Wrong bible for first 1500 years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpdmed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
You are missing the point. They are clear this is the historic norm of the East.They do not suggest it is some post schism thing.

Do come clean - you are saying that the East actually added texts post-schism that were not previously part of their canon? Why don’t you show me some proof that is true? Or that the West ever objected to their extra texts, telling them to cease using them?

You should head over to the Eastern Catholic forum and try to maintain this position.
Click to expand...
Schismatics have no authority to modify the Canon. Of the Eastern Catholics only the Maronites have never been in schism and they (as well as the Latin Church) have the other books from the Septuagint that Jerome omitted, but they don’t regard them as canonical.
 
That is your opinion and Anna and many others here do not share it.
1holycatholic said:
This thread boils down to an issue of authority. The Catholic Church has Christ’s authority, Anglicans and others outside the Church do not.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
That is your opinion and Anna and many others here do not share it.
Click to expand...
Well, gurney, I would say beating people over the head with the “invalid orders-Catholic Church is the only authority” club; calling people “schismatics;” and proclaiming a different religious view as “heresy” (which was said to me)-- overshadows the witness of the Catholic faith. And–there are many wonderful things about the Catholic faith. There are Catholics here who truly speak with the love of Christ, and I’ve learned a great deal from them (you being one of them.) I’ve changed many of my views, since I first came here. I’m all for honest and open discussion and my skin is pretty tough; but when the discussion departs from respectful dialogue, it seems rather futile to continue.

Bluegoat is making very good points, but is really not being heard–points are not being acknowledge, even when they are historically accurate.

This thread has lost its appeal, because of the lack of respect demonstrated by some of those posting here.

Peace,
Anna
 
Oh Bluegoat is being heard by me! I always enjoy her posts. We’re kind of in the same mindset and boat much of the time. And if I behave badly she IM’s me and blasts me once in a while to humble me…:D:p
Anna_Scott said:
Well, gurney, I would say beating people over the head with the “invalid orders-Catholic Church is the only authority” club; calling people “schismatics;” and proclaiming a different religious view as “heresy” (which was said to me)-- overshadows the witness of the Catholic faith. And–there are many wonderful things about the Catholic faith. There are Catholics here who truly speak with the love of Christ, and I’ve learned a great deal from them (you being one of them.) I’ve changed many of my views, since I first came here. I’m all for honest and open discussion and my skin is pretty tough; but when the discussion departs from respectful dialogue, it seems rather futile to continue.

Bluegoat is making very good points, but is really not being heard–points are not being acknowledge, even when they are historically accurate.

This thread has lost its appeal, because of the lack of respect demonstrated by some of those posting here.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Oh Bluegoat is being heard by me! I always enjoy her posts. We’re kind of in the same mindset and boat much of the time. And if I behave badly she IM’s me and blasts me once in a while to humble me…:D:p
Click to expand...
I like to keep my blaster handy…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Wrong bible for first 1500 years?
Is there a reason given by Protestants for why God would allow the bible to be in error for the first 1500 years of Christianity?
Click to expand...
The above is the thread topic.
Return there, stay there.
 
Anna_Scott said:
1holycatholic,

You are applying the view of those in Communion with Rome to the Anglican Communion; and it is not the same.

Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed, which includes the statements: “We believe in one holy catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”

The word “Catholic” is understood as universal, meaning Christians in all times and in all places. This belief in the Church as universal, makes it easier for Anglicans to be in communion with other Christians who do not hold the exact same beliefs.

St. Paul addressed the Church in Corinth, as “the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” (1 Corinthians 1:2)

The Anglican Communion shares in an interdependence among ourselves and the wider Church, serving Christ and others with a shared responsibility.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
Point of order.

What “Catholic” means to an Anglican depends on which …aw, you know.

In the 1928 BCP (among others), it’s “Catholic”.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
 
Anna_Scott said:
1holycatholic,

You are applying the view of those in Communion with Rome to the Anglican Communion; and it is not the same.

Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed, which includes the statements: “We believe in one holy catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”

The word “Catholic” is understood as universal, meaning Christians in all times and in all places. This belief in the Church as universal, makes it easier for Anglicans to be in communion with other Christians who do not hold the exact same beliefs.

St. Paul addressed the Church in Corinth, as “the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” (1 Corinthians 1:2)

The Anglican Communion shares in an interdependence among ourselves and the wider Church, serving Christ and others with a shared responsibility.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
GKC said:
Point of order.

What “Catholic” means to an Anglican depends on which …aw, you know.

In the 1928 BCP (among others), it’s “Catholic”.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
Click to expand...
GKC,
I know. Our Parish actually defines “Catholic” in our service leaflets–guess our Rector wants visitors to know what they are confessing in the Nicene Creed. 😉

So, for us “Catholic” is understood as universal, meaning Christians in all times and in all places.

But, like you always say, it depends on who you ask. 😃

Peace,
Anna
 
Depends on which Anglicans you ask, history is complicated, it’s a hobby of mine. The triad of GKC! 😃
GKC said:
Point of order.

What “Catholic” means to an Anglican depends on which …aw, you know.

In the 1928 BCP (among others), it’s “Catholic”.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
Click to expand...
 
Chesterton? Bores me.

Lewis? Doesn’t especially do much for me.

Tolkien? Brilliant but lousy at narrating action scenes! 😛

Guitar-playing and reading John Meyendorff are hobbies of mine 😃
GKC said:
The next triad is Chesterton, Lewis and Tolkien.

It’s a hobby of mine.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Hey, hey, hey, so someone else knows GKC the way I do eh? Watch out now, I’m his apprentice of cliches! 😃
Click to expand...
It’s actually one of the more accurate descriptions of Anglicans I have ever heard. There are hundreds of works out there that try to describe Anglicanism and GKC sums it up much better in five words.

Good luck on you apprenticeship 😉

God bless
 
I guess to answer the OP, I’d say that there was nothing wrong with the Bible for the first 1,500 years. I prefer the Catholic Bible as is, not the KJV or any other quite frankly.
 
Wrong Bible? It seems that the difference is only 7 books of the OT (Deutero-canonicals) that the Protestants generally rejected as Scripture.

Why bother? they could have simply reinterpreted them 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top