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.
ibkc said:
The New Testament was written by Jewish followers of Christ and the founders of a new religion called Christianity. The canon of the Bible was determined several hundred years later by the Catholic Church, translated into the Vulgate by a Catholic, and received its present form courtesy of the Catholic Church.

Next?
Click to expand...
Christianity was not a new religion but a maturing or a completing the Jewish religion. Christianity did not begin in a vacum.
The translator BTW rejected the apocrypha however he translated the words that were scribed by Jews.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Don’t the Orthodox have a greater number of DC books than Rome does?
Click to expand...
yes, a few more, and the Ethiopians more still (they are the only ones with the Book of Enoch that the Epistle of Jude quotes). We call them . We call them Anagignoskomena, “what is read,” and have a slightly different take on the canon than either Protestants or Trent.
 
Hisalone said:
What is sillyis any attempted claim that the bible is a Catholic Book. God entrusted the Jews with the bible. However it is His work.
Click to expand...
No, He entrusted it to the Hebrews who were Christians, whether Abraham, who saw Christ’s day and was glad, or Moses and the other Prophets who wrote of Him.
 
wisdomseeker said:
did you get the Bible from the hands of the Jews?
Click to expand...
If they are Protestant, probably.

And to be fair, if you are under the Vatican, probably too: Jerome chucked the LXX for some Hebrew text he received and learned from the rabbinic Jews of his day.
 
Hisalone said:
Christianity was not a new religion but a maturing or a completing the Jewish religion. Christianity did not begin in a vacum.
The translator BTW rejected the apocrypha however he translated the words that were scribed by Jews.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true, but close enough to show Jerome’s mistake. As St. Augustine pointed out, we walk according to the Apostles, and not the pharisees, sadduccess and scribes.
 
Hisalone said:
Everyone of its books (with the possible exception of one) was written by a Jew.
Click to expand...
But who canonized Scripture?

Even though I am an Anglican and I have several disagreements with Roman Catholic doctrine, I think it is wrong to deny Roman Catholicisms importance in the historical and theological development of Christianity. It seems some Protestants wish to truly revise history and expunge all involvement, even mention, of the Roman Catholic Church for that unbounded ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ OHCAC] (as the Nicene Creed puts it).

I think it is shameful and I now realize why I turned away from such Christian Fundamentalism and so-called Non-Denominational Christianity. History just does not bear it out. One cannot deny that, for the first millennium, the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy were the near singular expression of the OHCAC. Between the Great Schism and the Reformation, Roman Catholicism was the dominant, if not singular, force in Western Christianity. Why, even my own Anglicanism can trace its Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury, who was consecrated by Pope Gregory the Great.

Hisalone, do not deny history. It does not look good.
 
Hisalone said:
One cannot be Born again and not be a member of Christs Church. Therefore no man can exclude what the Holy Ghost has included.
Click to expand...
And you get that baptism to be born again and receive the Holy Spirit from where?
 
nsper7 said:
But who canonized Scripture?

Even though I am an Anglican and I have several disagreements with Roman Catholic doctrine, I think it is wrong to deny Roman Catholicisms importance in the historical and theological development of Christianity. It seems some Protestants wish to truly revise history and expunge all involvement, even mention, of the Roman Catholic Church for that unbounded ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ OHCAC] (as the Nicene Creed puts it).

I think it is shameful and I now realize why I turned away from such Christian Fundamentalism and so-called Non-Denominational Christianity. History just does not bear it out. One cannot deny that, for the first millennium, the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy were the near singular expression of the OHCAC. Between the Great Schism and the Reformation, Roman Catholicism was the dominant, if not singular, force in Western Christianity. Why, even my own Anglicanism can trace its Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury, who was consecrated by Pope Gregory the Great.

Hisalone, do not deny history. It does not look good.
Click to expand...
Oh no, they are not allowed by their religions to accept the history of the Church. that would be too dangerous for them.
they got much to loose by it.

they can only go back as far as their religion started. because there was no christianity before them. do you not know that in their minds Catholics are not christians? so, christianity begin with them.

there is why they adopt the name christians.

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of ‘ALL’ nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe ‘ALL’ that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you ‘ALL’ days, even unto the consummation of the world.”
 
nsper7 said:
But who canonized Scripture?

Even though I am an Anglican and I have several disagreements with Roman Catholic doctrine, I think it is wrong to deny Roman Catholicisms importance in the historical and theological development of Christianity. It seems some Protestants wish to truly revise history and expunge all involvement, even mention, of the Roman Catholic Church for that unbounded ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ OHCAC] (as the Nicene Creed puts it).

I think it is shameful and I now realize why I turned away from such Christian Fundamentalism and so-called Non-Denominational Christianity. History just does not bear it out. One cannot deny that, for the first millennium, the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy were the near singular expression of the OHCAC. Between the Great Schism and the Reformation, Roman Catholicism was the dominant, if not singular, force in Western Christianity. Why, even my own Anglicanism can trace its Apostolic Succession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury, who was consecrated by Pope Gregory the Great.

Hisalone, do not deny history. It does not look good.
Click to expand...
Under Pope Damasus, the canon of Scripture was accepted as Divinely Inspired in 382 at a council in Rome
 
TriuneUnity said:
What books did Luther remove and what words did he add?
Click to expand...
He remove the from the Old testament the 7 Deuterocanonical and move them to a section all by them self. he tried to have the epistle for James and the book of the Revelation for St John removed. and he added the word alone after faith.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
He remove the from the Old testament the 7 Deuterocanonical and move them to a section all by them self. he tried to have the epistle for James and the book of the Revelation for St John removed. and he added the word alone after faith.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the original poster to whom I was responding meant that Luther moved them to a different section of the text LOL.

The order it appears in is irrelevent. It’s still there.
 
TriuneUnity said:
I don’t think the original poster to whom I was responding meant that Luther moved them to a different section of the text LOL.

The order it appears in is irrelevent. It’s still there.
Click to expand...
Luther wanted to remove both the deuterocanon of the Old Testament, and the deuterocanon of the New Testament. He didn’t succeed in this - it took another hundred years before the deuterocanon of the Old Testament was removed from Protestant bibles.

He did alter the wording of several passages of Scripture to conform them to his own understanding of theology, including the famous “faith alone” passage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top