Why I Can't Be Catholic

[Magnus1981]

Why was the first Pope Married? MARK 1:29

Due to his life circumstances. Peter was married before he was a pope; even before he became a follower of Christ. It would have been unreasonable for others to ask him to divorce his wife, don’t you think? The same applies for non-Catholic clergy that are married before they become Catholic clergy, e.g. Anglican ministers.

MARY can not be a mediator! 1 Timothy 2:5

Jesus is our mediator for our salvation, yes, but that doesn’t mean we cannot have intercessors hoping and praying for our salvation. Mary does not save us, but for many she is a bridge to Christ who in turn, alone, brings us to God in mediation. Pay attention to what 1 Tim. 2:1-4 says:

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

 

[yankee_drifter]

Quoted by paul c.

Yankee Drifter,
I know you addressed these notes to Randy and to Joe, but since its an open forum, I’m going to feel free to jump in here.

First of all,can you support your supposition that bands of Baptists were around since apostolic times? Where’s the documentational evidence of this? We’d all love to see it, because no one has ever successfully supported that claim that I know of.

Secondly, your understanding of the Deuterocanonical books (or apocryphal books as you describe them) we most certainly part of the original canon. They were included in the Vulgate and they were there for Martin Luther to translate, even if he shunted them off to the back of his translations. They were always part of the Greek translation of the old Testament that was in use at the time of the Apostles. Later, after Jerusalem was destroyed, the remaining Jewish rabbis disavowed the later works of the Bible as well as the New Testament. Just because a group of Jewish rabbis disavowed these books doesn’t mean they weren’t inspired. Afterall, you don’t care that they disavowed the New Testament books, do you? And furthermore there are dozens of references to the deuterocanonical books in the books of the New Testament:
cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/09…testament.html
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

This is from wikipedia:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

Influence of the Septuagint
The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint—which includes the deuterocanonical books, as well as apocrypha—both of which are called collectively anagignoskomena (things that are read).[citation needed] Several appear to have been written originally in Hebrew, but the original text has long been lost. Archaeological finds in the last century, however, have provided a text of almost two-thirds of the book of Sirach, and fragments of other books have been found as well. The Septuagint was widely accepted and used by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century, even in the region of Roman Judea, and therefore naturally became the text most widely used by early Christians, who were predominantly Greek speaking.

In the New Testament, Hebrews 11:35 refers to an event that was only explicitly recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books (2 Maccabees 7).

Reply With Quote

There are many books about the history of the Baptists.You can do the research or check out bookstores, etc. If you’re really interested, PM me and I can compile a list of titles for you. Or I can give you links to web sites.

Just because a group of Jewish rabbis disavowed these books doesn’t mean they weren’t inspired

The apocryphal/deuterocanonical books were never part of the Hebrew Canon. The canon of the Jews was clearly the canon Jesus and the apostles accepted. The apostle Paul said the Jews were given the “Oracles of God.” Does it make sense that the Jews would deliberately leave out books when they were entrusted by God with the OT? (Rom. 3:1,2) The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi, about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ.There were no prophets on the earth during this time!

Jesus, in Luke 11:51 and Matt 23:55 when he refers to the “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” affirms the first book of the Hebrew scripture as Genesis, and the last book as II Chronicles. This affirmation demonstrates the Hebrew “Canon” was closed by the time of Malachi.

The Dead Sea Scrolls further adds proof that the Jews have the Scriptures in its purity. Jesus never mentions any of these books. He said the Scriptures were the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms…no other writings.

Hebrews 11:37 may very well refer to 1 Kings 17:22 and not 2 Maccabees, as is often claimed. But none of this changes the fact that the apostles never used the Apocrypha as an authoritative source. On the other hand there are hundreds of quotations in the NT from the ‘Law and Prophets’ which Jesus called “all the Scripture”.( Luke 24:27).

Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.

In 382 Bishop Damascus had Jerome work on a Latin text to standardize the Scripture. The resulting Vulgate was used throughout the Christian world though Jerome himself separated the Apocrypha from the rest. He stated the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners”, but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”. but he made it clear when he said that “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture” (Preface to Vulgate Book of Solomon,) He initially refused to translate the apocrypha into Latin but later made a hasty translation of a few books.

Although Augustine did recognize the Apocrypha, the Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500’s. Before that, there was always debate as to their inspiration. The official acceptance of the Apocrypha occurred well after the NT was written and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews.

The editors of Luther’s Works wrote: “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”

The fact that sirach and other deuterocanonical books were found by archaeologists does nothing to support that these books were even inspired. No one denies their existence. Many of these books are filled with historical and other errors and much fables.

 

[crazzeto]

So Yankee, were did these bands of Baptists get their bible from? How did they know what books were supposed to be in the bible? Is it your assertion that Jesus gave them the KJV bible just prior to his assention?

 

[paul_c]

There are many books about the history of the Baptists.You can do the research or check out bookstores, etc. If you’re really interested, PM me and I can compile a list of titles for you. Or I can give you links to web sites.

Why don’t you just give me the links to the website that you think documents how the baptists are apostolic and how they were the one true church throughout the ages. I’m sure that there are many others that would appreciate such proof, if it really exists.

The apocryphal/deuterocanonical books were never part of the Hebrew Canon. The canon of the Jews was clearly the canon Jesus and the apostles accepted. The apostle Paul said the Jews were given the “Oracles of God.” Does it make sense that the Jews would deliberately leave out books when they were entrusted by God with the OT? (Rom. 3:1,2) The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi, about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ.There were no prophets on the earth during this time!

Jesus, in Luke 11:51 and Matt 23:55 when he refers to the “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” affirms the first book of the Hebrew scripture as Genesis, and the last book as II Chronicles. This affirmation demonstrates the Hebrew “Canon” was closed by the time of Malachi.

The Dead Sea Scrolls further adds proof that the Jews have the Scriptures in its purity. Jesus never mentions any of these books. He said the Scriptures were the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms…no other writings.

Hebrews 11:37 may very well refer to 1 Kings 17:22 and not 2 Maccabees, as is often claimed. But none of this changes the fact that the apostles never used the Apocrypha as an authoritative source. On the other hand there are hundreds of quotations in the NT from the ‘Law and Prophets’ which Jesus called “all the Scripture”.( Luke 24:27).

Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.

In 382 Bishop Damascus had Jerome work on a Latin text to standardize the Scripture. The resulting Vulgate was used throughout the Christian world though Jerome himself separated the Apocrypha from the rest. He stated the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners”, but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”. but he made it clear when he said that “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture” (Preface to Vulgate Book of Solomon,) He initially refused to translate the apocrypha into Latin but later made a hasty translation of a few books.

Although Augustine did recognize the Apocrypha, the Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500’s. Before that, there was always debate as to their inspiration. The official acceptance of the Apocrypha occurred well after the NT was written and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews.

The editors of Luther’s Works wrote: “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”

The fact that sirach and other deuterocanonical books were found by archaeologists does nothing to support that these books were even inspired. No one denies their existence. Many of these books are filled with historical and other errors and much fables.

Youu are going against history when you say that the Septuagint was not used by the early Christians as their scriptural text. And you are further going against history when you say that the full 46 books of the old testament were only sanctioned at Trent. It is very, very clear that they were in the Bible from 382AD onward and were only removed by the Protestants after the split off. Sure, the Protestants claimed that they did it because the Jerusalem rabbis took a similar step in the second century but that we mere convenience because it suited their purposes. Both groups disliked the 7 deuterocanonical boooks because they support Catholic theology. You should also know that Martin Luther wanted to remove the epistle of James as well but that he couldn’t get support from anyone to do this because he had no valid reason other than he disagreed with James message that Faith without works is dead. You should also know that Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[3] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[4] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning. This is a literalist view rather than an literal view of the Bible which is contrary to all other references in the Bible, especially the book of James.

 

[Thing]

. You should also know that Martin Luther wanted to remove the epistle of James as well but that he couldn’t get support from anyone to do this .

He sure was a comedian, that guy; but not someone you would intrust your immortal soul to, I think.

Martin Luther: [giving a lecture] When I became a monk I believed the monks cow would make me holy. Was I an arrogant fool? Now they have made me a doctor of divinity and I am tempted to believe that this scholars robe will make me wise.
[laughter]
Martin Luther: Well, God once spoke through the mouth of an ***, and…
[laughter]
Martin Luther: Perhaps he is about to do so again. But…
[leaves his rostrum and starts walking around in the classroom. The students follow him very interested with their eyes]
Martin Luther: I will tell you straight what I think. Who here has been to Rome?
[a student raises his hand]
Martin Luther: Did you buy an indulgence?
Student: No.
Martin Luther: I did. For a silver florin, I freed my grandfather from Purgatory. For twice that I could have sprung grandmother and uncle mothers too, but…
[laughter]
Martin Luther: I didn’t have the funds, so they had to stay in the hot place. As for myself, the priests assured me that by gazing at sacred relics, I could cut down my time in purgatory. Luckily for me, Rome has enough nails from the holy cross to shoe every horse in Saxony.
[laughter]
Martin Luther: But there are relics elsewhere in Christendom. Eighteen out of twelve apostles are buried in Spain.
[laughter]
Martin Luther: And yet here in Wittenberg we have the pick on the crown. Bread from the last supper, milk from the virgins breast, a thorn that pierced Christ’s brow on calvery and nineteen thousand other bits of sacred bone.
[laughter]
Martin Luther: All authentic, ancient, sacred relics. Even Johann Tetzel himself, inquisitor of Poland and Saxony, seller of indulgences extraordinary, connoisseur of relics, envies our collection.
[laughter]
Martin Luther: To posses them for a single night he would willingly surrender five years of his earthly life…
[laughter, returns to his rostrum]
Martin Luther: Or five hundred years in Purgatory.
[laughter]

 

[GeorgeSword]

Yankee, did you know that almost every time Paul quotes the Old Testament he uses the Septuagint version rather than the Hebrew?

 

[hesco]

Randy,

We already know what you believe as per your lengthy, rhetorical postings. I addressed my questions to joe370.

The christian church in the beginning was catholic, not roman catholic.

None of the apostles and other NT writers were roman catholic. They were Jews who converted to Christianity…not roman catholicism.

Protestants believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. This has nothing to do with the roman catholic church. There were bands of Christians everywhere since the beginning of Christianity. They had different names or no names at all. One thing they had in common is that they met to worship, sing and break bread. Many of them comprise the Baptist faith today which did not come out of the Reformation. Therefore, the Baptist is not a Protestant faith.

There was never any uncertainty about which books were inspired. The Holy Spirit authored them all. No church or council was ever needed to tell God which of His books should be canonized.

As for bigger being better, that’s not always the case. The catholic bible added spurious uninspired books during the Reformation period…very late in church history…that were never part of the Hebrew canon. The apostle Paul said that the “Oracles of God” were given to the Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls is added proof that the Jews have the Scriptures in its purity. Jesus never once mentioned any of the apocryphal books. He said the Scriptures were the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms…no other writings!!

Still waiting for Randy to get the facts right…

Excuse me, but let’s stop all this back and forth stuff by simply saying we are all Catholics whether we chose to accept it or not.

 

[happilycatholic]

but after you die you still have to pay the price for your own sins in Purgatory, which is a really terrible place where you burn horribly for an unknown duration of time. Forget this stuff we’ve been preaching about grace and faith in Christ being sufficient. What Jesus did was not enough, no, not at all. And take care to not commit any mortal sins, Mr. warden. If you happen to still have a mortal sin on your soul, all bets are off.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are many books about the history of the Baptists.You can do the research or check out bookstores, etc. If you’re really interested, PM me and I can compile a list of titles for you. Or I can give you links to web sites.

Paulc is correct…I’d love to see a short list of books or websites. Can you post them for us here?

 

[Randy_Carson]

…the Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500’s. Before that, there was always debate as to their inspiration. The official acceptance of the Apocrypha occurred well after the NT was written and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews.

Where did you find this information, Yankee_drifter? I’d like to visit the websites that you are getting this information from in order to research this from the same sources you are using. Thanks.

In the meantime, I’d like to share the following from an email I received this week from Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger:

The canon of the OT was infallibly taught from the beginning through the ordinary magisterium of the Church. At times, the teaching was raised to new levels of solemnity. For example, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (there is considerable doubt whether there really was a council in Rome, so you might want to strike it from your list) met to reaffirm the canon against Jerome’s claims of Hebrew Verity and his rejection of the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha. Here the NCE is wrong because Jerome rejected it as “Apocrypha” not “Ecclesiastical books.” The term “ecclesiastical books” was used by Jerome’s friend Rufinius, but I’m not sure if Jerome ever used it. Pope Innocent I answered an enquiry by one of Jerome’s supporters, Bishop Exuperius for clarification on the canon and Innocent I repeated the Catholic canon. As far as the Church is concerned, the canon was settled by the ordinary magisterium and it was raised to a new level of solemnity by Hippo and Carthage since these were local councils approved by the Pope. These decrees were reaffirmed by subsequent councils, especially Florence. The decree at Trent is just as doctrinally authoritative as the others. The only difference is in regards to Church disciple, Trent added an anathema to its decree so that anyone who would deny it was under a canonical penalty. That’s it! In regards to the doctrine of the Faith, Trent merely reaffirmed what was already infallibly decrees by previous councils, papal documents, and the ordinary magisterium.

The NCE’s reasoning also fallacious.

"The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

By that line of reasoning, it would also be apparent that the question of Christ being of the same substance as the Father must not have been settled as well since Jehovah’s Witnesses, and sadly even some liberal Catholic theologians, deny it.

What happened was this. Jerome proposed his new belief that the Deuterocanon was human Apocrypha in the prefaces to his Latin Vulgate. The copies were sent out piecemeal to friends far and wide. Slowly, Christians began to react to his idea of “Hebrew Verity” in regards to the canon and the North African councils were called. Jerome’s view was condemned by these councils reaffirming the true Christian canon. However, the prefaces continued to be circulated with the Vulgate. The church as a whole officially followed Hippo and Trent. This can be seen in Pope Nicholas I’s statement in his Letter to the Bishops of Gaul that Innocent I’s decree on the canon was part of the “universal law of the Church.”

Catholic scholars were in somewhat of a bind. They had the prefaces to the Vulgate saying that the Deuterocanon was Apocrypha while the Church accepted them as canon. Some scholars attempted to twist Jerome’s words so that he affirmed their canonicity. Other simply recognized that Jerome’s doubt but does not personally follow Jerome in his usage while others, who held Jerome in the greatest esteem, tried to hold Jerome’s opinion and ignore the teachings of the Church or in a few cases actually state that Church doctrine should be made to conform to Jerome. Each writer should be examined separately.

I think the important thing to remember is that all, or nearly all, of those who contradicted the Church’s decree did so on the authority of Jerome alone. Moreover, early Protestantism also followed Jerome as well (e.g. Luther, Osiander, Zurich Bible, Geneva Bible (Calvin), the Anglican 39 Articles, et al.). Also, one should remember that Qumran has demonstrated that Jerome’s “Hebrew Verity” (upon which he based his rejection of the Deuterocanon) was false. Therefore, the Protestant’s appeal to Jerome and other fathers after him is moot.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The apocryphal/deuterocanonical books were never part of the Hebrew Canon. The canon of the Jews was clearly the canon Jesus and the apostles accepted.

Q: Would it be possible for you to cite the Scripture passages that Jesus used when he quoted from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and what Septuagint passages are clearly alluded to in the New Testament?

A: If this magazine were about ten pages longer, perhaps. Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.

By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.

But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.

But, since you ask, here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. Showing that the New Testament authors quoted from the LXX argues in favor of (though does not in itself prove) the inspiration of these seven books.

For a full list of potential New Testament allusions to the deuterocanonical books, go to the Internet site cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm.

Taken from catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002qq.asp

 

[yankee_drifter]

Why don’t you just give me the links to the website that you think documents how the baptists are apostolic and how they were the one true church throughout the ages. I’m sure that there are many others that would appreciate such proof, if it really exists.

Youu are going against history when you say that the Septuagint was not used by the early Christians as their scriptural text. And you are further going against history when you say that the full 46 books of the old testament were only sanctioned at Trent. It is very, very clear that they were in the Bible from 382AD onward and were only removed by the Protestants after the split off. Sure, the Protestants claimed that they did it because the Jerusalem rabbis took a similar step in the second century but that we mere convenience because it suited their purposes. Both groups disliked the 7 deuterocanonical boooks because they support Catholic theology. You should also know that Martin Luther wanted to remove the epistle of James as well but that he couldn’t get support from anyone to do this because he had no valid reason other than he disagreed with James message that Faith without works is dead. You should also know that Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[3] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[4] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning. This is a literalist view rather than an literal view of the Bible which is contrary to all other references in the Bible, especially the book of James.

You are mimicking the same things you have heard from other roman catholics. Luther and the reformers did not remove any books. I challenge you to do the research.

It was at the council of Trent in 1546 in reaction to the Protestant Reformation that it was officially decreed that the apocryphal books were to be part of the Canon of the Old Testament, and they declared anathema on anyone who rejected them.

Calvin wrote, “I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books”; his objection was to “placing the Apocrypha in the same rank” with inspired Scripture (“Antidote” to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68). Likewise, Luther placed the Apocrypha in an appendix to the Old Testament in his German Bible, describing them in the title as “Books which are not to be held equal to holy scripture, but are useful and good to read.” So much for the claim that the reformers removed books…

You conveniently ignore the fact that the apocrypha was never part of the Hebrew scriptures. You are ignoring all relevant facts. If the Jewish Theologians of the OT Congregation of God (who of course were used of God to write that OT) didn’t have the Apocrypha books in their OT text, why would any Christian Church growing from that very same OT Hebrew Congregation, consider adding these Apocryphal books as part of the Old Testament Hebrew? It makes no sense.

Jesus quoted from every OT book but two, and effectively endorsed the Hebrew canon in Matt 23:35 when He cited one of the first narratives and one of the last in the Scriptures of His day. The Jews were meticulous in preserving the OT Scriptures, and they had few controversies over what parts belong or do not belong. The Roman Catholic Apocrypha did not measure up and fell outside of the definition of Scripture, and have never been accepted by the Jews.

Did you ever research why Luther was concerned with the book of James? Its because some Christians were claiming that salvation could be earned, thereby denying the perfect and complete once for all sacrifice of Christ’s atonement on the cross. They were trying to justify believing that good works saves a person.

paul, until you qualify your statements with references, its futile to proceed further. You merely repeat what others have said, but don’t do the historical research. If you really want book titles of baptist history PM me. Or google Baptist History if you only want web sites. The moderator has warned repeatedly that we must stay on topic.

 

[rinnie]

You are mimicking the same things you have heard from other roman catholics. Luther and the reformers did not remove any books. I challenge you to do the research.

It was at the council of Trent in 1546 in reaction to the Protestant Reformation that it was officially decreed that the apocryphal books were to be part of the Canon of the Old Testament, and they declared anathema on anyone who rejected them.

Calvin wrote, “I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books”; his objection was to “placing the Apocrypha in the same rank” with inspired Scripture (“Antidote” to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68). Likewise, Luther placed the Apocrypha in an appendix to the Old Testament in his German Bible, describing them in the title as “Books which are not to be held equal to holy scripture, but are useful and good to read.” So much for the claim that the reformers removed books…

You conveniently ignore the fact that the apocrypha was never part of the Hebrew scriptures. You are ignoring all relevant facts. If the Jewish Theologians of the OT Congregation of God (who of course were used of God to write that OT) didn’t have the Apocrypha books in their OT text, why would any Christian Church growing from that very same OT Hebrew Congregation, consider adding these Apocryphal books as part of the Old Testament Hebrew? It makes no sense.

Jesus quoted from every OT book but two, and effectively endorsed the Hebrew canon in Matt 23:35 when He cited one of the first narratives and one of the last in the Scriptures of His day. The Jews were meticulous in preserving the OT Scriptures, and they had few controversies over what parts belong or do not belong. The Roman Catholic Apocrypha did not measure up and fell outside of the definition of Scripture, and have never been accepted by the Jews.

Did you ever research why Luther was concerned with the book of James? Its because some Christians were claiming that salvation could be earned, thereby denying the perfect and complete once for all sacrifice of Christ’s atonement on the cross. They were trying to justify believing that good works saves a person.

paul, until you qualify your statements with references, its futile to proceed further. You merely repeat what others have said, but don’t do the historical research. If you really want book titles of baptist history PM me. Or google Baptist History if you only want web sites. The moderator has warned repeatedly that we must stay on topic.

You are right Luther did not remove them but he moved then to a different place to try to make them seem less important. But he wanted to remove them but the public outcry was to much for him. But he did his best to make his point by moving them. And a point well taken they were removed later. They should have never been removed and are still in my bible.

 

[rinnie]

And yes everyone knows why he wanted to remove them. That plain common sense. His teaching on faith alone without works went against scripture. Everyone knows that

 

[yankee_drifter]

Paulc is correct…I’d love to see a short list of books or websites. Can you post them for us here?

pbministries.org/History/Goodwin_&_Frazier/churches_02.htm

www.trailofblood.com/The Trail Of Blood.htm

www.pbministries.org/History/baptist_history

www.oldschoolbaptist.org/History

www.westmarionbaptistchurch.com

www.baptisttop1000.com/Baptist_History

www.baptist-books.com

docsouth.unc.edu/church/pius/pius.

 

[GeorgeSword]

I just knew you would post Trail of Blood.

 

[paul_c]

pbministries.org/History/Goodwin_&_Frazier/churches_02.htm

www.trailofblood.com/The Trail Of Blood.htm

www.pbministries.org/History/baptist_history

www.oldschoolbaptist.org/History

www.westmarionbaptistchurch.com

www.baptisttop1000.com/Baptist_History

www.baptist-books.com

docsouth.unc.edu/church/pius/pius.

I can understand why you as a baptist would want to believe that your faith went back to the Apostles, but have you done a critical read of what you sent me? Its all based on teh work of Dr. JM Carroll, who frankly was not a scholar… His work is far from credible. Frankly, he has two major claims:
1> that he can draw a line of succession through the various herectical sects from the apostles to the the present
2> that Catholicism can not claim continually succession because it was created by Constantine.

Both of these claims are specious.

Lets start with the succession argument. He lists the Novations, Montanists, Paulicians and Waldenses as some of the sects taht preserved the Baptists philosophy down through the ages. Had he done even a modicum of research, he would have found that these groups had very little in common with each other or with modern baptism. the Paulicians actually were dualists, like the Manichees, believing in an evil spirit who formed the physical world and was in opposition to the good God, who formed the spiritual future world. The montanists, Novatians and Waldenses were all offshoots of catholicism The Novations and Montanists were extremely conservative sects, who opposed reentry into the church for sinners. The Waldenses actually beleived in infant baptism, which is of course diametrically opposed to the Baptist creed. This is all easily discerned today on the internet.

Now lets deal with the crazy claim that Constantine created Catholicism. Get a copy of Eusibius’ “History of the church”, which was completed in the early 300s, prior to the Edict of Milan. It will put that claim to rest immediately. He documents church leadership succession in all the major dioceses, including Rome from the time of the apostles. He discusses the establishment and continuity of doctrine and scripture, and quotes liberally from the church fathers on a variety of issues in ways that JM Carroll could only dream of. It might do you good to know that the reason that Constantine stopped persecuting the church was because the growth of Catholic Christianity demanded it. By the time of the Edict of Milan (313AD), almost 1/3 of his subjects were Catholic, including his mother, despite 250 years of persecution. Constantine only converted to Catholicism on his death bed and it didn’t become the state religion for another 70 years of so, under Theodosius I.

 

[joe370]

I can understand why you as a baptist would want to believe that your faith went back to the Apostles, but have you done a critical read of what you sent me? Its all based on teh work of Dr. JM Carroll, who frankly was not a scholar… His work is far from credible. Frankly, he has two major claims:
1> that he can draw a line of succession through the various herectical sects from the apostles to the the present
2> that Catholicism can not claim continually succession because it was created by Constantine.

Both of these claims are specious.

Lets start with the succession argument. He lists the Novations, Montanists, Paulicians and Waldenses as some of the sects taht preserved the Baptists philosophy down through the ages. Had he done even a modicum of research, he would have found that these groups had very little in common with each other or with modern baptism. the Paulicians actually were dualists, like the Manichees, believing in an evil spirit who formed the physical world and was in opposition to the good God, who formed the spiritual future world. The montanists, Novatians and Waldenses were all offshoots of catholicism The Novations and Montanists were extremely conservative sects, who opposed reentry into the church for sinners. The Waldenses actually beleived in infant baptism, which is of course diametrically opposed to the Baptist creed. This is all easily discerned today on the internet.

Now lets deal with the crazy claim that Constantine created Catholicism. Get a copy of Eusibius’ “History of the church”, which was completed in the early 300s, prior to the Edict of Milan. It will put that claim to rest immediately. He documents church leadership succession in all the major dioceses, including Rome from the time of the apostles. He discusses the establishment and continuity of doctrine and scripture, and quotes liberally from the church fathers on a variety of issues in ways that JM Carroll could only dream of. It might do you good to know that the reason that Constantine stopped persecuting the church was because the growth of Catholic Christianity demanded it. By the time of the Edict of Milan (313AD), almost 1/3 of his subjects were Catholic, including his mother, despite 250 years of persecution. Constantine only converted to Catholicism on his death bed and it didn’t become the state religion for another 70 years of so, under Theodosius I.

Paul, you are so right; that is the straight dope. I have researched this extensively. Non-Catholics have no problem believing that The “RCC” guided by the holy spirit, safeguarded the correct inclusion/exclusion of the books in their bibles, for almost 400 years, at which point the “RCC” codified their bibles, all the while claiming that the holy spirit failed to guide the RCC into all truth regarding other things. Never understood that. I mean, if the CC got it wrong regarding things such as the Immaculate conception, purgatory or the true presence, then surely this logic does not preclude the CC from getting it wrong, regarding the bible, and the correct inclusion/exclusion of books?

Yankee, if you read this, am I wrong? Can I really know, with certainty that the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, considering the fact that the reputed “apostate man-made RCC” supposedly got it wrong, regarding the inclusion of the 7 books of the old testament? Can I really know, with certainty that the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, considering the fact that the reputed “apostate man-made RCC” had 400 years to insert their own books into the codified/canonized bible? Isn’t it possible that the RCC could have added to or subtracted from the NT, just as they supposedly did with the OT?? Has the CC been guilty of Eucharistic idolatry for almost 2000 years? If so, what does that say about Jesus, Who built the CC and sent the HS to guide and protect the deposit of faith, through his established church leadership? If you respond by saying: the RCC was not the CC built by Jesus circa 33 AD, then why in the world would the RCC have the right to collect, select and codify the holy bible, to which you call, the infallible word of God? Surely the supposed “true church” built on the foundation of the Apostles would be the proper candidate for such a task? Even if you believe that the Baptist church can trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostles, through the Novations, Montanists, Paulicians, Waldenses or some other movement, none of these movements were responsible for safeguarding and eventually codifying the Canon. If they had been, Jesus’ established church would have fractured long ago, and no doubt we would probably have a different NT.

 

[yankee_drifter]

I can understand why you as a baptist would want to believe that your faith went back to the Apostles, but have you done a critical read of what you sent me? Its all based on teh work of Dr. JM Carroll, who frankly was not a scholar… His work is far from credible. Frankly, he has two major claims:
1> that he can draw a line of succession through the various herectical sects from the apostles to the the present
2> that Catholicism can not claim continually succession because it was created by Constantine.

Both of these claims are specious.

Lets start with the succession argument. He lists the Novations, Montanists, Paulicians and Waldenses as some of the sects taht preserved the Baptists philosophy down through the ages. Had he done even a modicum of research, he would have found that these groups had very little in common with each other or with modern baptism. the Paulicians actually were dualists, like the Manichees, believing in an evil spirit who formed the physical world and was in opposition to the good God, who formed the spiritual future world. The montanists, Novatians and Waldenses were all offshoots of catholicism The Novations and Montanists were extremely conservative sects, who opposed reentry into the church for sinners. The Waldenses actually beleived in infant baptism, which is of course diametrically opposed to the Baptist creed. This is all easily discerned today on the internet.

Now lets deal with the crazy claim that Constantine created Catholicism. Get a copy of Eusibius’ “History of the church”, which was completed in the early 300s, prior to the Edict of Milan. It will put that claim to rest immediately. He documents church leadership succession in all the major dioceses, including Rome from the time of the apostles. He discusses the establishment and continuity of doctrine and scripture, and quotes liberally from the church fathers on a variety of issues in ways that JM Carroll could only dream of. It might do you good to know that the reason that Constantine stopped persecuting the church was because the growth of Catholic Christianity demanded it. By the time of the Edict of Milan (313AD), almost 1/3 of his subjects were Catholic, including his mother, despite 250 years of persecution. Constantine only converted to Catholicism on his death bed and it didn’t become the state religion for another 70 years of so, under Theodosius I.

I am not a Baptist…

Second, you didn’t read all of the links I gave you in its entirety. You “cherry picked” and left out the relevant facts.

How conveniently it gets omitted or denied that the RCC hunted down and persecuted those Christians who gathered together and worshiped and flatly refused to join the RCC. Often these group’s writings were burned as well.

I can understand why you as a roman catholic would believe your faith went back to the apostles…

 

[paul_c]

I am not a Baptist…

Second, you didn’t read all of the links I gave you in its entirety. You “cherry picked” and left out the relevant facts.

How conveniently it gets omitted or denied that the RCC hunted down and persecuted those Christians who gathered together and worshiped and flatly refused to join the RCC. Often these group’s writings were burned as well.

I can understand why you as a roman catholic would believe your faith went back to the apostles…

While I agree that in some cases overzealous members of the Catholic Church persecuted heretics, This was not the norm. Generally, they simply shunned them. Nor was it the reason that these groups died out. The Catholic church itself was subject to withering persecution so it wasn’t a one way street. It was against Emperial law to be a Christian of any type until the Edict of Milan in 325 and the Catholic Church has countless martyrs from this period and despite the efforts of the empire to blot out the Church, there are many of its records that still survive. And lest we forget, Catholics themselves were hunted down after the reformation in country after country. It was illegal to be Catholic in England in the 1500s. it was illegal to be Catholic in France during the Revolution. It was illegal in parts of Germany and Bismark attacked it directly during the 1800s. The communist regimes made it illegal whenever they got power. Yet, Catholicism still thrives with over 1B members worldwide.

Regardless of the persecutions, my analysis is still correct. There is no direct linkage between those old heretical groups and todays Baptist, either doctrinally or organizationally. And the statement about Constantine creating the Catholic Church is without foundation. And why do you insist on refering to the Catholic Church as Roman Catholic, thus limiting its universality?