Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TriuneUnity said:
Uhm, actually…Christians are God’s chosen people. The Israelites were the chosen nation of God under the Old Covenant. His chosen are those who have accepted the full revelation of Himself in the Person of His Son. Those who deny the Christ are most assuredly not a chosen people.
Click to expand...
Christians have been grafted in. God gave Abraham an everlasting covenant. Can you define everlasting?
 
Robbinson said:
Be careful my friend, this sounds like replacement theology. God’s covenant with Abraham was unconditional. There is indeed a special role for Israel in God’s salvation plan. The Jews were and are God’s chosen people - he chose (not by merit, by grace) to use them to teach the world about Him and the difference between holy and unholy and about the coming of the Messiah. While are you correct that God extended his grace to all (jew and gentile) who come to believe in Him through Christ, He did not abandon his covenant with Israel. This is what Romans 11 is telling us - after the full alotment of Gentile come in “all Israel will be saved” (not all Jews of all time, as some believe, but I believe he will cause that remnant to “see” and come to faith, which is consistent with zechariah when it says in the end times they will mourn for the one whom they have pierced and call on the name of the law).

As to God’s plan for those he has willed to be blind - God is merciful and this is a mystery to us.

But - the Church has not replaced Israel in terms of being the “chosen people” - we are just, together with Israel, God’s children and with all believers (Jew and Gentile) part of the mystical body of Christ.

Blessings,

Brian
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, my friend. The promise given to Abraham was not given to the Jewish nation but to all those who would put their trust in the promises of God. The Israel that this was promised to is not the physical, earthly nation, but the spiritual nation that God is redeeming throughout human history. The Israelite nation was given conditional promises in the form of the covenant.

This covenant was based on whether the Jewish nation upheld its end of the agreement.

The key interpretive passage is Romans 9:6 is “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” Here Paul introduces a distinction between Israel in a narrow spiritual sense, and in a broader national sense. God was faithful to spiritual Israel. This Israel has been the recipient of God’s grace and mercy. See Gal. 4:28, Phil. 3:3. In Galatians 6:16, Paul specifically calls the church the Israel of God.

I agree with your interpretation of the latter verses of Romans 11. There is a future for ethnic Israel; however, this future will be the result of their ingrafting to the spiritual Israel…i.e., they will accept Christ as their Savior. It is not connected to land promises, and earthly kingdoms, and the covenants of Old which were repeatedly broken.
 
Hisalone said:
Christians have been grafted in. God gave Abraham an everlasting covenant. Can you define everlasting?
Click to expand...
Christians were not grafted in. Gentiles were grafted in. Big difference. The covenant made with Abraham was, indeed, an everlasting covenant and the fulfillment of that covenant is the grafting in of the gentiles, “Through you, all nations of the earth will be blessed.”

Christians are the same spiritual Israel that Abraham and the Old Testament saints belonged to.
 
Wesley7 said:
The Christian Bible in print is actually a diverse collection of individual books which were listed,compiled,and ordered into existance by the breath of God, the bible is a prouct of God work in instructing, teaching and reproofing His people.
Click to expand...
FIXED
 
MarcoPolo said:
I am not following this thread. What is the logic here? If the writers of the New Testament were born Jews…and then became Christians and wrote the New Testament…the Bible cannot therefore be Catholic. I may be the crazy person in this room, but I am not sure where any of that even makes any sense at all to respond to.
Click to expand...
You are correct, you are making no sense.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
Well first things first.
  1. The bible is not a single books with one writer from cover to cover. It is a compilation for books of different authors lead by the Holy Spirit.
  2. I am not sure I would say it a Catholic book per say, but it was definitely the Catholic Church that gave the world the Bible as was know It. Luther would not have had a Bible to remove books from or add words to if not for the Church. Also remember that the Jewish cannon was compiled after the Christian cannon.
Click to expand...
What books did Luther remove and what words did he add?
 
Hisalone said:
The bible is a Jewish book.
If I take someones song or someoneles movie and claim them to be mine I have stolen that material from them and have made it my own.
The bible says “Thou shall not steal”.
You are ignoring the very book you claim is yours but in fact is not.

God inspired the bible that means he breathed the bible into existance.All credit goes to God. God can use a donkey to do His will. God is the moving agent we are the passive agent.
Click to expand...
Let me try to follow your logic here. what you are saying is this: there was a Church in the past that compiled the Bible into one Book but this Book is not to be held hostage by her but it is to be given away to anyone. and if any wants to be in the Church fine if not any can go and find their own religion based on their own enterpretation of it. where do you even find this suggestion in the Bible i ask you?
 
He didn’t add any books but he did remove the so called “deuterocanonical books” which are 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Baruc, Sirach, Wisdom, Judit & Tobit. Also additions found in greek manuscripts to Esther & Daniel.
Hope it helps:thumbsup:
 
This is one of the silliest premises for an apologetical debate that I have ever seen. Come on, Hisalone - you can do better than this. 😉
 
I don’t think this claim is historically accurate. The Bible is neither a Catholic or a Jewish book, if we mean the Bible was made or commissioned by the Catholic Church or the Jews as a compendium of their doctrines and beliefs. The Old Testament is a set of writings the Jews decided, through a slow process of tradition and selection, represented the authentic revelation of God and his will to their people over history. The New Testament is a series of writings that the Christian Churches agreed represented both their experience of God and also was an authentic revelation of God and his will for the Christian people.
 
pr_catholic said:
He didn’t add any books but he did remove the so called “deuterocanonical books” which are 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Baruc, Sirach, Wisdom, Judit & Tobit. Also additions found in greek manuscripts to Esther & Daniel.
Hope it helps:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
No, he didn’t. All editions of Luther’s translation contain the deuterocanonicals (including Luther’s original).
 
Greg27 said:
I don’t think this claim is historically accurate. The Bible is neither a Catholic or a Jewish book, if we mean the Bible was made or commissioned by the Catholic Church or the Jews as a compendium of their doctrines and beliefs. The Old Testament is a set of writings the Jews decided, through a slow process of tradition and selection, represented the authentic revelation of God and his will to their people over history. The New Testament is a series of writings that the Christian Churches agreed represented both their experience of God and also was an authentic revelation of God and his will for the Christian people.
Click to expand...
did these christians had the same faith, did they all agree on the same teachings of the apostles? what was the name of the Church they were part of?

Peace.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
You now have some company, Marco. I am the other crazy person in the room.

If apostate Catholics wrote the Book of Mormon, would the Book of Mormon have been considered a Catholic book?
Click to expand...
Using your analogy it is as if Jehovahs Witness’ claimed that the book of Mormon was a Jehovah Witness book.
 
Hisalone said:
Everyone of its books (with the possible exception of one) was written by a Jew.
Click to expand...
big deal… Jesus was a Jew… His mother was a Jew, his father…

What is your point??

(You know He converted, dont’ you??) 😃
 
Hisalone said:
Do you think maybe that is why I said with the possible exception.

They were Jews and born again follwoers of Christ.
Do you honestly believe that when one becomes Born Again that in heaven they say oh this one is born again Baptist this one born again Catholic this one born again Methodist?
Click to expand...
Ah, but there would be two exceptions, as Acts is the second part of Luke’s Gosple.

In heaven, everyone will know the Truth, unhendered by human sin. There will not be any Baptist or any other denomination in heaven, as the human failings that split the Church will be gone.

I said Catholic because that is what they were. All of Christianity was Catholic. That is history. I had a feeling that if I said “Christian,” you might start the “Yep, Christian not exclusively Catholic.” line of thought.
 
ibkc said:
This is one of the silliest premises for an apologetical debate that I have ever seen. Come on, Hisalone - you can do better than this. 😉
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s true. I think Hisalone is scraping the bottom of the barrel because this is all Hisalone has. We have refuted everything else Hisalone has said; it seems to me he is clutching at anything to make sense in his mind. Hisalone’s theology leads to he is alone as far as his beliefs. Don’t worry. I’ll say a decade to the BVM, and ask to St. Anthony, St. John the Baptist, and St. Helen (the last two being patrons of converts) to join me in prayer to God for Hisalone.
…Might I ask all who participate in this thread to do the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top