believe that Jesus did indeed ride a bike to temple (despite the fact that bike didn’t exist then).
You have to first qualify the bible you have to be a true translation.
First, throw out anything written after the 16th century.
Then do you know what you have?
The Holy Bible. Not any “versions” or “translations” that have been “authorized” by any man (or a king).
The Holy Bible came “out of” oral tradition.
First, The Word was preached, then it was written.
Jesus Himself spoke Scripture (He didn’t show anybody a “bible” when He quoted Scripture).
2
2ndGen
Guest
Hannah, thank you for bearing with my mini-novels to you!2ndGen, thank you for that post about the Catholic Church being the Church mentioned in Scripture. I will look into that more. I already had the ScriptureCatholic site bookmarked
The Catholic Church “created” the Holy Bible inasmuch as they declared to be canon what were already widely accepted as divinely inspired. I think that removing the deuterocanonical books was an error.
I don’t believe that The Catholic Church itself “created” The Holy Bible, but that God inspired to it what was to be included “in” The Bible…just as He inspired the men who actually wrote the Scriptures.
Good luck with whatever path God reveals for you.
H
HannahLisa
Guest
I’m curious – which Bible translation do you use, then? Any translation which comes from the 1500s is not going to be the easiest thing to understand. Who’s to say there can’t be a translation done later which is also accurate?
I doubt 10 million people would believe Jesus rode a bike, considering the fact that it’s obviously anachronistic. There would be a fair amount of people gullible enough to believe it, though. I think it would be difficult for translators to severely change the Bible, simply because people would notice and there would probably be an outcry.
How can you trust the Church? It is filled with human beings. How can you trust Tradition? How can you know that someone didn’t alter it somewhere along the line and now it’s not what it should be? At some point we have to let faith into the equation. It seems to me that if I cannot trust the Bible, I have nothing. Not the best answer, I know. So now I’m going to ask that same question to you: How can you trust a “book” when it can be edited by man?
I know that Jesus spoke Scripture, not read it. In fact, I remember reading that Jews of the time memorized large amounts of Scripture. This fact makes me wonder when the professor of my theology class at a Catholic university talked about how Matthew and Luke came from the “Quelle” source and Mark. Considering the fact that the Jews were obviously capable of memorizing large portions of things, why could they not have done the same with Jesus’ words, writing them down later? Why must there be an imaginary/theoretical source? This is rather off topic, though.
Thank you for your mini-novels, I’m learning from them!
2
2ndGen
Guest
- Status