Wrong bible for first 1500 years?

[Esdra]

An argument used seemingly to justify many, many denominations. If you really believed in the validity of the Orthodox schism, why aren’t you a member of that Church?

Christ built ONE Church. He prayed for us to be ONE. Paul wrote and said we are to be ‘perfectly’ ONE in the same mind and judgment.

There was only ONE Church. Yes, there was a great schism, but weighing doctrines against doctrines, Orthodox and Catholic are very similar, much more than the many divisions of Protestantism, which also came from the Catholic Church. The debates began with the reformation.

That’s intersting. I realized that you Catholic seem to think that everyone has to become Catholic to be he One Church.
I tell you, this isn’t the case. We ARE all one by the one baptism and our common believe in Christ that He has died for us on the cross and that we are saved through Him. - ALL Trinitarian Christian denominations believe that. - And seen from this perspective we ARE already one.
Our pastor once said, “We are united, if we can pray together interdenominational”.

 

[Modestly_Anne]

Which Protestants?

The Protestants that condemn abortion, or the ones that don’t?

The Protestants that still hold the historical Protestant belief that contraception is gravely evil and sinful, or the ones that don’t believe that anymore because it’s not convenient?

The Protestants that say Baptism is necessary or the ones that say it isn’t?

The Protestants that say a “Rapture is coming on dd/mm/yyyy” or the ones that don’t hold the “Rapture” theory?

The Protestants that say you can’t lose your salvation or the ones that say you can?

The Protestants that say that God only saves the elect and damns everyone else, or the ones who don’t?

etc. etc. etc.

Obviously there are false christians/churchs/teachers.

I just gave a whole group of scripture that share that fact and there were many more I could have included.

However we could ask the same questions and say which Catholics, the ones that believe the Pope is Infallible or the ones that don’t?

Which Catholics, the ones that follow the Magisterium or the ones that don’t? The Eastern church,The SSPX, the Old Catholic Church of America,

Which Catholics, the ones that say the OF is an invalid form of the Mass, or the ones that don’t?

Which Catholics, the ones that say birth control is evil or the ones that get a vasectomy/tubal, possibly repent and then move on with their lives?

Which Catholics the ones that say you can die with a mortal sin not confessed and still be saved or the ones that say one non-confessed mortal sin will damn you to hell for ever?

Which Catholics, the ones that say you can be saved outside the Catholic Church or the ones that don’t?

Which Catholics the ones that believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist or the Ones that Don’t.

Which Catholics, the Priests that teach the teachings of the Catholic Church or the ones that really don’t bother to address any of the big issues any longer and just hand out the Eucharist, even to those not in Full Communion or in a state of Mortal Sin each week?

How do I know this? The same way you know so much about the Protestant Churches. A little research and a lot of reading of the writings on this and other Forums by Catholics and attending Mass.

Yes, I’m sure you’ll say that any of those who hold any of the negatives above are not really in Full Communion with Rome are not really part of the Catholic Church or that they are just sinful men/women or possibly unaware.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

You’re correct Anne, that there are many Catholics that aren’t obedient to the Magisterium, but you can’t use them to judge the doctrines of Catholicism… I don’t use people who leave the Lutheran Church or disagree with it to judge the Lutheran doctrines. You can’t judge Catholicism by the Cafeteria Catholics, but you can judge protestantism by the shear lack of unity on doctrine because most of protestantism use the 5 solas as the rule of faith, yet they all have vastly different beliefs.

 

[mpdmed]

If your Bible doesn’t have the books of Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees 1 and 2, etc. then it is incomplete. Catholic bibles have more books than (most? All?) Protestant bibles.

I think that’s what the OP is referring to. (Or perhaps the reference is to things like Martin Luther being the first one to add “alone” right after the word “faith.” Or maybe it’s something else).

If the bible was OK AS IS for over a thousand years, for the Protestants to change it, they must have thought that it was wrong. Otherwise, they’d still be using Catholic bibles today.

Perhaps the OP can clarify if this isn’t the intended direction of the thread.

Yes thank you ricmat. I was referring to the missing books and the differences in translation (“Faith alone” Vs. “Faith). The fact that books are removed indicates that they did not belong.
The success of any objective depends on clear, concise, correct information. The most important objective on earth in my opinion, is to spread of the word of God. If the collection of books and the translation of the bible was wrong from the beginning of Christianity, surely someone can explain why. Why would God allow the Word to be misinterpreted and lumped together with lesser books for the first thousand years of a campaign for which He gave his only Son.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

That’s intersting. I realized that you Catholic seem to think that everyone has to become Catholic to be he One Church.
I tell you, this isn’t the case. We ARE all one by the one baptism and our common believe in Christ that He has died for us on the cross and that we are saved through Him. - ALL Trinitarian Christian denominations believe that. - And seen from this perspective we ARE already one.
Our pastor once said, “We are united, if we can pray together interdenominational”.

We are united if we can agree on doctrine. Unity is worthless without cohesion on doctrine. We are all Christians by baptism, but we’re not all ONE. I don’t think the unitarian denom.s would appreciate your exclusion of them. At least you hold the Trinity to be an essential part of the faith. What are the other essentials?

 

[mpdmed]

Well, Luther’s translation had 74 books. And both our Bibles lack Macc 3, and some others in Orthodox Bibles.

I’d be happy to clarify it if that’s the question.

Or maybe we in the west should use one of the Orthodox ones.
It isn’t exactly accurate to say that everyone in the CC for 1500 years thought it was ok, either.



Jon

I was referring to the missing books and the differences in translation (“Faith alone” Vs. “Faith). The fact that books are removed indicates that they did not belong.

The success of any objective depends on clear, concise, correct information. The most important objective on earth in my opinion, is to spread of the word of God. If the collection of books and the translation of the bible was wrong from the beginning of Christianity, surely someone can explain why. Why would God allow the Word to be misinterpreted and lumped together with lesser books for the first thousand years of a campaign for which He gave his only Son.

 

[Modestly_Anne]

You’re correct Anne, that there are many Catholics that aren’t obedient to the Magisterium, but you can’t use them to judge the doctrines of Catholicism… I don’t use people who leave the Lutheran Church or disagree with it to judge the Lutheran doctrines. You can’t judge Catholicism by the Cafeteria Catholics, but you can judge protestantism by the shear lack of unity on doctrine because most of protestantism use the 5 solas as the rule of faith, yet they all have vastly different beliefs.

I understand what you are saying, I guess where I really start to wonder is the fact that even though the Orthodox Church does not consider itself under the Pope’s authority the Church allows them to take the Eucharist etc.

To me, if you begin to accept that there was some/any question about the successors etc., or allow exceptions, then you start losing a lot of ground for being The One True Church and it throws more confusion into the mix for others.

If Apostolic succession is a cornerstone of the Church then there should be no exceptions since the Church doesn’t allow any anywhere else.

Is the “doctrine” that Christ taught really not simply put, “To love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself.To accept his free gift of salvation through his death on the cross and resurrection on the third day?”

Of course keeping all the rest of the 10 commandments should follow when we turn and follow Him with a repentant heart, but it’s hard to really believe that the very thick Catechisms of the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches are what Jesus had in mind, when he referred to “His Church”.

 

[1holycatholic]

Obviously there are false christians/churchs/teachers.

I just gave a whole group of scripture that share that fact and there were many more I could have included.

So what? Each of those Protestant groups uses their personal interpretation of the Bible to justify their position. You’re no different. They have no authority and neither do you.

However we could ask the same questions and say which Catholics, the ones that believe the Pope is Infallible or the ones that don’t?

Papal infallibility is dogma. Catholics must hold this as a matter of faith.

Which Catholics, the ones that follow the Magisterium or the ones that don’t? The Eastern church,The SSPX, the Old Catholic Church of America,

How exactly does the existence of schismatics, heretics and sinners prove your point?

Which Catholics, the ones that say the OF is an invalid form of the Mass, or the ones that don’t?

How exactly does the existence of schismatics, heretics and sinners prove your point?

Which Catholics, the ones that say birth control is evil or the ones that get a vasectomy/tubal, possibly repent and then move on with their lives?

How exactly does the existence of schismatics, heretics and sinners prove your point?

Which Catholics the ones that say you can die with a mortal sin not confessed and still be saved or the ones that say one non-confessed mortal sin will damn you to hell for ever?

How exactly does the existence of schismatics, heretics and sinners prove your point?

Which Catholics, the ones that say you can be saved outside the Catholic Church or the ones that don’t?

How exactly does the existence of schismatics, heretics and sinners prove your point?

Which Catholics the ones that believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist or the Ones that Don’t.

How exactly does the existence of schismatics, heretics and sinners prove your point?

Which Catholics, the Priests that teach the teachings of the Catholic Church or the ones that really don’t bother to address any of the big issues any longer and just hand out the Eucharist, even to those not in Full Communion or in a state of Mortal Sin each week?

How exactly does the existence of schismatics, heretics and sinners prove your point?

How do I know this? The same way you know so much about the Protestant Churches. A little research and a lot of reading of the writings on this and other Forums by Catholics and attending Mass.

Yes, I’m sure you’ll say that any of those who hold any of the negatives above are not really in Full Communion with Rome are not really part of the Catholic Church or that they are just sinful men/women or possibly unaware.

How exactly does the existence of the ignorant, schismatics, heretics or sinners prove your point?

Catholics may or may not be in material heresy or formal heresy. That does not change the divine and Catholic faith.

Catholics may or may not be in schism. That does not change the divine and Catholic faith.

Catholics may or may not be in mortal sin. That does not change the divine and Catholic faith.

 

[1holycatholic]

Of course keeping all the rest of the 10 commandments should follow when we turn and follow Him with a repentant heart, but it’s hard to really believe that the very thick Catechisms of the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches are what Jesus had in mind, when he referred to “His Church”.

There is no such thing as a “Protestant Church.”

 

[Modestly_Anne]

There is no such thing as a “Protestant Church.”

According to Merriam Webster you are incorrect…

Church definition

“A building for public or especially Christian worship”

often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians
b : denomination
c : congregation

Definition of PROTESTANT
1
capitalized

: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why is it you asked for verses that you said didn’t exist, I gave them to you, and then you change it all around again and bring it back to a different point.

Honestly, it’s late…Good night, and God Bless.

I’ve asked several questions, some repeatedly, and some seem to be overlooked each time.

You use verses, but no way can I agree with your application or interpretation. For example you used one of Paul’s writings against division, there was one united Church for over a thousand years. Then the great schism happened. 500 years later divisions started and they continue to this day. Denominations rose from denomination, each with slight to great differences in doctrines/teachings. But you feel the Catholic Church was the divider, the wolves in sheep’s clothing? How ironic.

Where do you receive your interpretation of scriptures?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Dear brother prodigalson1,

I have already written that this is worth another thread. I don’t want to bring an entirely other topic from the OP into this thread!

Well then you should consider your posts more carefully. You make a statement that many Protestants saw the Catholic Church in error and then want to end discussion, before anyone can respond to what I consider to be a derogatory remark? Sorry, but it is applicable to this discussion since the ‘erroneous’ Church defined the canon and preserved the scriptures for 1500 years for Protestants to take and study and decide they know it better than the keeper of scriptures for the past 1500 years. It’s not only illogical, it’s arrogant. How do you know that the Church was in error for 1500 years? By what standard, authority, are you declaring the errors? How many generations came and went without, what you consider, to be God’s truth? Was Jesus’ prophesy wrong, the one that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, or the one that He would send the Spirit of Truth to it to guide it in all truths, or that He would be with it until the consummation of the world? That’s what it means to say the Church was in error for 1500 years.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course keeping all the rest of the 10 commandments should follow when we turn and follow Him with a repentant heart, but it’s hard to really believe that the very thick Catechisms of the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches are what Jesus had in mind, when he referred to “His Church”.

Why do we have a New Testament then? Why wouldn’t John 3:16 be all we need, if it’s truly enough?

Read the New Testament and pay attention to who is being addressed and notice that Christ did not teach, or command, the same things from the multitudes as He did those men He chose and appointed. They were given His instructions over the Church. It’s not applicable to every individual.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s intersting. I realized that you Catholic seem to think that everyone has to become Catholic to be he One Church.
I tell you, this isn’t the case. We ARE all one by the one baptism and our common believe in Christ that He has died for us on the cross and that we are saved through Him. - ALL Trinitarian Christian denominations believe that. - And seen from this perspective we ARE already one.
Our pastor once said, “We are united, if we can pray together interdenominational”.

Oh great unity. You come to a Catholic forum and denounce Catholicism with every post and cover it up by saying we say everyone has to become Catholic. Please tell me why you care on a Catholic forum, espousing ‘unity’ while telling Catholics they are wrong on every point? Just how does that work?

Where does scriptures say, we are united if we can pray together?

Do you believe in the 7 sacraments? Let’s start there to see how we are all one.

 

[mpdmed]

I think it’s possible that many Protestants feel that where the CHURCH is spoken of in the New Testament it is actually referring to the body of believers that follow Christ as their Lord and Savior, and not about a hierarchy or some claim to an unbroken line of succession.

It is also quite possible for some to believe that in the same way things have gone wrong in the Church in the past few decades(scandals, cover ups etc.) that there were errors in the understanding/teachings/and therefore traditions not long after the Apostles’ deaths.

I think any of us that have seen the changes, corruption and moral decline in our present day world over just a few decades should be able to entertain the idea that some might hold that major errors in understanding and practice could have been present in just a few decades after the death and resurrection of Christ.

Standing up and taking a stand takes a great deal of courage and it’s possible that over the years many were silenced before they had the chance to speak.

Regardless it seems pretty obvious that the Orthodox feel that their were errors in exactly who holds the unbroken lineage title to the “organized” Church long before the reformation so obviously things were not all rosy nor strongly united, even long before the 1500s.

My main point is the success of any objective depends on clear, concise, correct information. The most important objective on earth in my opinion is to spread of the word of God. If the collection of books and the translation of the bible were wrong from the beginning of Christianity, surely someone can explain why. I understand the Orthodox split happened before the protestant split. None the less my question can be addressed to both sects. Why would God allow the Word to be misinterpreted and lumped together with lesser books for the first years of a campaign for which He gave his only Son? It does not seem plausible to me that man could corrupt His mission from the very start. Do you propose that God set a plan in motion only to have it immediacy distorted then clarified 1500 years later? I Just can’t help but believe that God is a better leader than that.
(I do understand that there were problems and divisions in the Catholic Church within the first 1500 years. Substitute the number 1500 above with any number of lesser value and the question remains the same)

 

[1holycatholic]

According to Merriam Webster you are incorrect…

Church definition

“A building for public or especially Christian worship”

often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians
b : denomination
c : congregation

Definition of PROTESTANT
1
capitalized

: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

According to Jesus who established only one Church you are incorrect.

P.S. The Protestant “Reformation” is a misnomer, it was a deformation not a reformation. The introduction of new heterodox man-made doctrines does not constitute reform, but dissent and deformation.

 

[mpdmed]

I’ve pretty much quoted this word for word from the Catholic Apologetics Study Guides by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham

In 1529, Martin Luther proposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism.

So the Bible was never in error. It is simply a matter of which OT you would rather use - the one that Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament writers and the early Church used, or do you want to use the one that the Sadducees, Pharisees and Rabbinic Jews chose (keeping in mind that these are the very same people who rejected Jesus and in fact, crucified him)?

The answer to the question of which Bible to use seems obvious to me, I want the one Jesus used. But am I missing something? There is a world of non-catholic Christians that choose the latter. Why?

 

[1holycatholic]

The answer to the question of which Bible to use seems obvious to me, I want the one Jesus used. But am I missing something? There is a world of non-catholic Christians that choose the latter. Why?

Are you sure about that? Jesus only refers to the Septuagint which doesn’t contain the New Testament.

 

[Modestly_Anne]

According to Jesus who established only one Church you are incorrect.

P.S. The Protestant “Reformation” is a misnomer, it was a deformation not a reformation. The introduction of new heterodox man-made doctrines does not constitute reform, but dissent and deformation.

No technically, Jesus said there would be false teachers and from that there could certainly be false churches, so even if you conclude that the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ, you can not declare that there is no Protestant Church.

I can’t help but wonder if you were a protestant or an athiest before you swam the Tiber, but I have no doubt you probably ran across people that were more compassionate and helpful as you searched for answers then you are choosing to be.

Just telling me the same over and over, how I’m wrong and that I’m basically not even a Christian, since in your opinion I don’t belong to Christ’s Church.

Thank goodness for more thoughtful Catholics who are willing to share their faith in a way that leads others to understanding not defense and retreat.

 

[1holycatholic]

No technically, Jesus said there would be false teachers and from that there could certainly be false churches, so even if you conclude that the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ, you can not declare that there is no Protestant Church.

I can’t help but wonder if you were a protestant or an athiest before you swam the Tiber, but I have no doubt you probably ran across people that were more compassionate and helpful as you searched for answers then you are choosing to be.

Just telling me the same over and over, how I’m wrong and that I’m basically not even a Christian, since in your opinion I don’t belong to Christ’s Church.

Thank goodness for more thoughtful Catholics who are willing to share their faith in a way that leads others to understanding not defense and retreat.

Where did I say you weren’t a Christian?

Where did Jesus establish multiple Churches?