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.
Mannyfit75 said:
You must be really ignorant. The Word Trinity is not in Scripture. We use the term because the Council of Nicea affirm this belief that God is a Triune God. Three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but ONE GOD. I believe in what the Council taught because the Holy Spirit work through the Church. I do believe in the Trinity that is certain but you have to admit the WORD TRINTY IS NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE.
Click to expand...
You aren’t saying that the belief in the Trinity didn’t exist until Nicea, are you?
 
wisdomseeker said:
why dont you tell us then which other Churches has Jesus found? please i wnat to know. if there is truth out there i would like to know about it.

please dont let me be deceived by the CC.
Click to expand...
I was for decades. Do the Scriptures depict one particular denomination as the Church Jesus founded? Read the Scriptures where Jesus founded his Church. Did he say that all of his followers would be of one institution and all under one roof?? Absolutely not. That’s because he meant nothing of the such.
 
jmcrae said:
These books were added into the Bible by the Church after the Nicene Council.
Click to expand...
The Gospels had circulated in the church for hundreds of years prior to Nicea and the later councils such as Hippo and Carthage.
 
adstrinity said:
No, but, the belief was not defined as Catholic doctrine until Nicea is what the Poster was stating.
Click to expand...
Okay. I would say it would be more accurate to say that the Council declared Arianism to be heretical against the doctrine that had always been taught by the church catholic.
 
SIA said:
I was for decades. Do the Scriptures depict one particular denomination as the Church Jesus founded? Read the Scriptures where Jesus founded his Church. Did he say that all of his followers would be of one institution and all under one roof?? Absolutely not. That’s because he meant nothing of the such.
Click to expand...
what did He mean when He said I will build my Church? and why He did not say churches?

now, give me evidence that the apostles each tought a different doctrine.
give me evidence that we had many different churches teaching different doctrines before and after the apostles went to Heaven.

give me evidence that the Bible is suppost to be enterpreted by each individual.

present me evidence that your church existed before the deformation in the 1600s.

Peace.
 
BSHoop96 said:
The word he added…ALONE…and that’s enough of this ridiculous thread for me. Bye. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I agree with you the thread is ridiculous. Just to give you a hint…any translation has words that the Greek text doesn’t have 🙂
 
TriuneUnity said:
The Gospels had circulated in the church for hundreds of years prior to Nicea and the later councils such as Hippo and Carthage.
Click to expand...
True - they were circulating in the Church, right alongside many other books, most of which didn’t make it into the Bible.

In 2100 AD, a book will be published of the 21 best books of the 21st century. We know that this collection will exist, because it’s a great marketing idea, and someone will use it.

Do you know for a fact right now, which (if any) of the books you have on your nightstand right now will be in that collection?

In the same way, the early Christians knew that there was going to be a Bible, because they already had a Liturgy of the Word - but they had no way of knowing (other than an educated guess) which books were actually going to be in it.
 
SIA said:
I was for decades. Do the Scriptures depict one particular denomination as the Church Jesus founded? Read the Scriptures where Jesus founded his Church. **Did he say that all of his followers would be of one institution and all under one roof?? **Absolutely not. That’s because he meant nothing of the such.
Click to expand...
John 17:20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

It sounds like that is exactly what jesus wanted.
 
jmcrae said:
True - they were circulating in the Church, right alongside many other books, most of which didn’t make it into the Bible.
Click to expand...
Very few books didn’t “make” it into the Bible. Most were gnostic texts that were never used by orthodox Christian congregations. The only ones which were seriously in consideration was the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.
 
TriuneUnity said:
I agree with you the thread is ridiculous. Just to give you a hint…any translation has words that the Greek text doesn’t have 🙂
Click to expand...
Oh darn…now I have to ask a question before I leave. Are you saying that as a justification for Luther adding the word “alone”? Or are you saying he didn’t. And as a Lutheran I know you know what I am referring to.
 
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...
Actually, in part, yes. It wont’ get the Nihil obstat (nor should it), but reading the BoM, you can see where Joseph Smith was coming from.

To give a comparison, if you read the Kitab-i Aqdas, the Bahai’s central book, you can tell that it is from an environment that believed in the Quran, although Muslims look at it as Christians look at the BoM.
 
BSHoop96 said:
Oh darn…now I have to ask a question before I leave. Are you saying that as a justification for Luther adding the word “alone”? Or are you saying he didn’t. And as a Lutheran I know you know what I am referring to.
Click to expand...
No, not really. What I am saying is that a translation always expresses what the Greek is saying. Luther was not the first to interpret Rom. 3:28 as being “faith alone.” Though those church fathers who interpreted it that way were not doing translations, but commentary… ultimately, both are putting into a different language what the Greek is saying. It is translation, not transliteration.
 
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...
Actuallly he didn’t remove them, but he did seperate them and stuck them in between the two Testaments. He also did the same with Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation.
 
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...
the (rabbinic) made their decision after the Church did on the OT.
 
TriuneUnity said:
The Lutheran hymn Now Thank We All Our God is based on Sirach. The Small Catechism, for the 8th commandment, has an illustration using imagery from the story of Susanna. Wisdom 18:14-15 provide the testimony on which Christians understood Christ’s birth to have occurred when night was “half-spent,” thus giving us the carol, “It Came Upon the Midnight Clear.” And any Lutheran who has attended the Easter Vigil and sung the Benedicte, Omnia Opera, that is, “All You Works of the Lord” will note that it is the Song of the Three Young Men (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) who were thrown into the fiery furnace and kept safe by the pre-incarnate Christ. However, that song is not in the Hebrew text of Daniel, and so is not known to most Christians, since their English translations are taken from the Hebrew.

Clearly, the deuterocanonicals belong in the treasury of every Christian’s Bible, while we understand them to be of lesser authority than the canonical books.
Click to expand...
NOT A SINGLE Christian manuscript of the Bible does not contain these Books. Not one.

If you are going to use the Masoretic, text, which was not fixed until the 7th century, you had better follow the Jews in everything else and deny that Jesus is the Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top