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.
Isa_Almisry said:
Then if you are a he, I assume you are circumcized.

And if you are a she, that you are visiting the mikvah monthly.
Click to expand...
I am circumcized however even if you were not you recieved your sacred scriptures from the Jews.
 
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...
It was his removal of them from withing the old testament that opened the door for those later to exclude them altogether. Not really funny.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
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.
Click to expand...
No my friend we walk according to His word.
 
jmcrae said:
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.
Click to expand...
If he wanted to “try” he would have succeeded since he translated it into German while alone in a castle. Both Luther’s German translation and the KJV in English included the deuterocanon well into the 20th century.
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.
Click to expand...
Again… A translation is not a transliteration. The wording in any translation will be different than the original text. Luther was not the only commentator on Scripture to interpret Rom. 3:28 as “faith alone.” “Justified by faith apart from works of the law” as it appears in most English translations can be enumerated any number of ways from the original Greek.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
It was his removal of them from withing the old testament that opened the door for those later to exclude them altogether. Not really funny.
Click to expand...
He moved them away from the main body of the text to show that the books had been disputed by segments of the Church throughout its history.
 
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...
I do not deny history. Why would you deny the Jews their rightfull place in securing the oracles of God. Scripture even confirms this.
BTW the present day Roman Catolic Church does not resemble the 1st century church so you sir again deny history.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Altar Call
Click to expand...
Funny.

Can’t find “altar call” in the Bible. Acts 2:37-42.

We do have an altar call, though. When the priest brings the Eucharist out from the altar, he says “With the fear of God and with Faith draw near” to which we reply “Blessed is He comes in the Name of the Lord. God is the Lord and has revealed Himself us,” And coming up for communion the priest gives it saying “The servant of God N . . ., partakes of the precious, most holy and most pure Body and Blood of Our Lord, and God and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of his (her) sins and for life everlasting. Amen”

This is another: at Churching (presenting a baby for baptism) the priest takes him to the altar while we sing “Lord now let Thy servant depart in Peace…” (Nunc dimittas Luke 2:29-32)
 
TriuneUnity said:
He moved them away from the main body of the text to show that the books had been disputed by segments of the Church throughout its history.
Click to expand...
He did it because in his mind he knew more that all those that came before him. than those that has established the cannon of scripture some 800 years prior to him. And he would have removed them completely at the time if he had not run into opposition. Now I am not saying that he had no valid complaints, but when things went the way they did he did every thing he could to " protest" Rome that it was only those around him that kept him from becoming a complete hieratic.
 
Hisalone said:
I do not deny history. Why would you deny the Jews their rightfull place in securing the oracles of God. Scripture even confirms this.
BTW the present day Roman Catolic Church does not resemble the 1st century church so you sir again deny history.
Click to expand...
Disciple and pratices differ from the Catholic Church in the first century. However, the belief which is not defined remain consistent. Everything concerning faith and moral remain the same.

The expression of faith. First of all it is the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. History disproves your mere opinion.

The Early Church had bishops, priests, Liturgy, and the belief of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. They also believed that in the Divine Liturgy, the entire community of the Church (the faithful) part take the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in an unbloody manner.
 
Hisalone said:
I do not deny history. Why would you deny the Jews their rightfull place in securing the oracles of God. Scripture even confirms this.
BTW the present day Roman Catolic Church does not resemble the 1st century church so you sir again deny history.
Click to expand...
So what do you do. is your congregation a resemblance of the first century church?

are you still hiding from persecution? do you guys meet in houses because you are afraid of being killed?
do your wear the same type of clothing with veils on your heads?

do you do the break of the bread every day? do you even meet everyday?

do you say the Creed. I believe in One Holy Catholic…?
 
alter calls isn’t in the Bible… nor the the phrase, “Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.”

The Bible does say, that through Jesus Christ, we are saved, that we are to be Baptized in the Name of the Father, And of the Son, and Of the Holy Spirit. The Bible also says that Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach his Apostles all that he has taught us. That we should be obedient to His Church which he has founded.

Jesus is not for your own private worship. He is for everybody who is willing to accept his Gospel message.

Two things does not go well with me concerning Protestantism. The word Alone, and Personal.

That negates the universal savior power of Jesus Christ.
 
Hisalone said:
I am circumcized however even if you were not you recieved your sacred scriptures from the Jews.
Click to expand...
Should you be on the internet on Shabbat?

Btw I’m of the seed of Abraham, so you’re talking about my relatives.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
He did it because in his mind he knew more that all those that came before him. than those that has established the cannon of scripture some 800 years prior to him. And he would have removed them completely at the time if he had not run into opposition. Now I am not saying that he had no valid complaints, but when things went the way they did he did every thing he could to " protest" Rome that it was only those around him that kept him from becoming a complete hieratic.
Click to expand...
Did Cardinal Cajetan intend to protest Rome when he disagreed with the canonicity of the DC? To say Luther did it simply because of separation from Rome is to oversimplify the case.
 
Christianity today isn’t the same as in the First Century. Back the first Christians were Jewish and spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and even Latin. However, in the beginning the Christian way of worship always was Liturgical and it was CENTERED on the Eucharist!
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Funny.

Can’t find “altar call” in the Bible. Acts 2:37-42.

We do have an altar call, though. When the priest brings the Eucharist out from the altar, he says “With the fear of God and with Faith draw near” to which we reply “Blessed is He comes in the Name of the Lord. God is the Lord and has revealed Himself us,” And coming up for communion the priest gives it saying “The servant of God N . . ., partakes of the precious, most holy and most pure Body and Blood of Our Lord, and God and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of his (her) sins and for life everlasting. Amen”

This is another: at Churching (presenting a baby for baptism) the priest takes him to the altar while we sing “Lord now let Thy servant depart in Peace…” (Nunc dimittas Luke 2:29-32)
Click to expand...
That was sarcasm, by the way 😛

Yeah…I like the traditional altar calls much better.
 
Hisalone said:
Everyone of its books (with the possible exception of one) was written by a Jew.
Click to expand...
The old testament is no doubt, the revealed word from Our creator. God through man (old testament) spoke to us in partial ways, but in the fullness of times God spoke to us through Jesus his son who revealed the father to us. The bible is the inspired word of God for all the world. The new testament was written by both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Jews who refused the Messiah, do not accept the New Testament, thereby making it a Christian (Catholic, universal) bible. The Jews removed 7 books from the old testament that the New testament quotes from over 300 times, making it a revelation to all Christians.

God by the Holy Spirit, directed the Catholic church to which Jesus built on Peter, to put all the books of the inspired word of God in one book (bible). The Jews do not recognize the Cannon of the Christian bible, in its entirety. So the Bible is truly The word of God put together by the Catholic church by the authority of the Holy Spirit, that includes the Septuagint a Greek translation from the Hebrew language, from the old testament a Hebrew work, to which the Jews after the first century rejected 7 of these books.

To deny the bible is not a Catholic book is to deny historical fact. What makes the bible a Catholic book not only by the fact the Catholic church put the books together, but Jesus; beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures, see Luke 24:27.

Now that Jesus revealed to the apostles ALL the scriptures that referred to him, making the bible from the old testament a Catholic christian bible fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The new testament gives testimony to Jesus making the new testament a Catholic Christian bible.

IF you still have doubts, ask a Jew if he believes in the Catholic christian bible?

Peace
 
I have read many discussions on the evolution of the Bible by many learned folks on this forum and have come to a conclusion that I’m sure will shock them all as I’m positive it is not what anyone intended. However, the more I learn about the origen of the Bible - the many writing that aren’t included, the long period of oral repititon, the fact that we don’t really even know who wrote most of the books in the NT, the arguments and (church) politics behind the selection of books to be included, the building of an earthly hierarchy and power structure by those very people (IOW, their agenda and their motivations), the more I doubt the authenticity and the interpretation of much of the NT. 😊 🤷
 
Isa and Triune Iespecially): As a (Roman) Catholic I may disagree with certain interpretations you have (though there are really only a handful of areas where we disagree). . .however, I am hoping that my fellow (Roman) Catholics will ‘put aside’ any possible differences (none of which is germane to this thread anyway) in order to publically thank both of you for your unerring and absolutely correct responses to Hisalone’s particular concerns.

After all, we have to consider that from your points of view, “we” are the ones with the ‘problematic’ areas, yet throughout this thread (and others) you have been shining examples of Christian behavior which we would do well to emulate. If all of our ‘fellows’ (Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic) would be able to discuss and to defend the faith ‘together’ the way that we have done on the majority of this thread, for example, I would judge that reunification of the Christian world would not be far behind.

God bless you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top