Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

[Rachel]

A while back I was talking to one of my Catholic friends about church and all. She mentioned that at her church (its a big one too) she doesn't see anyone ever carry their bibles to church. She also said she's never heard her Priest say you should read and/or study the Bible for themselves. I've heard that many times that Catholics don't carry their bibles or even read them at home. I know some have to, I hope? I'm sure some have to have that desire to learn about God?

Do any Catholic Priests out there tell their flock they should read/study their Bibles or is this everywhere that they don't??

She mentioned that her sister gave her something nice and she put it on her fridge, she said about God loving the world. I said do you mean John 3:16 For God so loved the world......
She said yes that's it! I was so shocked she didn't know that was in the Bible and she also asked me if the ten commandments were in the Bible! She's completely ignorant of what's in there. I was just completely stunned let me tell you!! I told her how important it was for us to read the bible for ourselves and can and will help so much in life when you get the Word of God in you. But really, I don't think she takes it that seriously but I'm sure she might if her Priest said it.

This is just so sad! :( Do Catholics learn anything about God in church or what? :confused:

I would really appreciate some responses from Catholics here about this too.

Thank you!
God Bless,
Rachel graemlins/saint.gif

[Gold Dragon]

Sadly, your friend and their priest is representative of many Catholics. Sadly, many Baptists are also fairly illiterate of the Bible as well if they don't make a conscious effort to study it.

However, many of the Catholics I know carry bibles with them and read it daily.

[Monergist]

Let us not forget that many were persecuted violently and killed by the Catholics for simply printing, distributing or owning a Bible.

[matthew1624]

Originally posted by Rachel:
A while back I was talking to one of my Catholic friends about church and all. She mentioned that at her church (its a big one too) she doesn't see anyone ever carry their bibles to church. That's because the bibles are in the pews.


She also said she's never heard her Priest say you should read and/or study the Bible for themselves. I've heard that many times that Catholics don't carry their bibles or even read them at home. I know some have to, I hope? I'm sure some have to have that desire to learn about God?On the contrary, my priest encourages us. He reminds us of the words that catholic bible scholar St. Jerome said "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ". I read my bible everyday and I carry them with me everywhere I go. As a matter of fact I carry my RSV-CE and carry the following pocket bibles: NAB, KJV, and the Franklin NIV Electronic bible. I've actually influenced a Baptist co-worker of mine to purchase a pocket bible.

I was so shocked she didn't know that was in the Bible and she also asked me if the ten commandments were in the Bible! She's completely ignorant of what's in there. I was just completely stunned let me tell you!! I told her how important it was for us to read the bible for ourselves and can and will help so much in life when you get the Word of God in you. But really, I don't think she takes it that seriously but I'm sure she might if her Priest said it.I'm sure that this is not just a Catholic problem. It's prevalent throughout, even those in your congregation. Keep in mind though that the bible was not readily available until after the printing press was invented. For 1500+ years no one carried a personal copy of a bible with them unless they were rich.

This is just so sad! :( Do Catholics learn anything about God in church or what?

I would really appreciate some responses from Catholics here about this too.

Thank you!
God Bless,
Rachel graemlins/saint.gif Yes, catholics learn about God in church. And yes, some manage to have eyes but not see, have ears and not hear. The door to our hearts must be opened from within.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by matthew1624:
May the peace of Christ be with you. Pax Christi, matthew1624. graemlins/thumbs.gif

[donnA]

There are bibles in the pews at my church too, but usually only visitors use them everyone else carries a bible of their own.
Somesone said many baptists don't read their bibles everyday, and sadly that is true. Some of the same ones who carry one to church each week. It isn't just the RCC's, which is also sad. You'd be surprised, the people on here who do a lot of studying and know their bibles are not average.

[Bro. Curtis]

I've never heard one say don't read the Bible, but every one of them will say read it, and compare it with the church's traditions. Tradition is equal to scripture, even trumping it in a few areas.

[matthew1624]

Originally posted by Monergist:
Let us not forget that many were persecuted violently and killed by the Catholics for simply printing, distributing or owning a Bible. Hmmm....why did catholic monks work tirelessly throughout the centuries making copies of Sacred Scripture if the church truly wanted them destroyed? You and I owe a tremendous debt to the catholic church for preserving the Sacred Scriptures.

With all due respect, let us not also forget that John Calvin (in 1522) had as many copies of the Servetus Bible burned since he did not approve of it. Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian. In those days it was common practice on both sides to burn unapproved books. Finally it is one matter to destroy the real thing and another to destroy a counterfeit.

Baruch Hashem Adonai

[west]

I went to a Catholic School from Kindergarden to 8 th grade .And all the Masses I went to from the age of 5 till 30 years old .I never heard anyone tell me to read the Bible .

[DHK]

Originally posted by matthew1624:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rachel:
[qb] A while back I was talking to one of my Catholic friends about church and all. She mentioned that at her church (its a big one too) she doesn't see anyone ever carry their bibles to church. That's because the bibles are in the pews.
</font>[/QUOTE]That's a surprise. They were not in the pews in any of the Catholic churches I have been to. I was never encouraged, but rather discouraged to read the Bible. The catechism was always pushed. What was in the pews were the missals. Be honest.
DHK

[Living4Him]

What was in the pews were the missalsDKH,
Come on... the missals contain the daily scripture reading in one convenient place. You know that, but with your statement you are misleading people to think that Catholics don't hear the Word of God at Church.

You also know that the Gospels are always the most important reading.

Both CATECHESI TRADENDAE Of Pope John Paul II and EVANGELII NUNTIANDI Of Pope Paul VI
state,
"In our "anxiety for all the Churches,"[8] we would like to help our brethren and sons and daughters to reply to these inquiries. Our words come from the wealth of the Synod and are meant to be a meditation on evangelization. May they succeed in inviting the whole People of God assembled in the Church to make the same meditation; and may they give a fresh impulse to everyone, especially those "who are assiduous in preaching and teaching,"[9] so that each one of them may follow "a straight course in the message of the truth,"[10] and may work as a preacher of the Gospel and acquit himself perfectly of his ministry. Such an exhortation seems to us to be of capital importance, for the presentation of the Gospel message is not an optional contribution for the Church. It is the duty incumbent on her by the command of the Lord Jesus, so that people can believe and be saved. This message is indeed necessary. It is unique. It cannot be replaced. It does not permit either indifference, syncretism or accommodation. It is a question of people's salvation. It is the beauty of the Revelation that it represents. It brings with it a wisdom that is not of this world. It is able to stir up by itself faith - faith that rests on the power of God.[11] It is truth. It merits having the apostle consecrate to it all his time and all his energies, and to sacrifice for it, if necessary, his own life.and
...a universal call to holiness, in the renewed appreciation of the Sacred Scriptures, and in the greater openness of Catholics to the mission of the Church which includes the evangelization fo the world.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What was in the pews were the missalsDKH,
Come on... the missals contain the daily scripture reading in one convenient place. You know that, but with your statement you are misleading people to think that Catholics don't hear the Word of God at Church.

You also know that the Gospels are always the most important reading.</font>[/QUOTE]The statement was: "They (referring to the word "Bibles" of the previous statement) are in the pews." That is an outright lie.
DHK

[Living4Him]

The statement was: "They (referring to the word "Bibles" of the previous statement) are in the pews." That is an outright lie.Not necessarily. Our parish uses missalette's.
The Cathedral has Bibles in the pew and a 8x11 card with the creeds, etc.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The statement was: "They (referring to the word "Bibles" of the previous statement) are in the pews." That is an outright lie.Not necessarily. Our parish uses missalette's.
The Cathedral has Bibles in the pew and a 8x11 card with the creeds, etc. </font>[/QUOTE]If your cathedral has Bibles, its a first. I've never seen them in my travels in all the Catholic churches I have been to. Missals, I have seen plenty of. I think I still have one stashed away somewhere. As far as I am concerned, saying that a missal is the Word of God is wrong. The right illustration here is the missal contains the Word of God in as much as the Koran contains the Word of God. So they both contain verses from the Bible. A farmer uses grain with a little rat poison. Its the poison that contaminates the whole.
DHK

[Living4Him]

The right illustration here is the missal contains the Word of God in as much as the Koran contains the Word of God. So they both contain verses from the Bible.The missals are on a three year cycle...meaning every three years the Bible is read completely through. How often does your preacher read every verse in the Bible?

[Kathryn]

Here is the Word of God for tomorrow, June 19, 2005, that all Catholics all over the world who go to Church will hear and can follow in their missalettes:


Jeremiah 20: 10 - 13

10 For I hear many whispering. Terror is on every side! "Denounce him! Let us denounce him!" say all my familiar friends, watching for my fall. "Perhaps he will be deceived, then we can overcome him, and take our revenge on him." 11 But the LORD is with me as a dread warrior; therefore my persecutors will stumble, they will not overcome me. They will be greatly shamed, for they will not succeed. Their eternal dishonor will never be forgotten. 12 O LORD of hosts, who triest the righteous, who seest the heart and the mind, let me see thy vengeance upon them, for to thee have I committed my cause. 13 Sing to the LORD; praise the LORD! For he has delivered the life of the needy from the hand of evildoers.


Psalms 69: 8 - 10, 14, 17, 33 - 35

8 I have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother's sons. 9 For zeal for thy house has consumed me, and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me. 10 When I humbled my soul with fasting, it became my reproach. 14 rescue me from sinking in the mire; let me be delivered from my enemies and from the deep waters. 17 Hide not thy face from thy servant; for I am in distress, make haste to answer me. 33 For the LORD hears the needy, and does not despise his own that are in bonds. 34 Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and everything that moves therein. 35 For God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah; and his servants shall dwell there and possess it;


Romans 5: 12 - 15

12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- 13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.


Matthew 10: 26 - 33

26 "So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.


Many Catholics read the readings themselves at home before the Mass in their own Bibles. There is no need to bring the Bible, because the Word is presented in the missalette. Every day of the week the Word of God is presented in the daily services. The Word of God is the Word of God whether it is spoken or written.

[Kathryn]

Here is todays readings:

2 Corinthians 12: 1 - 10

1 I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. 6 Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. 8 Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; 9 but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.


Psalms 34: 8 - 13

8 O taste and see that the LORD is good! Happy is the man who takes refuge in him! 9 O fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him have no want! 10 The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing. 11 Come, O sons, listen to me, I will teach you the fear of the LORD. 12 What man is there who desires life, and covets many days, that he may enjoy good? 13 Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.


Matthew 6: 24 - 34

24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. 25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, `What shall we eat?' or `What shall we drink?' or `What shall we wear?' 32 For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. 34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.

[Kathryn]

Luke 8
21. But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

Luke 11
28. But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

According to God Himself, there is something very special about "hearing" the word of God.

[Ps104_33]

If Roman catholics get any Bible these days its more than likely a reaction to the accusation of ex-catholics in Baptist Churches testifying that they never read the Bible as a Catholic. Roman Catholics have left the Catholic Church in droves over the past 30 years of so as a result of a hunger for the Word of God. Hence the sudden interest in the Bible among Catholics.

[violet]

I don't think that's the reason. Let's look at history... Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the masses were in Latin. After V2, the masses were in English-- with Scripture reading (and homily) as a full half of the Mass. So... you're saying that there was an exodus of people out of the RCC once they were hearing Scripture in English during mass? I would agree that many people left the RCC, but I would contend that it's due to poor catechisis about the faith rather than a hunger for the Word. I would venture a guess that most of the people who left the Catholic Church ended up in NO church whatsoever...

[Living4Him]

I would agree that many people left the RCC, but I would contend that it's due to poor catechisis about the faithI agree that it's more likely because of poor catechisis than any other reason. The Church doesn't deny that there was a large generation of those who were not properly educated in the faith.

I know a few people who have left and then they usually return. Those who return it is because they have studied the faith and they come to realize what they had lacked all along.

[neal4christ]

Many Catholics carry missals to church, which contains the Sacred Scripture readings for the day. And yes, there are priests that do encourage reading the Scriptures. Both of mine push it tirelessly. smile.gif Sadly, many Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics) are illiterate of Sacred Scripture. However, I must say, there is more Scripture read during Mass than any Protestant service I had been to my first 26 years. So to say Catholics do not care about Scipture is an outright falsehood.

In Christ,
Neal

[neal4christ]

Roman Catholics have left the Catholic Church in droves over the past 30 years of so as a result of a hunger for the Word of God.Then they must have not paid attention during Mass. There are three distinct Scripture readings plus a responsorial psalm from the Psalms.

In Christ,
Neal

[violet]

In just checking the websites of the Catholic parishes in my area, I notice that they all have bible studies...

[D28guy]

"I went to a Catholic School from Kindergarden to 8 th grade .And all the Masses I went to from the age of 5 till 30 years old .I never heard anyone tell me to read the Bible ."I was raised Catholic and I dont recall ever...in 8 years of Catholic grade school...ever hearing any priest, nun, or lay worker ever suggest we own a copy of the scriptures and feed on them regularly. I never once saw one in our church anywhere...the gigantic one that the priest read from each mass.

Probably one reason would be that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Teaching Majesterium...those Catholic Hierarchial leaders who formulate Catholic doctrine...are the only people on earth who are qualified to interpret scriptures, and all Catholic people are commanded that they must accept "Holy Mother Churchs" interpretations of the scriptures fully.

As a result, they can keep their people firmly in their clutches with the least amount of resistance.

It must be that way, because if people freely feed on Gods scriptures they will come to see that multitudes of foundational Catholic teachings...the priesthood, the teaching majestierum, the "literal presence" in the eucharist, Mary worship, the rosary, the vain repetitions of prayer, worship of deceased saints, the mass, the so called neccesity of confession of sins to a so called "priest", etc etc etc...are all unbiblical and they will flee and seek true new testament fellowship.

Sadly,

Mike

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The right illustration here is the missal contains the Word of God in as much as the Koran contains the Word of God. So they both contain verses from the Bible.The missals are on a three year cycle...meaning every three years the Bible is read completely through. How often does your preacher read every verse in the Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]Since I am the preacher, I am not sure--at least three times a year in my personal time, with a lot more Bible study. Just the other day I read through the Book of Acts and half way through Romans, and that was just to answer a question on justification by faith by a poster on this board. I spend lots of time reading my Bible.

Most of our church members make it a point to read their Bibles through at least once a year without being spoonfed from the preacher.

I started preaching from the First Epistle of Peter some time around January. Tonight I expounded on IPet.3:9-12. During these past months I have thoroughly taught and preached every verse up to this point (1Pet.3:12), and have 411 pages of notes to show for it. One sermon lasts about 40 minutes. Our congregation is taught the meat of the Word. As opposed to the dozen or so verses that Kathryn posts that are simply read in church, we have a good 40 minutes of expository preaching all on the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Our people have a wonderful understanding of the Bible, and for a good reason. Systematically, one book after another (both Old Testament and New) we preach.
DHK

[Matt Black]

When I was being raised Catholic, we were taught at school to read Scripture for ourselves, albeit with the aid of commentaries from Church Tradition. And there were always four Scripture readings at every Mass plus a sermon which usually commented on them.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Living4Him]

I homeschooled my 10 yr. old son. He just completed the 4th grade and I used Seton Catholic Homeschool.

In Religion class, scripture was always referenced and on several assignments, my son had to look up the passages in the Bible.

In English class, he had to read a set passage in the Bible and write a paragraph summarizing what he read. He read and wrote about Samson, Moses in the River Nile, the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, and when Elisabeth and Zacharias received the news that she would give birth to John.

[Doubting Thomas]

If one approaches/reads/studies the Scriptures with the wrong theological presuppositions, no matter how many times he may read the Bible or how many hours he may spend "exegeting" it or how many pages of notes he may take during his efforts, there's a strong possibility he'll still arrive at the wrong conlusions about what Scripture means. (I'll leave it at that.)

[mioque]

DHK
You will be done covering I Peter in what? Early November?

And to answer the original question.
Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible? I've heard a number of priests say that.
However I've never done any research about the phenomenon of priests imploring others to read Scripture so I can't say how common it is.
I do know it has steadily become more and more common since the beginning of the last century.

[donnA]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The right illustration here is the missal contains the Word of God in as much as the Koran contains the Word of God. So they both contain verses from the Bible.The missals are on a three year cycle...meaning every three years the Bible is read completely through. How often does your preacher read every verse in the Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]More often then once every three years.

[violet]

I think L4H meant in church... not personally.

[DHK]

Originally posted by mioque:
DHK
You will be done covering I Peter in what? Early November?Maybe. But I don't know for sure. It could be longer. I'll get finished when I'll get finished. In other words I have no set schedule. Some passages lend themselves to much more study and exposition than others.

And to answer the original question.
Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible? I've heard a number of priests say that.
However I've never done any research about the phenomenon of priests imploring others to read Scripture so I can't say how common it is.
I do know it has steadily become more and more common since the beginning of the last century. If Catholic priests encourage their people to read their Bible instead of their Catechism there has been a great change since I have been in the Catholic Church, which I am very skeptical to believe. Since, just by talking to Catholic epologists on this board, I know that they are dead set against both soul liberty and especially sola scriptura, even the encouragement of reading of Scripture becomes fruitless. If one is not allowed to "interpret" the Scripture in the light of what he believes to be true, or in the light of what God shows him to be true, what value is the Scripture, or the study thereof? It is all very contradictory.
DHK

[D28guy]

DHK,

"If one is not allowed to "interpret" the Scripture in the light of what he believes to be true, or in the light of what God shows him to be true, what value is the Scripture, or the study thereof? It is all very contradictory."It most certainly is. Its a false freedom. In other words, if the CC ever encourages that their people feed on the scriptures, it is with a condition.

"Ok, if you want to do it feel free to read from the scriptures, but dont you dare ever think it says anything but what WE TELL YOU it says".

Because of course nobody on earth is capable of correctly interpreting the scriptures but the Teaching Majesterium of Rome.

Which, by the way is the identical thing that people like Jim Jones and David Koresh and groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons tell their people.

Not a good group to run with.

Mike

[Living4Him]

If one is not allowed to "interpret" the Scripture in the light of what he believes to be true, or in the light of what God shows him to be true, what value is the Scripture, or the study thereof?But how about all these people that profess it was "revealed to them by the Holy Spirit" and it is different for the baptist, methodist, SA, ect?

How can that be when the Holy Spirit is God and God cannot deceive nor be deceived?

[Rachel]

Alot of interesting posts here.

I'm glad at least some priests tell their congregation to read the Word for themselves.

Rachel

[Kathryn]

As a Catholic I read Holy Scripture on my own at home and attend Bible Study in my parish, but I love to hear the Word of God at daily Mass.

In Holy Scripture Jesus says:

Luke 8
21. But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

Luke 11
28. But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."


For so much of Christian history most people could not even read, but the select well educated. I wonder why Protestants seem to put more of an importance on "reading", than "hearing" the Word of God, which is more scriptural.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
As a Catholic I read Holy Scripture on my own at home and attend Bible Study in my parish, but I love to hear the Word of God at daily Mass.

In Holy Scripture Jesus says:

Luke 8
21. But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

Luke 11
28. But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."


For so much of Christian history most people could not even read, but the select well educated. I wonder why Protestants seem to put more of an importance on "reading", than "hearing" the Word of God, which is more scriptural. The historical era known as the "Dark Ages" when the greater part of the populace was illiterate, were illiterate for the simple reason that the Catholic hierarchy kept the Word of God out of the hands of the common people. They kept them illiterate so that it would be impossible to be educated in the Word of God.
What does God's Word say?
"The entrance of thy Word gives light."
The Catholics made sure they were kept in the dark.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."
I wonder why Protestants seem to put more of an importance on "reading", than "hearing" the Word of God, which is more scriptural.Is It? Then how do you account for these Scriptures and commands?

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Psalms 1:1-2 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

The commands of the Bible are first and foremost to: Search the Scriptures, study them, read them, and meditate upon them. Why?
Because faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. Check the context of the verse before you quote it. A preacher must be a student of the Word, dig deep into its depths, allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate his mind to its truths, in order that he may be prepared to preach the word to others, that others might hear the word of God; for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Check again the context of Romans 10

Romans 10:13-17 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
DHK

[Kathryn]

" So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

and how shall they hear without a preacher? " And this is why Jesus established His Church and gave it the Great Commission and sent it to go out to teach all he commanded to all nations. He sent them out to teach the Gospel, the Word of God, which He Himself made sure they understood, and followed up with sending the Holy Spirit.

In Scripture Jesus explained the Old Testament so His Church would have the correct understanding. He also spent 3 years teaching His Church the gospel and what His Word is. This correct understanding was what was taught and passed down through the Church.

Scripture doesn't tell people to just read the Bible on your own and the Holy Spirit will give you the correct interpretation. This is how we get hundreds of denominations, and anyone can decide to open a church.


As far as the Church keeping people illiterate, it was the Catholic monks that preserved by hand Holy Scripture and most literature, after the fall of the Roman Empire and through the plague and the resultant "Dark Ages". The schools and universities were a product of the Catholic Church. The printing press was not invented for 15 hundred years after the time of Christ. When it was invented, by a Catholic, the Church mass produced Bibles in both latin and english and other languages.

The Catholic Douay Rheims Version, I believe, is the first English translation, predating the King James Version. It's the version I personally use myself.


“Douay-Rheims: a Story of Faith

A quirk in history means English-speaking Catholics must go to France to trace the origins of the Bible printed in their language.

Penal laws during Queen Elizabeth's reign in the 16th century deprived English Catholics of freedom to practice their religion. Masses had be to said in secret. Those who refused to attend services in the established Church of England were called "recusants" and were subject to prosecutions.

Many recusants fled the island to maintain their faith. A major refuge for these exiles was the town of Douai (Anglicized to "Doway" and, later, "Douay") where an English college had been established by Father (later Cardinal) William Allen to train priests.

Now part of France, Douay at the time was under the Spanish dominions of the Catholic King Philip II, former Prince Consort of Queen Mary Tudor and an ally of English Catholics. Since Catholic books were suppressed in England, Douay also became a major publishing center. Well-armed in the battle of words with their religious adversaries across the channel, English Catholic recusants produced a major body of literature emanating continuously from Douay and other cities on the continent, such as St. Omer and Antwerp.

It was during this period that Douay scholars produced the one work that would do the most to memorialize the name of their college throughout the English-speaking world: the Douay version of the Bible.

Actually, work on the Bible began in the city of Rheims, where the college had relocated temporarily in 1578. The principal translator was Father Gregory Martin, who had joined the exiles at Douay in 1570 so he could freely practice his religion. He began work on the translation in 1578, assisted by Father Allen and others. Father Martin used the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible) as his basis. An accomplished scholar in Hebrew and Greek, he consulted early texts in those languages, as well as earlier English sectarian translations before arriving at his own final text.

The result was the translation that would become the basis for Catholic Bibles in the English language for nearly the next four centuries.

Due to limited resources, only the New Testament was published first, in 1582. It included an extensive body of apologetic annotations written in the controversial tone typical of the time and refuting common biblical interpretations that had been used against the Catholic Church.

It was called the Rheims (Anglicized to Rhemes) New Testament for the city of publication. The Old Testament was later published in two volumes in 1609-1610, after the college had returned to Douay. That's why the complete Bible is known as the Douay-Rheims, or simply the Douay, Bible.

Copies of the Rheims New Testament were smuggled into England despite official proscription, and it immediately caused concern among leaders of the established church. Their dedication to widespread circulation of the Bible did not extend to Catholic translations. Rheims became the subject of several critical works. One recurring criticism was for its use of obscure words, such as "exinanited" in Philippians 2:7. (A modern translation reads: "Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave.")

As explained in the preface, some words of the sacred text do not have precise English equivalents. Rather than risk changing the original sense, it was decided to simply Anglicize some Vulgate words. To assist the reader, a glossary of such terms was appended to the text. Despite the wave of criticism, the overwhelming merit of Father Martin's scholarship prevailed.

Translators of the King James Version of 1611 even borrowed renderings from Rheims. Many of the obscure words mentioned in the glossary—"neophyte" and "resuscitate," for example—are now in everyday use.

An urgent prayer at the end of the Rheims New Testament dramatically expresses the hopes and concerns of English Catholics at the time:
" . . . Come Lord Jesus quickly, and judge betwixt us and our Adversaries, and in the meantime give patience, comfort, and constancy to all that suffer for Thy name, and trust in Thee. Lord God our only helper and protector, tarry not long. Amen."


http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1061

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
If one is not allowed to "interpret" the Scripture in the light of what he believes to be true, or in the light of what God shows him to be true, what value is the Scripture, or the study thereof? It is all very contradictory.
DHK And what value is the Scripture if, as a result of that above individualistic method of interpretation, Christians arrive at radically different conclusions to each other? Now that is very contradictory

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
The Catholic Douay Rheims Version, I believe, is the first English translation, predating the King James Version. It's the version I personally use myself.Just an fyi that Wycliffe's bible was the first complete English bible translated in 1382. There were several others made before the DR as well.

Here is a useful PDF outlining some historically significant translations.
History and Lineage of the English Bible (http://www.gentles.info/BibleHistory/BF2.pdf)

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
If one is not allowed to "interpret" the Scripture in the light of what he believes to be true, or in the light of what God shows him to be true, what value is the Scripture, or the study thereof? It is all very contradictory.
DHK And what value is the Scripture if, as a result of that above individualistic method of interpretation, Christians arrive at radically different conclusions to each other? Now that is very contradictory

Yours in Christ

Matt</font>[/QUOTE]Amen. graemlins/thumbs.gif

[violet]

Ditto.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
If one is not allowed to "interpret" the Scripture in the light of what he believes to be true, or in the light of what God shows him to be true, what value is the Scripture, or the study thereof? It is all very contradictory.
DHK And what value is the Scripture if, as a result of that above individualistic method of interpretation, Christians arrive at radically different conclusions to each other? Now that is very contradictory

Yours in Christ

Matt</font>[/QUOTE]Amen. graemlins/thumbs.gif </font>[/QUOTE]To be very blunt, the Catholic Church is not a Christian religion, any more than the Jehovah's Witness is a Christian religion. All of Evangelical Christian, practicing Sola Scriptura, are far more united in doctrine than than the Catholic Church would have one believe. I will give you one good example.

The New Birth:
The Catholic teaching on the new birth is that it means baptism. Ask any Catholic. You must be born of water and of the spirit, that is you must be baptized, and thus the doctrine of baptixmal regeneration.
No evangelical Chritian believes in baptismal regeneration. No eveangelical Christian believes that to be born again is to be baptized. They are all united in the meaning of what it is to be born again. And that union comes through sola scriptura. The Bible interprets itself. It is not too difficult to understand:

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
And yet so many today teach that man is basically good.

They say they believe the Bible, but either they are biblically ignorant (most Catholics), or refuse to accept the clear teaching of the Word. I believe it is both.
DHK

[john6:63]

Originally posted by DHK:
No evangelical Chritian believes in baptismal regeneration. No eveangelical Christian believes that to be born again is to be baptized. They are all united in the meaning of what it is to be born again.A question that I have always wanted to ask, but I’ve always forgot to ask. Why is it then that, lets say an IFB, requires that one be baptized before one is allowed membership?

If baptism does no good, why then require it? I know that baptism is identifying with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, but why couldn’t one just stand up in the pulpit and proclaim Christ as his or her savior?

[Kathryn]

DHK says: "The Bible interprets itself."

The widespread confusion among Protestants, and why some who believe and consider themselves Christian, don't even believe Jesus Christ is God is a result of this erroneous belief that the Holy Spirit will tell each one what it really means.

This idea that Jesus didn’t give His authority to His Church to go out and teach all nations what He commanded violates Holy Scripture. Jesus didn’t say, in the Great Commission, “Just wait 1400 years and when the printing press is invented everyone can just read the Book”.

Jesus could have taught his disciples to read and write and how to mass produce Bibles with a basic printing press if His intent was to leave His Word in a book that "interprets itself" for every man, woman, and child. According to His Word, Jesus left a teaching Church guided by the Holy Spirit with Himself as the cornerstone.

[DHK]

Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
No evangelical Chritian believes in baptismal regeneration. No eveangelical Christian believes that to be born again is to be baptized. They are all united in the meaning of what it is to be born again.A question that I have always wanted to ask, but I’ve always forgot to ask. Why is it then that, lets say an IFB, requires that one be baptized before one is allowed membership?

If baptism does no good, why then require it? I know that baptism is identifying with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, but why couldn’t one just stand up in the pulpit and proclaim Christ as his or her savior? </font>[/QUOTE]Not all "evangelical" churches have that requirement, but all IFB churches have that requirement, unless they have been baptized in a scriptural manner before, that is by immersion after a clear testimony of salvation.

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. But it is the first step of obedience after salvation. If the new believer is unwilling to idenify himself with Christ and his church in baptism, how much else will he be unwilling to do in the church? God places a premium on obdeience.
Look at history: Every church: whether liberal, conservative, evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, etc.--almost every church down throughout history has always used baptism as the door to the church. Is that wrong?
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
DHK says: "The Bible interprets itself."

The widespread confusion among Protestants, and why some who believe and consider themselves Christian, don't even believe Jesus Christ is God is a result of this erroneous belief that the Holy Spirit will tell each one what it really means.I would love to invite D28 into this conversation and challenge you on how fragmented the Catholic Church is from within compared to how united all evangelicals are. You are stepping into a large swamp of sinking sand if you accept this challenge. The Cathoiic Church is mired in division, controversy, and even contradiction. Speak to your own condition. Your pope, and cardinals don't even know what to do with practicing pedophiles except to move them from one parish to another. What an evil travesty!! Or does the Catholic Church have a policy on pedophiia??
Does the Catholic Church know that the doctrine of "celibacy" is called a "doctrine od demons" in the Bible? What about the movement in the Catholic Church that promotes marriage among the priesthood? Shall I go on? I could fill this page about the division that exists in the Catholic Church. It makes me laugh when you point out division amongst evangelicals. It is a strawman, a red herring, a smokescreen for your own troubles and conroversies.

This idea that Jesus didn’t give His authority to His Church to go out and teach all nations what He commanded violates Holy Scripture. Jesus didn’t say, in the Great Commission, “Just wait 1400 years and when the printing press is invented everyone can just read the Book”. #1. Jesus never gave his authority to a cult or a false religion. That counts the Catholics out.
##2. The Catholics existence didn't even begin until the 4th century with Constantine. So don't even mention any origins with Peter. That is all folklore and wishful thinking.
#3. You are right. Jesus did give the Great Commission. But the Catholic Church wasn't around then. His disciples were. They were faithful to His Word, as was the Apostle Paul, and the many churches that he started on his three missionary journey that you can read about in the Book of Acts. But you don't read about the Catholic Church. It was "Christendom paganized" in the fourth century.

Jesus could have taught his disciples to read and write and how to mass produce Bibles with a basic printing press if His intent was to leave His Word in a book that "interprets itself" for every man, woman, and child. According to His Word, Jesus left a teaching Church guided by the Holy Spirit with Himself as the cornerstone. John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

He did teach them. And he sent the Holy Spirit to further guide them. This verse specifically refers to the writing down of Scripture. They wrote down what the Holy Spirit told them. The Holy Spirit guided them into ALL the truth of the Word of God. Whatever they heard of the Holy Spirit they spoke, and their Emmenuensis wrote them down for them. The Holy Spirit also gave the prophecies which are written in our Bible as well.
DHK

[Kathryn]

That explains how "The Bible interprets itself."????

[Kathryn]

The teachings of the Catholic Church are not full of confusion. They can actually be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Church has been around since Jesus founded it and gave it His authority with His keys and told Peter to feed His lambs, feed His sheep, feed His lambs. It was this same Church He gave the Great Commission to go to all nations, teaching what He commanded and to baptize and promised to be with to the end of time.
If the Bible interpreted itself as you say, all Christians would have to do is drop millions of copies from aircraft all over the world. This isn't what Jesus asked of His Church, at least according to Holy Scripture.

[mioque]

DHK
"If Catholic priests encourage their people to read their Bible instead of their Catechism there has been a great change since I have been in the Catholic Church"
"
It's more like they encourage folks to read the Bible AND their Catechism.

[Kathryn]

Mioque:
"It's more like they encourage folks to read the Bible AND their Catechism."

I can agree with that. In fact the Catechism itself tells Catholics to read and study Holy Scripture because it is the very Word of God.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
That explains how "The Bible interprets itself."???? Yes it does. Evangelicals agree among themselves (ex. new birth), practicing sola scriptura at the same time. Catholics disagree and have many divisions within their own ranks in spite of having just one catechsim. Your catechsim doesn't prevent the division within your ranks.
DHK

[Kathryn]

If as you say, the Bible interprets itself, why don't you just take up a collection and drop bibles all over the middle east, africa, Asia, etc. and see what the fruits are? How many people will have the correct "Evengelical" interpretation? How many people will incorporate bits and pieces into their previously held beliefs? How many new denominations will the world have? How many more bible believing Christians will not even know that Jesus Christ is true God and true man?

[DHK]

Originally posted by mioque:
DHK
"If Catholic priests encourage their people to read their Bible instead of their Catechism there has been a great change since I have been in the Catholic Church"
"
It's more like they encourage folks to read the Bible AND their Catechism. I suppose the word "encourage" is key. Like I say, if that is true, then things have changed since I have been there. However this I do know. All of my extended family: parents, brothers, and sisters are still praciticing Catholics. To my knowledge none of them own a Bible, nor do they care to. The are all Biblically illiterate. They don't care what the Bible says. The word of the priest is good enough for them. Don't chalk it up to a bad priest or parish as you usually do, because they are all scattered throughout this great province of ours, none living close to the other. I don't look at the lives of the Catholic epologists who have the intestinal fortitude to come on a Baptist board and post in defence of their faith. How many Catholics are willing to do that? Maybe .001%. I look at the average Catholic like my extended family or my next door neighbor to see what an average Catholic lives like, and how knowledgeable concerning the Bible they are. The average Catholic is like I was in the Catholic Church--Biblically illiterate.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
If as you say, the Bible interprets itself, why don't you just take up a collection and drop bibles all over the middle east, africa, Asia, etc. and see what the fruits are? How many people will have the correct "Evengelical" interpretation. How many people will incorporate bits and pieces into their previously held beliefs? How many new denominations will the world have? How many more bible believing Christians will not even know that Jesus Christ is true God and true man? Have you ever heard of Gideon's
Why don't you write them and ask them for some testimonies.
DHK

[Kathryn]

Have you ever heard of Gideon's
Why don't you write them and ask them for some testimonies.
DHK Testimonies from people who believe they all have the "correct" interpretation?

Baptist Board has had some of these people who believe they have the "correct" interpretation and deny that Jesus Christ is God.

[Living4Him]

DHK,

the doctrine of "celibacy" is called a "doctrine od demons" in the Bible?All scripture quoted here is KJV, since I know most IFB as KJV only

So, I guess the Apostle Paul was pushing a "doctrine of demons" when in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

Oh yeah, let's not forget Jesus.

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

The Catholics existence didn't even begin until the 4th century with ConstantineDon't make me laugh. Talk about red herrings. Constantine in no way shape or form started the Catholic Religion. The Edict of Milan granted religious tolerance to Christians. He didn't start any religion.

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. But it is the first step of obedience after salvation.For someone who believes Sola Scripture, where does the Bible state that baptism is the first step (or act) of obedience after salvation?

In Mark 16:16 Jesus said,"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

I Pet. 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3-4
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:11-12
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Jesus also said Mt. 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

I don't see where Jesus states that Baptism is a nice little way to show obedience.


It is so clear what the Bible states with regards to Baptism, the Real Presence, celibacy, ect. that if you truly believed that the Bible interprets itself, you would still be Catholic

Like I stated before, as a small child when I read these verses in the Bible (I learned to read from the Bible in Kindergarten in the Baptist school)I took them to mean what was written.

The Catholic Church takes God at His Word to mean what He says and not look for some hidden meaning as the baptist do.

[Living4Him]

Edict of Milan (taken from a methodist website)

When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.and from Text translated in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the
Original Sources of European history, (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press
[1897?-1907?]), Vol 4:, 1, pp. 28-30

n 313 Constantine and his fellow emperor, Licinius, met at Milan and there issued the so-called Edict of Milan, confirming Galerius' edict of 309, which stated that Christianity would be tolerated throughout empire. The edict in effect made Christianity a lawful religion that granted freedom of worship to all Christians, although it did not, as is sometimes believed, make Christianity the official state religion. The Document below is a copy of this historical proclamation.
The "Edict of Milan " (313 A. D.)
hen I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I Licinius Augustus d fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought -, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases ; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.

Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency,. All this property ought to be delivered at once to the community of the Christians through your intercession, and without delay. And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that is to say to the corporations and their conventicles: providing, of course, that the above arrangements be followed so that those who return the same without payment, as we have said, may hope for an indemnity from our bounty. In all these circumstances you ought to tender your most efficacious intervention to the community of the Christians, that our command may be carried into effect as quickly as possible, whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured. Let this be done so that, as we have said above, Divine favor towards us, which, under the most important circumstances we have already experienced, may, for all time, preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state. Moreover, in order that the statement of this decree of our good will may come to the notice of all, this rescript, published by your decree, shall be announced everywhere and brought to the knowledge of all, so that the decree of this, our benevolence, cannot be concealed.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. But it is the first step of obedience after salvation.For someone who believes Sola Scripture, where does the Bible state that baptism is the first step (or act) of obedience after salvation?
</font>[/QUOTE]I posted this same answer elswhere:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (ASV)

Notice that the ASV more accurately translates the word "teaching" as "discipling" giving the sense that a person must be saved before he is baptized. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation, but always comes after salvation, as an outward sign of that which was done inwardly at salvation. So this is a command by Jesus not to be ignored. It is important.

Now to Paul's ministry. What was Paul's ministry. Paul's ministry was the preaching of the gospel. He was a pioneer missionary. He set up churches of saved individuals, and apparently after one was appointed the pastor of the church, that pastor did the baptizing of the new converts, not Paul.

Therefore Paul says in 1Cor.1:

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

The church had to start somewhere. It seemed to start with the ones that Paul mentioned: Crispus and Gaius, whom he baptized, and then those in the household of Stephanus.
Remember that the church of Corinth grew to be a very large church--hundreds if not over a thousand members. Paul is speaking of just a handful of people that he baptized: a half dozen to a dozen at the most.

Then he says the most remarkable thing:
Summed up: Baptism isn't the important thing here. It was not important to his ministry.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

Christ did not send him to baptize. Get that. It is important. Paul did not baptize the majority of his converts. They were saved but not baptized. That is not what Paul was called to do. He did not baptize. He was not called to baptize. Baptism is different than preaching the gospel. It is not part of the gospel. It doesn't save, does not have the power to save, cannot was away sins or remit sins. Paul states this very clearly.
He was sent to preach the gospel, not baptize. The gospel could be preached and was preached without baptism. Baptism was not part of the gospel.

The gospel he defines in 1Cor.15:1-4 as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is belief in that gospel that saves--that gospel and none other.

He says in Gal.1 that if any man bring any other gospel than the gospel that I have brought to you let him be accursed. Be aware of putting baptism into the gospel. Be aware of saying that baptism saves or remits sin. It does not. Your argument here is with God. Paul has made it very clear. I have not yet found any refutation of these Scriptures. All that believe in baptismal regeneration must depend on the Book of Acts or the gospels--books of history and not of doctrine to defend their petty doctrines.
DHK

[Living4Him]

He set up churches of saved individuals, and apparently after one was appointed the pastor of the church, that pastor did the baptizing of the new converts, not Paul.Paul's missionary journey to Corinth is talked about in Acts 18. His letter to Corinth is after his missionary journey. Paul also went first to the Jews in any town that he visited. Later he went to the Gentiles. According to Acts, many were baptized.

However, Corinthians states something different. A contradiction? No, Paul is being humble and is pointing out the the peoples alligance should be to God and not the one who baptized or initiated them to the Christian Community.

ACTS
18:1
After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;

18:2
And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

18:3
And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

18:5
And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

18:6
And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

18:7
And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

18:8
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

18:9
Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

18:10
For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

18:11
And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

[john6:63]

Originally posted by DHK:
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

Christ did not send him to baptize. Get that. It is important. Paul did not baptize the majority of his converts. They were saved but not baptized. That is not what Paul was called to do. He did not baptize. He was not called to baptize. Baptism is different than preaching the gospel. It is not part of the gospel. It doesn't save, does not have the power to save, cannot was away sins or remit sins. Paul states this very clearly.
He was sent to preach the gospel, not baptize. The gospel could be preached and was preached without baptism. Baptism was not part of the gospel.DHK:

Back up a couple of verses and you will find out why Paul made the statement in Vs. 17. It looks like that there was a problem in Corinth.
Vs. 12-13: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?Looks like some were adopting, so to speak, the baptizer’s name as a religious appellation; see again Verses 12-13. I don’t believe that Paul was dissociating baptism from the gospel, but Paul did not want any special adoration to be attached to him for baptizing them.

[Kathryn]

Jesus showed what Baptism is by His own Baptism where God the Father declares Him His Son and it's witnessed by the Holy Spirit. He submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. He did this for us. When we are baptized we die to ourselves and are made a new creation. The Father becomes our Father. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism according to Holy Scripture. Jesus didn't just get wet and neither do we.

[DHK]

Certainly there were problems in Corinth. That is why Paul wrote the letter--to address those problems. They requested him to write in response to the problems they were having:

1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:.."

In 1Cor.1:17, Paul clearly states his purpose, to preach the gospel, not to baptize. The church was factious to be sure. One of the reasons that Paul did not baptize is that he left the work of baptism to the pastor (Apollos in this case) who followed him. Paul was the missionary/church planter/evangelist. He was the one that appointed the pastor who in turn took over the fledging church and discipled many, baptizing them, and teaching them as Christ had commanded.

He spells out the gospel clearly in 1Cor.15:1-4. In those verses there is no mention of baptism--just the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In those verses he declares that it is by this gospel that they were saved. It is clearly apparent that baptism does not save.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
Jesus showed what Baptism is by His own Baptism where God the Father declares Him His Son and it's witnessed by the Holy Spirit. He submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. He did this for us. When we are baptized we die to ourselves and are made a new creation. The Father becomes our Father. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism according to Holy Scripture. Jesus didn't just get wet and neither do we. What are you implying here Kathryn:
That Jesus was a created being??
OR
That Jesus needed salvation?? :rolleyes:

[Kathryn]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kathryn:
Jesus showed what Baptism is by His own Baptism where God the Father declares Him His Son and it's witnessed by the Holy Spirit. He submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. He did this for us. When we are baptized we die to ourselves and are made a new creation. The Father becomes our Father. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism according to Holy Scripture. Jesus didn't just get wet and neither do we.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are you implying here Kathryn:
That Jesus was a created being??
OR
That Jesus needed salvation?? Nope. As I said here, He submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. He did this for us. His baptism is our baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism.

[DHK]

Nope. As I said here, He submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. He did this for us. His baptism is our baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism.I can quote clearly from your catechism whereby it is through the grace of baptism that one is saved. True? Consequently, you are inferring that Jesus needed salvation. His baptism is not our baptism. Else we would not need to be baptized. That is a very contradictory statement.
DHK

[Kathryn]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. As I said here, He submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. He did this for us. His baptism is our baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can quote clearly from your catechism whereby it is through the grace of baptism that one is saved. True? Consequently, you are inferring that Jesus needed salvation. His baptism is not our baptism. Else we would not need to be baptized. That is a very contradictory statement.
DHK Nope, not inferring or implying that Jesus needed salvation. Nothing contradictory, as I said, Jesus Christ submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. Read the dialog between Jesus and John. Jesus didn't need this. Jesus submitted for us. His baptism is our baptism. Scripture tells us that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism "

Jesus showed that baptism was much more than just getting wet. We are washed clean because we have sin. God declares us his sons and daughters. There is no contradiction with the Catechism. This is Grace. This is the Gospel. This is the one baptism Holy Scripture both commands and promises us.

Jesus' baptism wasn't about John dunking Jesus in the Jordan, as a statement of faith. It was about what God does. He was teaching us who God is (the Trinity) and what the one baptism is.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
Nope, not inferring or implying that Jesus needed salvation. Nothing contradictory, as I said, Jesus Christ submitted even though it wasn’t needed for His sake because he was sinless and already the Son of God. Read the dialog between Jesus and John. Jesus didn't need this. Jesus submitted for us.Jesus did NOT submit for us. Nowhere does the Bible say this or teach this. You are entitiled to your theories and opinions but they are clearly wrong. This is not what the Bible says.

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
--The purpose of his baptism--to fulfill all righteousness. The baptism was purely symbolic. It symbolized the beginning of his ministry, but it symbolized much more than that. It symbolized
"the way Christ would fulfill all the righteous claims of God against man's sin. His immersion typified His baptism in the waters of God's judgment at Calkvary. His emergence from the water foreshadowed His resurrectiojn. By death, burial, and resurrectrion, He would satisfy the demands of divine justice and provide a righteous basis by which sinners could be justified." (MacDonald's Believer's Commentary)
His baptism is our baptism. Scripture tells us that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism " His baptism in not our baptism. That is ridiculous. Paul was not referring to the baptism of Christ in Ephesians. The baptism of Christ was to fulfill all righteousness. Can you do that??
Christian baptism is done in obedience to Christ after one is saved. There is a big difference.

Jesus showed that baptism was much more than just getting wet. We are washed clean because we have sin. Nonsense! Heresy! And totally unsupportable by Scripture. Jesus baptism was entirely symbolic, as the Bible says it was--"to fulfill all righteousness." Our baptism is the same--purely symbolic, symbolizing our death to our old life of sin, and rising again to a new life in Christ. It is purely symbolic. It does nothing to you but get you wet. A symbol has no power. Baptism is a step of obedience after salvation and has nothing to do with salvation, cannot wash away sins. What washes away sin?

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
God declares us his sons and daughters. If you are not born again by trusting Christ as your Saviour (baptism not included), that is, by trusting Christ and him alone, by faith and faith alone, then you are not one of his children.
There is no contradiction with the Catechism. This is Grace. This is the Gospel. This is the one baptism Holy Scripture both commands and promises us.The evangelical definition of the new birth and the Catholic definition are as far apart as the east is from the west. The Catholic Church has no proper concept of what the true gospel of the Bible really is.

Jesus' baptism wasn't about John dunking Jesus in the Jordan, as a statement of faith. It was about what God does. He was teaching us who God is (the Trinity) and what the one baptism is. "It was about what God does." What did God do in the heart of Jesus at his baptism? Are you implying that God the Father saved God the son, at the time of his baptism? "What God does!!?? Christ got wet. He was baptized by John. He was baptized at the beginning of his ministry to fulfill all righteousness. I suggest you read your Bible.
DHK

[mioque]

DHK
"if that is true, then things have changed since I have been there."
"
For my thesis in churchhistory I studied the origen of the canisius Bible (translated into Dutch from the original languages and published between 1906 and 1939). Promoting Biblereading among lay Catholics was one of the reasons to make this translation.
It's not that the movement within the RCC to promote Biblereading hasn't been around for some time, it's that it hasn't always been all that popular both among the hierarchy (allthough that has changed in the past few decades) and bulk of it's members (both priests and layfolk).

[Matt Black]

DHK, if "the Bible interprets itself", then explain why there are divisions amongst the SS adherents between eg: Calvinists and Arminians, cessationists and charismatics, paedobaptists and believers' Baptists, covenanters and dispensationalists, pre-millenialists a-millenialists and post-millenialists etc etc. Wake up and smell the coffee - SS DOESN'T WORK!!

I can't comment on the state of Catholicism in the US but suffice it to say that the picture you paint of it both in terms of your upbringing and your family today is radically different from the situation I have encountered over here. I've already said I was encouraged to read the Bible at my Catholic private school. My late grandmother, a devout Catholic, had a Jerusalem Bible by her bedside, and another Bible in her front room; her late sister had one also. My uncles, who are both priests, have several Bibles plus volumes of commentaries on each of the books of the Bible that would make a Baptist pastor jealous. The Catechism is shot through with Scripture quotes. Yes, much needs to be done: my uncles bemoan the fact that so many of their flock know Catholic doctrine, but not enough Scripture, and they have made it a key point of their ministries to redress that balance by encouraging their congregations to do daily Bible studies; they have also set up and encouraged the growth of housegroups in their parishes to do the same.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[D28guy]

It just amazes me when Catholics attempt this silly little diversionary attempt to discredit evangelicalism by bringing up sola scripturas so called "doctrinal chaos".

Romans 14 and other passages make clear that regarding non-foundational views we have freedom, and that we are to not judge our brother. Contend with them in spirited debate? Of course, that is healthy. Its actually an exceedingly healthy thing. The scriptures tell us that "iron sharpens iron" for the good of all.

If there are contradictory views brought up regarding foundational teachings, we have no problem whatsoever identifying it as false...with no hiearchy doing our thinking for us.

And to be completly honest, Catholics criticising us for some error is somewhat comical. If the error in evangelical circles is a 3 and a 1-10 scale, the Catholic error would register about a 200 on that 1-10 scale.

Here is some interesting information regarding Catholicism...

"As for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church that its history can be traced back to Jesus Christ, Peter, or the other apostles, such claims lack both historical and Scriptural support. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter's confession of Christ's deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: ".. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Peter was not the first pope nor is there any Scriptural justification whatever for such an office. Peter's own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He further identifies himself in 2 Peter 1:1 as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ....'

History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.


Furthermore, the long-held claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only church which never changed is not supported by church history not even Roman Catholic history. How sad to realize that this false claim influenced so many to join or to stay in this false church which actually is the product of centuries of changes. Most of these changes came as a result of yielding to heathen customs and practices which were subsequently incorporated into Roman Catholic teachings and worship. The following is a partial list of heathen, unscriptural practices which became a part of Roman Catholic dogma over a period of seventeen centuries. Some of the dates given are approximate. In many cases, these heresies were even debated for years before being given the status of required beliefs:

1. Prayers for the dead...300 A.D.

2. Making the sign of the cross...300 A.D.

3. Veneration of angels & dead saints...375 A.D.

4. Use of images in worship...375 A.D.

5. The Mass as a daily celebration...394 A.D.

6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus...431 A.D.

7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)...526 A.D.

8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1...593 A.D..

9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints...600 A.D.

0. Worship of cross, images & relics...786 A.D.

11 Canonization of dead saints...995 A.D.

12. Celibacy of priesthood...1079 A.D.

13. The Rosary...1090 A.D.

14. Indulgences...1190 A.D.

15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III...1215 A.D.

16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest...1215 A.D.

17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)...1220 A.D.

18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion...1414 A.D.

19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma...1439 A.D.

20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed...1439 A.D.

21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent...1545 A.D.

22. Apocryphal books added to Bible...1546 A.D.

23. Immaculate Conception of Mary...1854 A.D.

24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council... 1870 A.D.

25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death)...1950 A.D.

26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church...1965 A.D.

Although some of the preceding Roman Catholic heresies are now being questioned by many, both inside and outside the church, none have been officially repudiated and all continue to be practiced by millions of Catholics around the world. The urgent need today is for Roman Catholics; yes, and all who claim to be Christians, to examine their own beliefs and the teachings of their churches by the only sure standard-the Bible. Whatever contradicts, adds to or subtracts from the sixty-six books of the Old and the New Testaments, is error no matter how many may cling to it.
Roman Catholics who read the Bible will soon discover that many Catholic teachings and practices are specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ Himself. Note carefully the following warnings given by the Lord Jesus Christ to the religious leaders of His day concerning vain worship, vain tradition and vain repetitions. All of these are particularly applicable to Roman Catholicism today."

click here (http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/the_truth_about_roman_catholics_final.htm)

Sadly,

Mike

[Matt Black]

Mike, it's not exactly a 'diversion', is it? Come on! I have lost count of the number of times on this Board alone when I have come across SS-adherents who mutually anathematise (hardly trivial issues then; I would say those are foundational) each other on the doctrines referred to in my last post. Just try starting a thread on spiritual gifts and see what DHK has to say about charismatics.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mike, it's not exactly a 'diversion', is it? Come on! I have lost count of the number of times on this Board alone when I have come across SS-adherents who mutually anathematise (hardly trivial issues then; I would say those are foundational) each other on the doctrines referred to in my last post. Just try starting a thread on spiritual gifts and see what DHK has to say about charismatics.

Yours in Christ

Matt I have used this example before, and I don''t think Tam minds. She believes in speaking in tongues. I don't. There are two principles at work here. One is sola scriptura, and the other is soul liberty--two scriptural premises that the Catholic Church hates. She has the perfect right to believe what she sees fit that the Bible teaches. On the essentials of salvation, Christ, his deity, and most other doctrines we agree. We come to agreement solely by sola scriptura. Does the matter of the difference of belief in spiritual gifts separate our fellowship as brothers and sisters in the Lord. NO!
On the contrary, the very fact that Catholics believe in a works salvation, bap;tismal regeneration, deny the essentals of the faith, leaves absolutely no room for spiritual fellowship. What fellowship hath light with darkness?
Tam and I have much more in common, both of us being evangelicals, than I and any Catholic would. Our "commonality" comes from the Scripture. Our difference comes as a result of soul liberty, which has been pointed out to you is a sciptural principle in Romans 14. I believe it is wrong, and that she is in error regarding this point. But I don't believe that it affects her salvation, which is the major point of fellowship.
DHK

[D28guy]

Matt,

"Just try starting a thread on spiritual gifts and see what DHK has to say about charismatics."I've never conversed with DHK regarding that topic. Does he say that all charismatics are doomed and bound for hell? Or does he disagree with some teachings in the charismatic world?

I tend to think that he just disagrees with some of their teachings. And if thats so, it is a very very healthy thing. All of us turning to the scriptures is Gods "checks and balances" system. God knows that some groups will interpret some scriptures differently, and of course thats no problem whatsoever. He told us about it in the scriptures (Romans 14 and others) and told us what attitude to have regarding those differences.(Romans 14 and others) It only becomes a problem when we exclude, condemn, or become self rightious and sectarian regarding those differences. (1 Cor 1: 10-17)

The arminians keep the calvinists from becoming too extreme, and the calvinists serve the same function regarding the arminians. The fundamentalists keep the charismatics from becoming to extreme and the charismatics do the same for the fundmentalists.

Its a beautiful thing...I just wish we could be more loving regarding how we debate sometimes.

But in contrast to evangelicalism, the Catholic Church has rejected Gods "checks and balances" system, and the result is twofold...

1) Millions are held compliantly in the CC's clutches, being forbidden to consult the truth that can set them free.

2) Chaos and heresy leading to more chaos and heresy leading to even more chaos and heresy leading to an exceedingly excessive overflow of chaos and heresy, etc etc etc.

Its a 1700 year old tragedy that is still playing out today.

God bless,

Mike

[D28guy]

DHK,

I said...

"I've never conversed with DHK regarding that topic. Does he say that all charismatics are doomed and bound for hell? Or does he disagree with some teachings in the charismatic world?

I tend to think that he just disagrees with some of their teachings."We were formulating our posts at the same time and I hadnt seen yours until after posting mine.

I'm not surprised that I pretty much had your view regarding differences nailed.

God bless,

Mike graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Doubting Thomas]

Chaos and heresy leading to more chaos and heresy leading to even more chaos and heresy leading to an exceedingly excessive overflow of chaos and heresy, etc etc Wow...sounds like the ever multiplying schisms of Protestantism. :eek:

[D28guy]

Fortunetly it isnt. Thank God His "checks and balances" system works.

What a mess the Catholic Church is. 1700 years of false teaching upon more false teaching upon more false teaching.

And it all goes unchecked.

Jehovahs Witnesses
Mormons
Catholic Church.

They all employ identical tactics...with identical results. All of them tell their people...

"YOU have no buisness interpreting the scriptures. ONLY WE can do that. YOU must believe everything WE tell you the scriptures teach."

The sadness of it is overwhelming.

Mike

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Fortunetly it isnt. Thank God His "checks and balances" system works.
What "checks and balances"? I don't see anything (least of all, sola Scriptura) that has prevented the Western Church from fracturing into countless multiplying contradictory schisms since the "Reformation". The Protestants, in revolting against the widespread abuses of the medieval Roman church, threw out the baby with the bath water, and now relativism prevails to a great extent. It is truly and overwhelmingly sad.

(So much for all of us being one so that the world may believe in Christ--John 17:21)

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
What "checks and balances"? I don't see anything (least of all, sola Scriptura) that has prevented the Western Church from fracturing into countless multiplying contradictory schisms since the "Reformation". The Protestants, in revolting against the widespread abuses of the medieval Roman church, threw out the baby with the bath water, and now relativism prevails to a great extent. It is truly and overwhelmingly sad.

(So much for all of us being one so that the world may believe in Christ--John 17:21) 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

What do you suppose Paul means in this verse, when he says that it is good that there are "heresies" among the Corinthian church. He says: "there must be heresies among you. Why?
The reason has much to do with sola scriptura. In this way the Corinthian believers would be forced to study their Bibles and see who was "approved" that they would in turn "be made manifest among you." People holding to wrong doctrine would be weeded out. People with right doctrine would rise to the top as leaders to be followed. It was necessary for them to study their Bibles and come to their own conclusions. This was sola scriptura in the first century at work. In this way truth would be manifest; error would be cast out.

John also alludes to the same thing.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they didn't belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have continued with us. But they left, that they might be revealed that none of them belong to us.

Those who left the church that John was writing to held false doctrine, and may not have been saved. They did not agree with the truth being taught. Not only was the truth made manifest, but so was their false professions in Christ. For had they been true believers they would have continued in the truth. But they did not continue. They left because they could not bear those who held to the truth of the Word of God.

There is sweet fellowship among God's people who fellowship around the truth of God's Word. That truth almost always comes from "sola scriptura."
DHK

[john6:63]

Originally posted by DHK:
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

What do you suppose Paul means in this verse, when he says that it is good that there are "heresies" among the Corinthian church. He says: "there must be heresies among you. Why?
The reason has much to do with sola scriptura. In this way the Corinthian believers would be forced to study their Bibles and see who was "approved" that they would in turn "be made manifest among you." People holding to wrong doctrine would be weeded out. People with right doctrine would rise to the top as leaders to be followed. It was necessary for them to study their Bibles and come to their own conclusions. This was sola scriptura in the first century at work. In this way truth would be manifest; error would be cast out.Come on DHK, they did not have bibles as we know of them today in the days of Paul. All they had were a few letters written to them to go off of and oral tradition that Paul told them to hold fast to. Which now leads me to my question. You mention those leaders that would “rise to the top.” Do you believe that the early church fathers who were those that rose to the top as leaders of the church, were more likely to have understood the teachings of the apostles correctly, than those Protestant reformers who didn’t come on the scene until 13 centuries later?

Furthermore, didn’t Jesus send out more than just John and Peter during the commission? Do you believe that the other apostles didn’t start up churches and likewise written letters and passed along oral tradition?

[john6:63]

Originally posted by D28guy:
"YOU have no buisness interpreting the scriptures. ONLY WE can do that. YOU must believe everything WE tell you the scriptures teach."Name one denomination that allows their congregation to interpret scripture as they see fit. That is exactly why we have different denominations. People tend to have different views when they interpret scripture.

My church, IFB, teaches and interpret scripture radically different that that of your charismatic denomination. You won’t get away with speaking in tongues and disturbing the service very often before you are pulled to the side and basically told you are in error and the way WE interpret scripture is right and YOU are wrong.

[DHK]

Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by D28guy:
"YOU have no buisness interpreting the scriptures. ONLY WE can do that. YOU must believe everything WE tell you the scriptures teach."Name one denomination that allows their congregation to interpret scripture as they see fit. That is exactly why we have different denominations. People tend to have different views when they interpret scripture.

My church, IFB, teaches and interpret scripture radically different that that of your charismatic denomination. You won’t get away with speaking in tongues and disturbing the service very often before you are pulled to the side and basically told you are in error and the way WE interpret scripture is right and YOU are wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]I have a Sunday School teacher teaching the Adult Bible class, and teaching through the book of Hebrews. He has a completely different view on the Book of Hebrews than I do. I disagree with much of what he says. But we agree to disagree, and he teaches any way. That is soul liberty. It is sola scriptura.
DHK

[TP]

Greetings,

I haven't read the replies yet, only the initial post. I am a priest: I tell my parishioners to read scriptures constantly. AT every mass we read an OT passage, a psalm, a New Test passage and a gospel passage. I often encourage the people to go read the entire chapter of the passage or even the entire book. this will add to the preaching I do at mass.
1. We have a bible study that looks at the weekend readings and study those led by our Religious Education minister. This normally had 20 or so people.

2. We have a woman's bible study that is currently going through 1 corinthians verse by verse. They use a study guide to help them. there are about 15 women in this.

3. We have a men study at the same time, but the men prefer watching videos and educational programs on the bible. They will stop them and have discussion. There are about 10 men in this.l

4. There is a Teen Bible study on Friday nights, and we have slowly been going through the Gospel of John for about 1 1/2 years know. VERY indepth and about 2 hours ever time we get together. The numbers vary from 12 to 25. Lots happens on Friday nights.

5. I also encourage a prayer called "Liturgy of the Hours". We have about 50 or so people doing this in the parish every day. This prayer consists of praying 3 psalms in the morning and 3 psalms in the Evening along with the Our Father and petitions. In the morning they also read the Canticle of Zachariah from Luke, and in the evening the Canticle of Mary from Luke. It is great to have them read the psalms.

I don't understand where people get the idea that catholics are not encouraged to read the bible. It is a great thing. Not to mention the fact that we read scripture out loud at all our services.

As far as not carrying bibles to Mass: We have the readings for the mass in missalettes, in our hymnals, and we Actually read the passages OUT Loud so everyone can hear them. Why would you have to bring a bible?

peace

[TP]

Greetings,

Another thing we do in our parish. We give a Bible to every child in 6th grade and have them bring the bible with them to religion class so they can put notes in it. Before that time we have bibles for the kids to use here. Scriptures are a main part of our religious Education program.

peace

[TP]

Greetings,

Another thing we do: All this week we have VACATION Bible School. Our school is filled with kids singing and dancing. First day was about gideon. They know Gideon well. Second day was about Daniel and the lions den. Today was about Nebuchanezzar, tommorrow is the Jesus and the empty tomb and the last day is Paul and Silas.
This is for small children, but they know the stories well when the leave every day. so even our little children get the scripture stories.

peace

[john6:63]

Bump...
Two points I made below that I would like to see addressed.

Originally posted by DHK:
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

What do you suppose Paul means in this verse, when he says that it is good that there are "heresies" among the Corinthian church. He says: "there must be heresies among you. Why?
The reason has much to do with sola scriptura. In this way the Corinthian believers would be forced to study their Bibles and see who was "approved" that they would in turn "be made manifest among you." People holding to wrong doctrine would be weeded out. People with right doctrine would rise to the top as leaders to be followed. It was necessary for them to study their Bibles and come to their own conclusions. This was sola scriptura in the first century at work. In this way truth would be manifest; error would be cast out.Come on DHK, they did not have bibles as we know of them today in the days of Paul. All they had were a few letters written to them to go off of and oral tradition that Paul told them to hold fast to. Which now leads me to my question. You mention those leaders that would “rise to the top.” Do you believe that the early church fathers who were those that rose to the top as leaders of the church, were more likely to have understood the teachings of the apostles correctly, than those Protestant reformers who didn’t come on the scene until 13 centuries later?

Furthermore, didn’t Jesus send out more than just John and Peter during the commission? Do you believe that the other apostles didn’t start up churches and likewise written letters and passed along oral tradition?

[Bro. James]

Why bring a Bible?

To see if these things are so--like the saints at Berea who searched the scripture daily to see if what the preachers were saying was true. Seems the Bible was the rule of faith and practice in the Berea parish--maybe even the whole archdiocess.(sic)

Selah,

Bro. James

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

I said...

Fortunetly it isnt. Thank God His "checks and balances" system works.And you responded...


"What "checks and balances"?"All christians turning to the scriptures alone...as God has admonished us to do...

"And they searched the scriptures daily, to see whether these things be so"

"I don't see anything (least of all, sola Scriptura) that has prevented the Western Church from fracturing into countless multiplying contradictory schisms since the "Reformation"."And I'll bet you believe that old worn out lie that has been proven false, that there are (((30,000!!!))) protestant denominations.

The reason you dont see is because you have been rendered unable to see by the hidious falsehoods of the Catholic Church.

"The Protestants, in revolting against the widespread abuses of the medieval Roman church, threw out the baby with the bath water, and now relativism prevails to a great extent."Completly false. What is prevailant to a great extent in the evangelical world is the understanding of truth...with the accompanying fruit...and the rejection of error...and the accompanying freedom from it.

God bless,

Mike

[D28guy]

john 6:63,

Come on DHK, they did not have bibles as we know of them today in the days of Paul.They had all the scriptures that were available at that time. They were in scroll form. Thats whey the Bereans could...

"Search the scriptures daily, to see wether these things be do"

They were admonished to do that then, and we are admonished to do that now.

Blessings,

Mike

[D28guy]

john 6:63...

Name one denomination that allows their congregation to interpret scripture as they see fit.All of them do...if they are healthy fellowships. Any denomination that forbids their people to feed on the scriptures themselves...and interpret truth themselves...is a group headed down the road to cultism.

That is exactly why we have different denominations. People tend to have different views when they interpret scripture.So what if we have different denominations? There is only one church. Not many. Its so important that we get a grip on that thruth.

The denominations are just like minded people gathering together. Its no problem whatsoever. And regarding different interpretations, God told us to expect it...read Romans 14...and he told us how to deal with it, and to not judge our brother if they see something differently...read more of Romans 14.

My church, IFB, teaches and interpret scripture radically different that that of your charismatic denomination.(Actually, my fellowship is nondenominational. But I get your point.)

My church, IFB, teaches and interpret scripture radically different that that of your charismatic denomination.On foundational teachings? Denying Christs divinity? Teaching hard core salvation by works? Denying justification through faith alone? Denying their people freedom regarding feeding on Gods truth?

Then one of these groups is a cult, or on the way to becoming one...(and its not mine smile.gif )

If the disagreements are regarding non-foundational issues, then we are admonished by God to "let our brother be fully convinced in his own mind" and to "not judge your brother". That doesnt mean we cant contend for the truth, for "iron strenghens iron, and the two become stronger".

"You won’t get away with speaking in tongues and disturbing the service very often before you are pulled to the side and basically told you are in error and the way WE interpret scripture is right and YOU are wrong."And they are free to that conviction, and a thoughtful charismatic or pentecostal will refrain from employing that gift while there out of courtesy to them.

Grace and peace,

Mike

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
What is prevailant to a great extent in the evangelical world is the understanding of truth...with the accompanying fruit...and the rejection of error...and the accompanying freedom from it.

God bless,

Mike Which truth? Which error? The Calvinist truth? The arminian truth? Dispensationalism? Covenantalism? Etc? How do you tell which is truth and which is error? All these positions can be argued from Scripture and they are mutually incompatible; it is not the case, as you argue, that one provides a check on the other - they are diametrically opposed.

Re the Bereans - all they had was the OT in LXX form which would have included the Apocrypha. Are you seriously arguing that this verse proves SS, because if you are then the OT LXX is the Scriptura concerned, and you should not even be using the NT!

Yours in Christ

Matt

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

Which truth?Gods truth.

"Which error?"Anything that is not Gods truth.

"The Calvinist truth?"Sometimes.

"The arminian truth?Sometimes

"Dispensationalism?"Sometimes.

"Covenantalism? Etc?Sometimes.

There is truth to be found in all of those teachings. They are not in the least in any kind of substantial disagreement. Some "specific* conclusions found in those teaching are different than in the others, but God adresses that. He instructs us to "let our brother be fully convinced in his own mind".

I personally have been blessed many many times by teaching from all of those different slants on truth, even though I agree the most fully with one of them. (I wont say which one ;) )

"How do you tell which is truth and which is error?"By studying and searching the scriptures and trusting God to open my understanding as He sees fit.

"All these positions can be argued from Scripture and they are mutually incompatible;..."Totally false. I personally have been greatly blessed by good teaching from all of those camps. They are in agreement regarding many mnay many things, and most importantly foundational things. (or a false group is identified.)

"it is not the case, as you argue, that one provides a check on the other - they are diametrically opposed."Complete falsehood. Someone has lied to you.(I wonder who?) All of us turning to Gods truth standard is Gods "checks and balances" system.

For proof all one needs to do is take a look at the various disaster areas that reject that truth...

Jehovahs Wittneses
Mormons
Catholicicsm
Eastern Orthodox
David Koresh
Jim Jones.
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)

"Re the Bereans - all they had was the OT in LXX form which would have included the Apocrypha. Are you seriously arguing that this verse proves SS,..."Not only that verse, but the hundreds of others that prove beyond any doubt that Gods will is that we turn to the scriptures alone as our truth standard to judge all things against.

"because if you are then the OT LXX is the Scriptura concerned, and you should not even be using the NT!"Total nonsense. I find it stunning that when you were told that you believed it. Its utter nonsense.

Grace and peace,

Mike

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

Re the Bereans - all they had was the OT in LXX form which would have included the Apocrypha. Are you seriously arguing that this verse proves SS, because if you are then the OT LXX is the Scriptura concerned, and you should not even be using the NT!

Yours in Christ

Matt Matt, Where do you get this garbage from? Who has revised history for you, that you have so gullibly accepted it? Can I guess?

Here are a couple of facts that you should know that will make things quite evident:
#1. The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek about 250 B.C. Copies of this authoritative edition accepted by the Jews, and quoted by Christ would have been the one and only Septuagint that would have been used at that time.

#2. Yes, there in time came to be a Septuagint that included the Apocrypha--no doubt about it.

#3. When did it come Matt? Some of the books of the Apocrypha were not written until well after the time of Christ. So did the Bereans use the Apocrypha?? What say ye? One of those books was not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It was not written in that date, but well after that date. So these story books that were not even officially part of the Catholic Bible until 1546, were always rejected by all other groups of Christians and Jews alike, were never part of the canon to begin with. Why do you even suggest that the Bereans used them??
DHK

[Doubting Thomas]

Which books of the "Apocrypha" (in the LXX) were written after the time of Christ? Can you be more specific, because all of the Deuterocanonicals were written before Christ.

[Doubting Thomas]

There is truth to be found in all of those teachings.That is utter nonsense along the lines of those who suggest that the many world's religions are different paths to the same truth.

They are not in the least in any kind of substantial disagreement.Actually, they represent mutually contradictory conclusions, so yes, there is substantial disagreement. I'm truly stunned at such naive relativism.

He instructs us to "let our brother be fully convinced in his own mind".That has nothing to do with contradictory theological positions. That has to do with eating and drinking. There is only one faith, not many contraditory versions of it. I'm stunned that you can't grasp the difference.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Which books of the "Apocrypha" (in the LXX) were written after the time of Christ? Can you be more specific, because all of the Deuterocanonicals were written before Christ. II Esdras in particular was written well after the time of Christ. " To this original, composed by an unknown Jew, probably near the end of the first century A.D., and later translated into Greek.. The Jewish original offers its apocalyptic prospects as an answer to the theodicy problem, acutley posed for Judaism by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, The Christian addition assigns the casting off of Israel in favor of the Gentiles to Israel's apostasy." (Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney)

It reflects back to the events of the destruction of the Temple. It was written near the end of the first century. This book alone shows the fraudulent nature of the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon.
DHK

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

I said...

There is truth to be found in all of those teachings.And you, unbelievably, said...

"That is utter nonsense along the lines of those who suggest that the many world's religions are different paths to the same truth."Nice try. Nice diversionary attempt. Obviously my post has struck a nerve. I'm going to hope that thats a good thing in this case.

But it wont work.

Me...

They are not in the least in any kind of substantial disagreement.You...

"Actually, they represent mutually contradictory conclusions, so yes, there is substantial disagreement. I'm truly stunned at such naive relativism."The disagreements are regarding some conclusions having to do with some specific elements of each view. But those who hold to all of those views would be in complete agreement regarding multitudes upon multitudes upon multiplied multitudes of other areas of christian thought and biblical teaching.

Me...

"He instructs us to "let our brother be fully convinced in his own mind"."You...

"That has nothing to do with contradictory theological positions."Yes it does.

"That has to do with eating and drinking.Which were doctrinal "hot button" topics of that day.

Have you forgotten that the meat in the market had been offered to DEMONS before it was put on the market? Other issues brought up in some of these passages are keeping sabbaths days and religious festivals.

Those were examples...from that day and age...of theological and doctrinal views that people held to. And its clear that Gods view is that its no big deal at all...UNLESS we become mean spirited, condemning and sectarian regarding those who hold a different view. And we do sometimes get that way. THAT is a problem...NOT brothers and sisters having different convictions.

If we believe God of course, rather than men, for God tells us...

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind...who are you to judge anothers servant?"

The Catholic Church, in contrast to God, says...

"NO!!!...you have no business being fully convinced in your own mind unless you believe EXACTLY WHAT WE TELL YOU you must believe!

Exactly as the Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons tell their people.

There is only one faith, not many contraditory versions of it.Absolutly...and if you believe that, and if you are Catholic, you need to flee Catholicism like the plague.

The ONE FAITH is the scriptural one, not unscriptural ones like Catholicism, Jehovahs Witnesses or Mormonism.

Mike

[john6:63]

Originally posted by D28guy:
[QB]

The Catholic Church, in contrast to God, says...

"NO!!!...you have no business being fully convinced in your own mind unless you believe EXACTLY WHAT WE TELL YOU you must believe!
QB]So my wife, my brother and myself all read a passage of scripture. We all tell each other that we prayed and felt the Holy Spirit has led us to our own interpretations. We reveal to each other our respective interpretations and all three are different. We argue or discuss, that we are the one with the correct interpretation because the Holy Spirit led us.

My understanding (and any Catholic please correct me if I am wrong) is that when this happens in the Catholic Church, this discrepancy between interpretations is discussed at a council and a consensus is reached after a thorough such of the scriptures and that becomes the Churches stance.

[Doubting Thomas]

But that particular "II Esdras" was not in the LXX nor has it ever been part of the RCC's Canon or the Orthodox Canon (since it wasn't in the LXX). What I was asking for was specific examples of Deuterocanonical books from the LXX that were written before the time of Christ? (Hint: there aren't any.)

[Doubting Thomas]

D28guy:
Those were examples...from that day and age...of theological and doctrinal views that people held to. And its clear that Gods view is that its no big deal at all...UNLESS we become mean spirited, condemning and sectarian regarding those who hold a different view. And we do sometimes get that way. THAT is a problem...NOT brothers and sisters having different convictions.Yet it clearly is a big deal whether God is only a monad or exists in Three Persons. This goes to the very essence of who God is, yet advocates of "sola Scriptura" have come to mutually contradictory conclusions--some are Trinitarian, some are unitarian or modalists. I'd say the essence of God is fundamental to the faith.

It clearly is a big deal whether the God we worship is One who truly wants all to be saved, or whether he only desires and intends for the "elect" to be saved, an "elect" which is exclusively of His own choosing irrespective of how men may or may not respond to Him. It's hard to imagine that these two are the same "god".
Yet that's at the heart of Calvinist-Arminian debate which is presumably based on "sola Scriptura". I'd say the true character of God is a substantial issue.

It's also a big deal whether one can forfeit his salvation, or whether is unconditionally and eternally secure. Or whether all one has to do is just "believe", or whether obedience to Christ is necessary for salvation. Or whether the Holy Spirit does regnerate us in the waters of baptism and the Eucharist is the real communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, or whether these are just empty "symbols" or "ordinances" that have nothing to do with actual union with Christ.
These issues have bearing on the actual meaning of salvation and how it is "appropriated", and yet there are those "sola Scriptura" advocates who come to opposite conclusions on these substantial issues.

Sorry my friend, the Holy Spirit does not lead to chaos and contradictory views on the essence and character of God or on the meaning of the gospel and salvation and how it is received. We are to worship the One True God in Spirit and Truth, not in half-truths, partial truths, or in mutually conflicting conceptions of Him. I'm utterly and truly stunned and astonished that you can think it's okay for people just to be "convinced in their own minds" when the Truth itself (rather, Himself) is at stake.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
But that particular "II Esdras" was not in the LXX nor has it ever been part of the RCC's Canon or the Orthodox Canon (since it wasn't in the LXX). What I was asking for was specific examples of Deuterocanonical books from the LXX that were written before the time of Christ? (Hint: there aren't any.) The Date of the Apocrypha:
The date II Esdras is the end of the first century
Esther was written about 165 B.C.
The Wisdom of Solocom was written near the end of the first century B.C.
Ecclesiaticus has been assigned to about 180 B.C.
Bel and the Dragon to the time of the Ptolemies.
Baruch was written after the destruction of Jerusalem--70 A.D.
The date of I Maccabees is placed after 135 B.C.,

The Attitude of the early Church Fathers:
It is a significant fact that the best of the early Fathers adopted the Hebrew Canon as giving the authoritative Scriptures of the Old Testament. Augustine repeatedly stated the distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the Apocrypha, and in discussing a passage in II Maccabees declared that the book did not belong in the Hebrew Canon to which Christ bore witness.
Rufinus positively asserts that "The books of the Hebrew Canon are the inspired Scriptures." While Origen thought there were passages in the Apocrypha that were cited by the New Testament, he emphatically declared, "But this will give no authority to apocryphal writings, for the bounds which our fathers have fixed are not to be removed; and possibly the apostles and evangelists, full of the Holy Ghost, might know what should be taken out of those writings and what not. But we, who have not such a measure of the Spirit, cannot, without great danger presume to act in that manner."
That these books are spurious as to canonicity, and have no right to a place in the Word of God, is abundantly established. In rejecting these books the Protestant Bible takes the proper Scriptural position in maintaining that the Hebrew Canon contains the only Scriptures of the Old Testament recognized by our Lord and the New Testament writers. (notes in the Analytical Dixon Bible, Dixon Publishing Co.)

Obviously none of them were written before the LXX, which was completed in 250 B.C. They are all complete forgeries.
DHK

[Doubting Thomas]

First Esdras-- was written probably in the 2nd Century B.C. by an unknown Greek-speaking Jew, whose purpose was to emphasize the contributions of Josiah, Zerubbabel and Ezra to the reforms of Israelite worship. It basically reproduces 2 Chronicles 35-36, all of Ezra and Nehemiah 7:38-8:12.

Tobit--was written probably in the 2nd Century B.C. by an unknown author.

Judith--was probably written in the 2nd Century B.C.

The Wisdom of Solomon--This book is probably the last book of the Old Testament and was written around 100 B.C. by an Alexandrian Jew, although he probably used earlier materials even those possibly written by King Solomon.

Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.
--This book is the work of Jesus, the son of Sirach, probably a Jewish Scribe who committed his teachings to writing about 180 B.C. Soon after 132 B.C., his grandson (see the Prologue) translated the book into Greek.

Baruch--scholars generally believe this was written during the time of the Maccabees or shortly thereafter


First Maccabees--The author of this book was probably a Palestinian Jew living in Jerusalem, who wrote not long after the death of the High Priest John Hyrcanus I (134-104 B.C.).

Second Maccabees--This book is an abridgment of a five-volume history, now lost, by one Jason of Cyrene, and is a theological interpretation of Jewish history from the time of the High Priest Onias III and the Syrian King Seleucus IV to the defeat of Nicanor's army (180-161 B.C.), paralleling 1 Mac. 1:10-7:50. The author is the first known to us to celebrate the deeds of the martyrs and clearly teaches that the world was created out of nothing. He believes that the saints in Heaven intercede for men on earth (15:11-16), and that the living might pray and offer sacrifices for the dead (12:43-45). The book can be divided into three parts: 1) (Ch. 1-2) Two letters from the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt; 2) (Ch. 3-10:9) Events relating to the Temple, priesthood and the Syrian persecution of the Jews from 176-164 B.C.; and 3) (Ch. 10:10-15:39) The successful military campaign of Judas Maccabeus and the defeat of Nicanor.

Third Maccabees--.This book, written during the 1st Century B.C., deals with the struggles of Egyptian Jews who suffered under the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopater (221-203 B.C.) and the persecution of Palestinian Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.).

None were written after the time of Christ. They indeed became part of the LXX and were referred to as Scripture by the earliest Church fathers. Ethiopian Jews to this day include them in their canon (reflecting usage by the Jews of the Dispersion in NT times)

[DHK]

DT,
Not one of those books comes even remotely close to the LXX, written in 250 B.C., and more to the point, are even further removed from the Hebrew Canon of Scripture which was completed by 400 B.C. Why would any reasonable thinking person consider these spurious fairy-tale like books to be part of the inspired Word of God?
DHK

[Doubting Thomas]

And yet all these books appear in the LXX. You make the mistake of concluding that just because the deuterocanonicals weren't written before the protocanonical OT was originally translated in Greek that they couldn't have been included in the LXX shortly thereafter. However, history says that they were.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
And yet all these books appear in the LXX. You make the mistake of concluding that just because the deuterocanonicals weren't written before the protocanonical OT was originally translated in Greek that they couldn't have been included in the LXX shortly thereafter. However, history says that they were. They were never quoted by Christ. They were never quoted by the Apostles. They were never accepted by the Jews of any age. The difference in time between the writing of the Septuagint and the completion of the Apocrypha is more than 250 years. To consider these fairy-tale type books as Scripture is a joke.
Because someone included them in later editions of the Septuagint does make them authentic. They are no more authentic than the Book of Mormon.
DHK

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

I said...

"Those were examples...from that day and age...of theological and doctrinal views that people held to. And its clear that Gods view is that its no big deal at all...UNLESS we become mean spirited, condemning and sectarian regarding those who hold a different view. And we do sometimes get that way. THAT is a problem...NOT brothers and sisters having different convictions."And you say...

"Yet it clearly is a big deal whether God is only a monad or exists in Three Persons. This goes to the very essence of who God is, yet advocates of "sola Scriptura" have come to mutually contradictory conclusions--some are Trinitarian, some are unitarian or modalists. I'd say the essence of God is fundamental to the faith."Why are you bringing up false christian views about the nature of God into this? Why are you changing the subject? We have been speaking of "in house" discussions regarding brothers and sisters in the faith. Lets stick with that.

"It clearly is a big deal whether the God we worship is One who truly wants all to be saved, or whether he only desires and intends for the "elect" to be saved, an "elect" which is exclusively of His own choosing irrespective of how men may or may not respond to Him. It's hard to imagine that these two are the same "god".
Yet that's at the heart of Calvinist-Arminian debate which is presumably based on "sola Scriptura". I'd say the true character of God is a substantial issue."The folks on the predestination side and the folks on the free will side do indeed agree with one another regarding many many aspects of the nature and character of God.

That God is love. That God is holy. That God wants to save people. That God wants to teach people truth. That God hates sin. That God hates lies. That Christ died for our sins. etc etc etc.

And folks from either group will accuratly present the truth of the gospel...justification through faith alone in Christ alone...to a lost person.

They disagree regarding *some* aspects of how this all works itself out. And you are correct...it is substantial. Thats why these brothers and sisters contend with one another regarding truth. Its a very very very healthy thing. Without the freedom of brothers and sisters contending...error can run rampant, unchecked, unhindered, multiplying exponentially.

Just take a look at the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons, and Catholics. What hidious messes those groups are.

" It's also a big deal whether one can forfeit his salvation, or whether is unconditionally and eternally secure. Or whether all one has to do is just "believe", or whether obedience to Christ is necessary for salvation. Or whether the Holy Spirit does regnerate us in the waters of baptism and the Eucharist is the real communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, or whether these are just empty "symbols" or "ordinances" that have nothing to do with actual union with Christ.
These issues have bearing on the actual meaning of salvation and how it is "appropriated", and yet there are those "sola Scriptura" advocates who come to opposite conclusions on these substantial issues.And thats why its such an incredibly healthy thing for brothers and sisters to come together and discuss these things...holding each other accountable...being Gods "checks and balances" system. What a healthy thing it is.

And what a catastrophe...a monsterous and devilish catastrophe...when any group can decieve Gods dearly loved people into thinking that THEY...the "Hierarchy" of that group...are Gods truth interpreters, and that everyone must submit to every interpretation of theirs, because they are...supposedly...protected by God from error.

The Jehovahs Witnesses decieve their people with that lie.

The Mormons decieve their people with that lie.

David Koresh and Jim Jones decieved their people with that lie.

And the Catholic Church decieves their people with that lie.

And look at the result...1700 years of error running rampant, confusion and heresy being passed off as truth, chaos and confusion leading to more chaos and confusion...with nothing...NOTHING...working as a "checks and balances" system to reign it all in.

May Almighty God have mercy.

"Sorry my friend, the Holy Spirit does not lead to chaos and contradictory views on the essence and character of God or on the meaning of the gospel and salvation and how it is received."And thats why I and others are so certain regarding our convictions regarding groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholicism. If the error in the evangelical world is maybe a 2 or 3 on a scale of 10, Catholicism would register about a 25 on that 10 scale.

Not hard to see where the Holy Spirit is...and where He isnt.

"We are to worship the One True God in Spirit and Truth, not in half-truths, partial truths, or in mutually conflicting conceptions of Him. I'm utterly and truly stunned and astonished that you can think it's okay for people just to be "convinced in their own minds" when the Truth itself (rather, Himself) is at stake."It doesnt need to be so confusing for you. And it doesnt have to be so confusing for you. It really doesnt.

God bless you,

Mike

[Living4Him]

They were never quoted by Christ. They were never quoted by the Apostles. They were never accepted by the Jews of any age.Oh really?

Bible references (NT) to Deuterocanonical books of the O.T.: These references show legitimacy to these books that Protestants rejected.

1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2Macc 7:1-29. How do you, who do not have 2Maccabees, explain that? Note! The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1King 17:23 and 2King 4:36.

2. Heb 11:38, "...wandering in the deserts, mountains..." This is found in 1Macc 2:28-30 and 2Macc 5:27.

3. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.

4. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.

5. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7

6. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6

7. Heb 1:3, "...brightness of His glory..." Similar to Wis 7:26-27

8. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.

9. 1Cor 6:13, "...food for the belly and belly for food..." Similar to Sir 36:20

10. Rom 1:18-32, GOD is known by the things He has created...Similar to Wis 13:1-9

11. Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, "...all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them..." Similar to Tob 4:16

12. Lk 14:13, "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.

13. Rev 21:18, "And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass." Similar to Tob 13:21.

14. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.

15. Mt 18:15, "But if thy brother sin against thee..." Similar to Sir 19:13

16. Mt 25:36, "...sick and you visited me..." Similar to Sir 7:39.

17. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.

18. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." Found in Wis 2:13.

19. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.

20. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.

21. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.

22. Rom 10:6, "...Who will go up into heaven..." Found in Bar 3:29.

23. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.

24. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7.

25. 1Jn 3:17, "If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of GOD remain in him?" Found in Tob 4:7.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Yet it clearly is a big deal whether God is only a monad or exists in Three Persons. This goes to the very essence of who God is, yet advocates of "sola Scriptura" have come to mutually contradictory conclusions--some are Trinitarian, some are unitarian or modalists. I'd say the essence of God is fundamental to the faith."Why are you bringing up false christian views about the nature of God into this? Why are you changing the subject? We have been speaking of "in house" discussions regarding brothers and sisters in the faith. Lets stick with that.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not changing the subject at all--I'm merely pointing out that some have (and still do) on the basis of sola Scriptura concluded that a modalistic or unitarian concept of God is the Biblically correct one. Such have argued thus on this Baptisboard. They would argue that they are, in fact, "Christians", and are thus part of any "in house" discussions among other Christians. Who are you to say otherwise? Afterall, these individuals have the same Bible you do and many equally bash that dastardly RC Church like you do.

The folks on the predestination side and the folks on the free will side do indeed agree with one another regarding many many aspects of the nature and character of God.But not on all aspects as we will soon see...

That God is love... That God wants to save people. But this is at the heart of the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Does God love and want to save everybody, or just an arbitrary elect of his own choosing. One's "god" is omnibenevolent and all-loving the other's is not. One's "christ" died for the sins for all (meaning everyone); the other only for the elect.

And folks from either group will accuratly present the truth of the gospel...justification through faith alone in Christ alone...to a lost person.Except for that pesky faith alone part which just ain't Biblical (see James 2:24). There are many Protestants who disagree about faith "alone", whether it's actually "biblical" or what it may or may not mean. Are you going to boot them out of your club?

Thats why these brothers and sisters contend with one another regarding truth. Its a very very very healthy thing.It's only healthy if it brings about unity. The fact that these "contentions" have never arrived at the mutually agreed upon truth shows how unhealthy the whole "just-me-and-the-Bible" mentallity really is.

Without the freedom of brothers and sisters contending...error can run rampant, unchecked, unhindered, multiplying exponentially.But error is running rampant and multiplying exponentially because each individual Christian or sect acts as their own "mini-pope", teaching contradictory doctrines despite all claiming the Holy Spirit's guidance.

Just take a look at the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons, and Catholics. What hidious messes those groups are.Without necessarily disagreeing, I'd say look at the hideous schismatic mess of Protestant denominationalism. It's truly sad.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...These issues have bearing on the actual meaning of salvation and how it is "appropriated", and yet there are those "sola Scriptura" advocates who come to opposite conclusions on these substantial issues.And thats why its such an incredibly healthy thing for brothers and sisters to come together and discuss these things...holding each other accountable...being Gods "checks and balances" system. What a healthy thing it is.</font>[/QUOTE]But it's not healthy because despite all these discussions, denominations remain undivided (and continue to multiply) not being able to agree on these substantial things. Yet they're just all "going by the book"....

And what a catastrophe...a monsterous and devilish catastrophe...when any group can decieve Gods dearly loved people into thinking that THEY...the "Hierarchy" of that group...are Gods truth interpreters, and that everyone must submit to every interpretation of theirs, because they are...supposedly...protected by God from error.And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth, irrespective of the undivided Church's common, continuous understanding of the Truth through time and space.


And look at the result...1700 years of error running rampant, confusion and heresy being passed off as truth, chaos and confusion leading to more chaos and confusion...with nothing...NOTHING...working as a "checks and balances" system to reign it all in.Which is really nothing compared to the 500 plus years of actually greater confusion, error and relativistic chaos being passed off as true authentic Christianity. Without the "checks and balances" of the Holy Spirit guiding the church as a whole, such utter, rampant, appalling, astonishing chaos will wax worse and worse and worse....

May Almighty God have mercy.Indeed...may He grant mercy to the schismatics who, for the sake of individualism, have led us to this mess.


Not hard to see where the Holy Spirit is...and where He isnt.Yep...and He certainly is not (at least not fully) in the chaos of denominationalism.

Mike, it's truly sad that because of your Romaphobia you can't see the beam in your own Protestant eye.

(BTW--I'm not Roman Catholic, nor do I plan on becoming one if that clears up some confusion you may be having)

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:
They were never quoted by Christ. They were never quoted by the Apostles.Neither were several of the protocanonical OT books. I guess we should throw them out too. :rolleyes:
(However, as another poster mentioned, there are in fact allusions in the NT to these works)

They were never accepted by the Jews of any age.Wrong. They were used by the Jews of the Dispersion and the Essenes in Palestine. They are used by Ethiopian Jews today.

The difference in time between the writing of the Septuagint and the completion of the Apocrypha is more than 250 years.So? The various OT books were written over the course of several centuries, they just didn't drop out of the sky. What does it prove about the canonicity of subsequently written books if, at a given point in time, all books written up to that time were translated into a different language first? Nothing--what matters is how the books were used in the commmunity of faith. (And actually, the Deuterocanonicals were written within about 150 years of the original translation of the proto-OT into Greek.)
To consider these fairy-tale type books as Scripture is a joke. Well, I guess the joke's on the early Christians who quoted them as Scripture.

Because someone included them in later editions of the Septuagint does make them authentic.It doesn't rule out their authenticity either.

They are no more authentic than the Book of Mormon.
The early Christians and the Hellenic Jews of the time would beg to differ (as would the Ethiopian Jews of today).

I'll let church historian JND Kelly sum it up (although I will avoid extensive quoting for copywrite reasons--see the full treatment in his Early Christian Doctrines pg.53-55):

"It should be observed that the OT thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive that the 22 or 24 books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism ([here Kelly shows how this numbering is arrived at]) It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint."(ECD, pg.53)

Kelly then goes on to give a brief history of the LXX, mentioning its beginning in Alexandria in the mid-3rd century BC and how it became the Bible of the "Greek-speaking Jews of the Dispersion". He also mentions that most of the NT quotes of the OT are from the LXX and not the Hebrew. He then mentions how the Jews of Palestine [the Essenes excepted] seemed to have a "rigidly fixed" canon, but then proceeds to write...
"The outlook of the Jewish communities outside of Palestine tended to be much more elastic. While respecting the unique position of the Pentateuch, they treated the later books of the Old Testament with considerable freedom...and they did not hesitate to add entirely new books to the list. In this way I Esdras, Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees came to be included among the histories, and Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon (these last three 'the Additions to the Book of Daniel'.), and the Prayer of Manasseh among the poetical and prophetic books." (ibid, pg.53-54)

Kelly then goes on the list (and footnote) various instances where various early Fathers--Polycarp, Clement (of Rome), Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Clement (of Alexandria) quote these various works as Scripture. It wasn't until the close of the second century through dialogues/debates with Palestinian Jews that Christians began to show some hesistation regarding the status of these works.

[Doubting Thomas]

But it's not healthy because despite all these discussions, denominations remain undivided [sic] (and continue to multiply) not being able to agree on these substantial things. Yet they're just all "going by the book"....Whoops...I meant to say "remain divided".

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
Oh really?
Yes Really!!!!!!!!!!!!

No reliable Bible dictionary or encyclopedia will state that these books were ever cited in the New Testament. Check it out for yourselr.

It is absouletely absurd to think that similar phrases between different books are quotations from one to another. Is that like me saying that "God loved the world," and thus John, the writer of the Gospel, was quoting me??
That is your logic here. Totally absurd!!

Here are some quotes from Wycliffe's Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pulblished by Moody Press. It is a well known and very reliable source of information.
The apocryphal books, commonly dated from the 2nd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D., were too late to qualify (for the canon). Some of the books have historical mistakes and represent questionable ethics and theology.
The earliest list of OT canon (Melito of Sardis; cf. Eusebius H.E. iv. 16.14) does not include the Apocrypha. No book of the Apocrypha is directly quoted in the NT.David Cloud has also done extensive research on the subject. Though you may be biased against this writer one thing that you cannot slight him for is the thoroughness of his research. He documents what he says.
Why reject the Apocrypha:
1. They are not included in the original Hebrew O.T. preserved by the Jews (Rom.3:1,2)

2. They were not received as inspired Scripture by the churches during the first four centuries after Christ.

3. They were not written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and prophets of the OT.

4. They do not claim to be the inspired Word of God (no phrases such as "thus saith the Lord).

5. They contain teachings contrary to the Biblical books (prayers to the dead).

6. In qualitiy and style, the Apocryphal books are not on the level of Bible writings.

7. The Apocryphal writings are not quoted by the Lord Jesus or the Apostles, while every part of the OT Scriptures are quoted.

8. Some Apocryphal books, though written as history, are actually fiction.

9. The Apocryphal books were rejected from the canon of Scripture by the early church leaders.

10. The Book of Tobit contains many false things.
a. There is the account of a supposed high and good angel of God who lies and teaches the use of magic (Tobit 5:4,12)
b. The false doctrine of salvation through works is taught in the Book of Tobit (Tobit 12:9)
c. Tobit taught that help is given only to the deserving (Tobit 4:17)

11. The Book of Judith contains the account of how a supposedly godly widow destroyed one of Nebuchadnezzar's generals through deceit and sexual offers.These are spurious, fraudulent books that have no right to be included in the canon of the Scipture (66 books inspired of God).
DHK

[Doubting Thomas]

David Cloud....there's a reliable source for ya'. :rolleyes:

(Never mind there's a rebuttle to everyone of his points. I mentioned a few in my post above.)

[Living4Him]

Hellenistic Greek was the language of the day during the time of Christ. This was due to the fact that Alexander the Great had conquered the region several hundred years before. The Hebrew language was on its way out, and there was a critical need for a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament for dispersed Greek speaking Jews. This translation, called the Septuagint, or LXX, was completed by Jewish scholars in about 148 B.C. and it had all of the books, including the seven removed by Martin Luther over 1650 years later. The New Testament has about 350 references to Old Testament verses. By careful examination, scholars have determined that 300 of these are from the Septuagint and the rest are from the Hebrew Old Testament*. They have shown that Jesus Christ Himself, quoted from the Septuagint. Early Christians used the Septuagint to support Christian teachings. The Jews were upset that these new Christians were using their translation for Christian advantage.

About 90-95 A.D., or several decades after the beginning of Christianity, the Jews called a council to deal with the matter. In this council, called the "Council of Jamnia*", Jewish Pharisees, who survived the devastating destruction of Jerusalem and of their temple in 70 A.D., decided to remove books that were helpful to Christians. They removed the seven books, using various reasons as their "authorization" to do so. Keep in mind, that the Greek speaking Jews had been using the Septuagint for well over two centuries by this time. It was the Bible of the Greek speaking "Bereans" of Acts 17:10-15


Of these books, neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles referenced:
Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentatations, and Nahum.
Does this make these books any less canonical simply because they were not referenced by them?

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

"I'm not changing the subject at all--I'm merely pointing out that some have (and still do) on the basis of sola Scriptura concluded that a modalistic or unitarian concept of God is the Biblically correct one. Such have argued thus on this Baptisboard."So what. Why should that alarm you? We were told 2000 years ago that their will always be false teachers, wolves in sheeps clothing, and decievers in the world, sometimes masquarading as christians and "ministers of light".

The good news is that we have...in the body of Christ...everyone doing as God has admonished us to do, and that is all of us..."searching the scriptures daily", because "all scriptures is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness", etc. We expose the error with the light.

On the other hand, in groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Catholicism, and the Mormons the people are forbidden to ever believe anything other than what the Gestapo...I mean The Hierarchy...commands them to believe.

With us...Gods checks and balances system works, and the darkness is exposed by the light.

With the other system...heresy, idolatry, false teaching and wickedness multiplies exponentially for 2000 years, totally unchecked and unhindered because NOBODY CAN HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE because the dear ones have been commanded to never disbelieve anything The Hierarchy commands them to believe.

"But this is at the heart of the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Does God love and want to save everybody, or just an arbitrary elect of his own choosing. One's "god" is omnibenevolent and all-loving the other's is not. One's "christ" died for the sins for all (meaning everyone); the other only for the elect.Thats right. And by contending as they do "iron sharpens iron" and both become stronger. And they both hold the other accountable, and prevent the other side from going too far into REAL problematic teachings. As it is, both sides are biblically sound, both are in agreement regarding multitudes of biblcal teachings, and both proclaim the same...and the TRUE...gospel to a lost person. As opposed to groups like Catholicism who have become a virtual smogasborg of overflowing heresy, idolatry, and devilish false teaching...even to the point of no longer proclaiming the TRUE gospel!

And God says to both sides of your example to "contend eanestly" for the truth, and "study, as a workman who needeth not to be ashamed" to "Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind", and not to "judge your brother" regarding differences such as these..

I say to that..."Yes Lord!" You say..."No Lord!"

"Except for that pesky faith alone part which just ain't Biblical (see James 2:24)"BINGO

I believe its entirely possible that the cause of much of your confusion may have just been identified.

"It's only healthy if it brings about unity."I dont personally know any calvinists or arminians who dont love each other and consider the others to be nothing less that brothers and sisters who are working together in the harvest field.

"The fact that these "contentions" have never arrived at the mutually agreed upon truth shows how unhealthy the whole "just-me-and-the-Bible" mentallity really is."Where do you get this "just me and my bible" nonsense? Millions on both sides of your example have Gods scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is also actively involved on both sides of the issue being discussed.

"But error is running rampant and multiplying exponentially because each individual Christian or sect acts as their own "mini-pope", teaching contradictory doctrines despite all claiming the Holy Spirit's guidance."I've heard that hysterical nonsense spewed forth on EWTN so many times it would make your head spin.

(although maybe not...you would be saying... "Amen"!)

"And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth, irrespective of the undivided Church's common, continuous understanding of the Truth through time and space."I find it stunning that you have such a low view of the Holy Spirit. What do you think He...the Holy Spirit...is? A bumbling incompetant? And when you say...

"irrespective of the undivided Church's common, continuous understanding of the Truth through time and space."You sound like you just stepped out of "RCC indoctrination class 101"

"Continuous understanding of truth???"

The more accurate statement would be "continuous replacement of truth with heretical idolatries and falsehoods."

With all of it running unhindered and unchecked...due to the cunning and very succesful stripping of the masses ability to recognise error, due to the succesful indoctrinating of them to never doubt anything that The Hierarchy commands them to believe.

God help them.

"Mike, it's truly sad that because of your Romaphobia you can't see the beam in your own Protestant eye."I have no Romaphobia, I am not the least bit scared of her, or her minions. I simply know that of which I speak, and I love Catholic people enough to tell them the truth.

Thats the truth. You are free to spin it however you want.

God bless,

Mike

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas...

You said, incredibly...

"And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth,""...so presumptous to assume the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth"

John 16:13...

"However, when He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth."

John 10:27...

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."

John 10:3-6...

"To Him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear His voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out...and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow the voice of a stranger, but will free from him, for they do not know the voice of a stranger"

Presumption?

No...its a normal thing if one is a believer.

The scriptures tell us that God knows an individual sparrow when it falls, that He feeds individually every bird, and He individually clothes every single flower.

I can assure you...God can feed His people truth individually. Thank God that He can.

Grace and peace,

Mike

[Briony-Gloriana]

And despite all this kufuffle the Roman Catholic Church survives intact from when it was instigated by Jesus Christ and it takes solace that the Gates of Hell will never prevail....

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saculorum. Amen.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Doubting Thomas...

You said, incredibly...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth,""...so presumptous to assume the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth"

John 16:13...

"However, when He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth."

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Umm..Mike, "you" is plural in that passage. God promises the Holy Spirit to quide the Church collectively into the One Truth; He doesn't promise to guide individuals into multiple mutually contradictory "truths". It baffles me that this concept escapes you and that you keep referring to some fictious "checks and balances" whereby the Christian world, in fact, remains fractured into denominationalism. Then you get all "kum-bah-ya" on me and say (WTTE): "But they all are one...can't you see how calvinists and arminians despite their differences really love each other." Never mind that they remain divided, as do countless other denominations, all just "going by the book". So much for "one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism...".

"Yep, we all just love each other, although, despite mutual committments to "solo Scriptura", we can't agree exactly on what the one faith is and therefore can't worship together as one body. (We'll just remain separate and tolerate each other as we teach our contradictory versions of the "truth", thank you very much). But hey--at least we're not Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Catholics!!!!"

[Priscilla Ann]

The discussion on this thread reminds me of a couple of incidents that I recall from my 38 years as a Catholic.

I began studying the bible when I was in my early 30's; and as a result, began to see the inconsistencies between Catholic teaching and the bible. (Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, etc.) When I pointed these out to my priest during a discussion, he told me the problem was that I needed to read the bible with a Catholic commentary. In other words, he implied that I could not correctly understand the bible unless I read it with a Catholic commentary.

Around that same time, I had a discussion with my grandmother. Grandma was a devout, lifelong Catholic who attended mass daily. I mentioned to her that I had been reading the bible. Grandma told me that she had never read the bible. I asked, "Grandma, how do you know what the bible says." Grandma replied, "Oh, the priest tells us."

During my 38 years a s a Catholic, I not encouraged to read the bible. If the bible was read at all, it was to be only with a Catholic commentary.

I left Catholicism about 10 years ago. Have things changed since I left?

PA

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
[QB] Doubting Thomas,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"I'm not changing the subject at all--I'm merely pointing out that some have (and still do) on the basis of sola Scriptura concluded that a modalistic or unitarian concept of God is the Biblically correct one. Such have argued thus on this Baptisboard."So what. Why should that alarm you? We were told 2000 years ago that their will always be false teachers, wolves in sheeps clothing, and decievers in the world, sometimes masquarading as christians and "ministers of light".</font>[/QUOTE]But who is teaching the truth? Trinitarians say they are. Unitarians say they are. Modalists say they are. Which ones are the real Christians and which are the false ones? Who are the sheep (actually hearing the voice of the Shephard) and who are the wolves? They all claim to be faithful to the bible.

The good news is that we have...in the body of Christ...everyone doing as God has admonished us to do, and that is all of us..."searching the scriptures daily", because "all scriptures is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness", etc. We expose the error with the light.
Except that each group, based on their "searching the Scriptures daily", have concluded that the others are on error on points X, Y, and Z. So which group is exposing error (and at which point) and which group is just blowing hot air? It's not as if the others are saying: "Gee, you are right. My interpretation is wrong and I accept your admonition" and then proceeding to lay aside their differences they are merging their separate groups together. Nope, denominationalism is alive and well. I'm truly astonished and utterly stunned that you seem to belief that this denominationalism is part of God's "checks and balance" system as if He was going to scatter bits and pieces of His Truth among the different sects. (When are these alleged "checks and balances" actually going to start working , Mike?) So much for all for us being one as Christ and the Father are one so the world may believe in Christ (John 17:21--and, no, Mike, the world can't see an invisible "unity").

(Now here's where you go into "kum-bah-ya" mode and repeat your talking points on "in-house" "checks and balances" before going on another diatribe about Mormons, JWs, and Roman Catholics, despite the fact that I'm none of the above.)

(Well, I've wasted enough of my time on this..time to enjoy the weekend.)

[Doubting Thomas]

Oh..a couple more things....
Originally posted by D28guy:
And God says to both sides of your example to "contend eanestly" for the truth, and "study, as a workman who needeth not to be ashamed" to "Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind", and not to "judge your brother" regarding differences such as these..

I say to that..."Yes Lord!" You say..."No Lord!"Yet these groups never come to an agreement which involves a fundamental understanding of the character of God. One position is true, the other is necessarily false and therefore heresy. There are not two "sides" to the truth. (Where did you learn that, RELATIVISM101?)



</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The fact that these "contentions" have never arrived at the mutually agreed upon truth shows how unhealthy the whole "just-me-and-the-Bible" mentallity really is."Where do you get this "just me and my bible" nonsense? Millions on both sides of your example have Gods scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is also actively involved on both sides of the issue being discussed. </font>[/QUOTE]So the Holy Spirit is active on "both sides" of the issue perpetually supporting contradictory versions of the truth and maintaining schism in (or from) the body? "I don't think so, Tim." :eek:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"And what an equally monstrous catastrophe that individuals can be so presumptous to assume that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually into all truth, irrespective of the undivided Church's common, continuous understanding of the Truth through time and space."I find it stunning that you have such a low view of the Holy Spirit. What do you think He...the Holy Spirit...is? A bumbling incompetant?</font>[/QUOTE]To the contrary, you have the low view of the Holy Spirit since you suggest that he continues to inspire contradictory versions of the truth keeping the Christians divided into numerous competing groups rather than united in the one body observing the one faith.

Okay...that's all.


:cool:

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

"(John 17:21--and, no, Mike, the world can't see an invisible "unity")."Oh really?

I saw it. Millions see it. During my years as a lost person, and particularly during the years when I was under Holy Spirit conviction, God sent many many christians my way. He caused me to cross paths with them in many ways. Some of these brothers and sisters...in Christs one body...were baptists, some were pentecostals, some were fundamentalists, some were charismatics, some were non-denominationals, some leaned more towards the "conservative" side of things, some leaned more towards the "liberal" side of things. Some were calvinists, some were arminians.

And yet it was abundantly clear to this lost person that these beautiful and caring people were all part of one body...the body of Christ. There was the same discernable *something* that they all had, that I knew I didnt have. Although they sometimes used different terminology at times, the love was the same, and the message was the same. I was a sinner and would stand before God one day as a sinner.. The Lord Jesus Christ was my only hope. He died for my sins and was offering new life to me, if I would only repent and recieve Him through the indwelling Holy Spirit. I could be made new and justified in Gods eyes through faith alone. And the result would be that God would give me new wants and desires and revolutionise my life by recreating me from the inside out.

There came a point where...23 years ago...I did that, and I discovered that what they told me was true. My life was revolutionised from the inside out. The Lord Jesus Christ has been "more than enough" through all these years.

How could those born again people, from this...supposedly...fractured, broken apart mess of confusion and quarelling groups all present such a unified brotherhood...and such a clear message of truth... to me?

Because the "fractured, broken apart mess of confusion and quarelling groups" is nothing but a satanic lie that is fostered upon the world by the deciever, and sometimes propagated by false "christian" religious groups who must keep their people in their clutches. Passive, compliant, and under their control.

The Jehovahs Witnesses do it. The Mormons do it. David Koresh and Jim Jones did it. And the Catholic Church does it.


"Now here's where you go into "kum-bah-ya" mode and repeat your talking points on "in-house" "checks and balances"Sorry friend. Its not "kum-bah-ya". Its the body of Christ. Christs ONE body. But with many flavors and areas of emphasis. But with truth found in all of them. Its a beautiful thing. Can we do better regarding HOW we contend with each other for the truth? Sometimes. But the problem certainly isnt the contending. The contending is a very good and profitable thing. All one has to do is look at evagelicalsim...and compare it to the JW's, Mormons, or Catholicism.

Its like the difference between light and darkness.

And I mean that literally as well as figurativly.

God bless,

Mike

[Doubting Thomas]

Because the "fractured, broken apart mess of confusion and quarelling groups" is nothing but a satanic lie that is fostered upon the world by the deciever,Actually it's an unfortunate reality brought about by lone-ranger schismatic christians and their followers. The Mormons, JWs, Jim Jones, and Koresh are just extreme apostate examples of the same schismatic tendencies. (And yeah...the pretentions and abuses of Rome share some of the blame as well). Or else we wouldn't have all these denominations that don't worship together because they can't agree exactly on what the one faith is.

Sorry friend. Its not "kum-bah-ya". Its the body of Christ. Christs ONE body. But with many flavors and areas of emphasis. But with truth found in all of them. Its a beautiful thing.(Mike in his ostrich position once again).
"Flavors and areas of emphasis"...nice euphemism for contradictions and confusion and for schisms and heresies. But again that's coming from one who thinks relativism is "a beautiful thing".

Its like the difference between light and darkness. Indeed. :cool:

[D28guy]

Pricilla Ann,

"I began studying the bible when I was in my early 30's; and as a result, began to see the inconsistencies between Catholic teaching and the bible. (Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, etc.) When I pointed these out to my priest during a discussion, he told me the problem was that I needed to read the bible with a Catholic commentary. In other words, he implied that I could not correctly understand the bible unless I read it with a Catholic commentary.

Around that same time, I had a discussion with my grandmother. Grandma was a devout, lifelong Catholic who attended mass daily. I mentioned to her that I had been reading the bible. Grandma told me that she had never read the bible. I asked, "Grandma, how do you know what the bible says." Grandma replied, "Oh, the priest tells us."

During my 38 years a s a Catholic, I not encouraged to read the bible. If the bible was read at all, it was to be only with a Catholic commentary.

I left Catholicism about 10 years ago. Have things changed since I left?"No, unfortunetly they havent.

Although some Catholic apologists are trained well to "spin" things in a way that makes it sound like the average Catholic holds the scriptures in as high a regard as evangelicals do, they do not.

They are completly forbidden to go to the scriptures themselves...as God wants them to do...trusting only the Holy Spirit to guide them. As has always been the case, they are obligated to believe precisely as "The Hierarchy" commands them to believe.

Just like the Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons, they are told that the *magical* and all knowing "Hierarchy" of the Catholic Church...through its "Teaching Majesterium"...are the only ones on earth capable of interpreting the scriptures...and they interpret them without error.

PRECISELY as the JW's believe concerning the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society interpretations found in their literature.

And as a result, as one would expect, false teaching, superstition, heresy, idolatry and the like run rampant through the Catholic Church in a rushing current of chaos amd confusion.

There is no "checks and balances" system in place to keep the overflow of error in check, because "The Hierarchy" has cunningly eliminated it.

Very sadly,

Mike

[Priscilla Ann]

d28guy:

It is very sad. Catholics are taught to trust the Catholic Church for their salvation, not Jesus Christ. My grandmother died 3 years ago this summer; and while my grandmother was a very good, kind person, I can't help but wonder about her salvation. If one could get to heaven by simply being a good person, Grandma certainly would be in heaven. That, however, is not the gospel. The Catholic members of my family continue to have masses said for her to shorten her time in purgatory. (How many masses will be enough?)

How do you make clear to Catholics the difference between trusting in Jesus Christ and trusting in the traditions of men?

PA

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:


Of these books, neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles referenced:
Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentatations, and Nahum.
Does this make these books any less canonical simply because they were not referenced by them? They are in the Canon of Scripture because God inspired them and put them there. It is obvious that they are the inspired Word of God, and that the Apocrypha is not. Can you answer each and every objection put forth above, and not just pick out this one. However to give you an answer to this one, here it is:

Song of Solomon:
The Song of Solomon falls into the category of the poetical books. It was written by Solomon, and indeed Solomon himself is mentioned many times in the New Testament, unlike many of the Apocryphal books where the author is not even known.
The Song of Solomon is a love story when taken literally, as it should be. But it is also an allegory of Christ and his Church, and thus is very much found in the New Testament. Here is what some commentaries say about it:
”Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament the relationship of the Lord’s people to the Lord is illustrated under the figure of marriage. Israel is the wife of Jehovah (Hos.2:19-23), in her sin and unbelief now divorced, but yet to be restored (Isa.45:5; Jer.3:1; Hos.1-3) in most wonderful grace and glory, which we believe is the aspect of the mutual love that is highlighted in the book. On the other hand, the Christian church is presented as a virgin espoused to Christ (2Cor.11:2; Eph.5:23-32; Rev.19:6-8), and is also typically reflected as a part of the redeemed.
This view is not posited on a merely assumed higher spiritual meaning of the poem, but on an innate Spirit-inspired and Spirit-inwrought purpose providentially concealed from the unspiritual mind. Matthew Henry aptly says of the book: ‘It is a parable, which makes divine things more difficult to those who do not love them, but more plain and pleasant to those who do (Mat.13:14,16). Experienced Christians here find a counterpart of their experiences, and to them it is intelligible, while those neither understand it nor relish it who have no part or lot in the matter.’”(Commentary on the Whole Bible, e: 1053).(Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. I. Merrill F. Unger. )

The entire poem speaks of Christ coming for his bride or church. There are many verses that point out these things. It speaks allegorically of these things. But as Matthew Henry says, those that are not spiritually minded will never understand these things.
Thus is the Song of Solomon.

Ecclesiastes:
Ecclesiastes is also written by Solomon, the same Solomon who is mentioned many times in the New Testament.
Ecclesiastes is never quoted in the NT directly, but Rom.8:20, speaking of creation subject to vanity, may have Solomon’s theme as background; and our Lord’s parable of the rich fool (Lk.12:16-21) is like the final sentence (Eccl.12:14).(Wycliffe Bible Encyclopaedia.)

Esther:
“Esther is not quoted in the NT directly, however, the book has wonderful lessons on the faithfulness of God even when His people are disobedient.” (Wycliffe)
The book itself is a reminder that “God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew” (Rom.11:2) but will preserve a remnant of them to realize His covenant and promises made to them (cf. Rom. 9:4-5). As such, the book is a powerful attestation of God’s sovereignty as well as His covenant faithfulness to His own in all ages. (Unger)

Obadiah:
Verses 5-9 describe the destruction of Edom. In the NT, Edom is known as Idumea. Ruined economically by the Arabs, and later conquered by the Romans, the Edomites disappeared from the pages of history about A.D. 70. Thus the NT and history shows the prophecy of this book to be accurate and true. It is the inspired Word of God. Apocryphal books are not so.

Zephaniah:
Being a book of judgement as well as a book of promise of restoration, there is much in the New Testament about the contents of Zephaniah. One just has to look for it. For example:
In chapter 1:14-18, “The warning given to Judah and Jerusalem of the approaching destruction by the Chaldeans. It is the ‘great day of the Lord,’ a kind of doom’s-day, as the last destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is represented to be in our Saviour’s prediction concerning it, Mat.24:27.” (Matthew Henry)

Judges:
Haven’t you read Hebrews chapter 11?
Hebrews 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

I Chronicles:
Surely you jest. This book is a record, a genealogy from Adam to the reign of David, and many of the people and events are mentioned in the New Testament. Here are a couple of the more specific ones:
1. God’s promise to David (17:14)……..Luke 1:33
2. Pilgrims and sojourners on the earth (29:15)…………….Heb.11:13

Ezra:
Ezra is a continuation of the second book of Chronicles, and the opening statements are a repetition of the closing announcement of that book.
Ezra 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
--This action corresponds to the command given by Paul in 2Cor.6:14-18, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.”
In chapter 3, the Hebrew name Yeshua, is translated as Jesus.

Nehemiah:
The Book of Nehemiah is the sequel to the narrative begun in the Book of Ezra. The two books are properly considered as one. It is Volume II.
Nehemiah was a man of God, a reformer of his day.
There were not many copies of the Law in that day, and moreover, many of the people were incapable of understanding it in the language in which it was written. They had been living for years under Babylonian conditions and their speech had become that of the country.
Their Bible became a new book to them when Ezra read it “and gave the sense” in terms of the dialect then in use. As we have seen, it had a profound effect upon the minds of the people; they were powerfully moved by the Divine utterances to the nation. It brought them to tears and to holy resolves. It brings to mind a similar scene back in the days of Josiah when the lost Book of the Law was found in the Temple. The king was stirred to the depths by what he read and it came with reviving power to the nation.
When rightly explained, when it gets into the mind and then into the heart, the Word of God never fails to cause serious reflection, to bring us to self-examination to a sense of sin and a consciousness of our need of God. The great need of today is a revival of a true understanding of the Bible. The great mass of the people know very little about it.(Dixon Analytical Bible). And they certainly don’t learn it in the Catholic churches.

Lamentations:
This is an addition by Jeremiah.
“In addition to being the words of Jeremiah, the book may also be thought of as expressing:
1. The sorrow of the Jewish remnant, for whom Jeremiah was a spokesman, as they witnessed the Babylonian invasion.
2. The anguish of the Messiah when He came to suffer, bleed, and die on the cross of Calvary (ex. 1:12)
3. The sorrow of the Jewish remnant in a future day when they will be called upon to go through the Great Tribulation, the Time of Jacob’s Trouble.” (William MacDonald).

Nahum:
Matthew 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
--Jonah had been to Nineveh over 100 years before. This is the second time God had sent a prophet to this heathen nation telling it to repent.

Nahum 1:15 Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows: for the wicked shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.
--Paul quotes from this passage in Romans 10:15

Here are the facts to consider. Every one of these books speak of Christ in one way or another. They are all written before 400 B.C. They are all written in the Hebrew language. They differ greatly from the fairy tale books of the Apocrypha, such as “Bel and the Dragon.” The Apocrypha and its fairy-tales have no place among the 66 inspired books that make up the canon of Scripture that we now have. These truths are self-evident.
DHK

[violet]

Why are you using a commentary?

[Living4Him]

fairy-tales have no place among the 66 inspired booksThe Bible is the inspired Word of God and it is to teach the truths needed for our salvation.

The contexual approach of interpreting the Bible, will enable us to go back to the original intent of its authors by analyzing their times, culture, languages, and other circumstances.

The contextual approach to the Bible does not deny the truth of the Bible. God is the author of the Bible. Since God is the author of the Bible, the books of Scripture teach without error the truths that God intends to reveal for the sake of our salvation.

But truth is expressed in different ways in various literary forms, such as history, prophecy, poetry, law, proverbs (wise sayings), myths (stories or descriptions of actual events that explain ultimate reality), legends (popular unverifiable stories handed down from the past, often conveying a moral), fables (fictitious stories, often with animal characters, that teach a lesson), and parables (simple stories that illustrate a moral or a religious lesson).

All these literary forms are capable of communicating truth in dramatic fashiion. They express truths in ways that a mere dictionary cannot.

Worth noting, is the distinction between truth and historical actuality. A story which is not historical can convey truth, as the parables of Jesus show.

At times historical persons become the focal point for stories that are not historical but teach lessons that are true. For example, George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and admitting his guilt, "I cannot tell a lie" may not be historical. However, the story does teach a moral that is true: Honesty is the best policy.

[D28guy]

Pricilla Ann,

"d28guy:

It is very sad. Catholics are taught to trust the Catholic Church for their salvation, not Jesus Christ. My grandmother died 3 years ago this summer; and while my grandmother was a very good, kind person, I can't help but wonder about her salvation. If one could get to heaven by simply being a good person, Grandma certainly would be in heaven. That, however, is not the gospel. The Catholic members of my family continue to have masses said for her to shorten her time in purgatory. (How many masses will be enough?)

How do you make clear to Catholics the difference between trusting in Jesus Christ and trusting in the traditions of men?"Its very very difficult. In some cases the Holy Spirit simply is not there to open their understanding. They are as lost as Satan, yet they are "good Catholics". Other times, they might have somehow stumbled upon saving faith in spite of the Catholic Church.

In either case it seems that there is almost a brainwashing that takes place. I dont mean that literally, but its almost that severe regarding how blinded to simple biblical truth Catholics can be. Just reading posts on forums like this serves as great examples.

I was that way. I was a "good Catholic" my whole life until age 24. 8 years of parochial grade school, mass every sunday, religion class for 8 years, CCD classes, and altar boy, confessional booths, doing lots of "penance" prescribed by the so called "priest", etc etc etc.

And yet I was completly lost. No more saved that Satan Himself. When I heard the gospel for the 1st time in my early 20's it was something completly new. I had never heard it before.

I had heard a convoluted mess of requirments, ways to appease God, punishments, ways to increase my chances, lots of "hope so, think so, maybe so's", lots of works, works, works, works, and more works, with only a chance that I MIGHT go to heaven...but probably would go to purgatory for some unknown period of torment to burn for some extended period of time to somehow finally become "worthy" of heaven.

When christians...actual born again people...shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with me in my early 20's it was like cool water to a very thirsty man.

I thought to myself..."You mean I can be totally reconciled to God, through faith in Jesus Christ alone? I can embrace Christ through faith alone, with my works...neither good nor bad...having no part whatsoever??? And God Himself will indwell me through the Holy Spirit, and give my new life? A truly meaningful and fruitfull life...with God Himself producing new life in and through me?"

"Yep. That right Mike." ...I was told.

I resisted for a while...smoking reefer and drinking can be fun you know...but it was just a matter of time before I came to my senses. Praise God I did!

Anyway, having never heard the true gospel as a Catholic, I can sympathise with them. The mess of falsehood is so overwhelming its just about impossible. But not impossible. With my family I just kept living out the fruitfull christian life in front of them, sharing truth as God opened doors, praying for them, and asking God to bring them to their senses. Both of my parents and my younger sister have since passed away.

The results?

My mother was born again on her deathbed, primarily through the final witness of a nurse who was taking care of her at the end.

I shared the gospel with my sister on her deathbed and she recieved.

And my father was born again on his deathbed.

And now they are in heaven...and here I am still down here! lol! graemlins/laugh.gif Of course, the scriptures tell us that many times "the 1st will be last, and the last 1st"

Regarding your question...

"How do you make clear to Catholics the difference between trusting in Jesus Christ and trusting in the traditions of men?"Its difficult due to the indoctrination that takes place. But just live out the "Spirit filled" life in front of them, love them, and present truth as God opens door. Dont force it...unless you are VERY certain that God is opening a door.

And above all...present the simplicity of the gospel, the truth that justification is through faith alone, and the certainty of salvation for the born again person.

Because...as you know...to the Catholic, "salvation" is very convoluted and complex, the Catholic must "work work work!" their way into heaven, and there is no certainty.

I believe its impossible for the glorious, wonderful, and liberating truths of the true gospel to not wet the appetite of the ever working and ever uncertain Catholic. The Holy Spirit will move in and begin to plant seeds of truth in their heart.

Concerning your grandmother, I see you live in the midwest (here in the USA), so she surely heard to true gospel in her lifetime. In addition, I'll bet she saw the fruit and joy of true salvation through you, and probably others as well. I wouldnt be surprised if during her last conscience moments before passing she entered into true saving faith. Why not take this to God and ask Him to confirm to you in some way that she did in fact enter into saving faith?

I'll bet God will get word to you somehow. graemlins/thumbs.gif

God bless you,

Mike

[DHK]

Originally posted by violet:
Why are you using a commentary? I use commentaries, because I don't bother wasting my time reading through the books of the Apocrypha myself. It is a waste of time. That is one reason.

As far as the particular books of Scripture that were mentioned, a specific question was asked about them. It takes research from others who have done the work before you to quote what New Testament references are used in specific books of the Old Testament.

A similar question would be is how many times is the phrase "the Day of the Lord" used in the Book of Zephaniah, and is often repeated in the New Testament. The answer is five. But how would you know that if you didn't do some research first without using other peoples commentaries and research?
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:

At times historical persons become the focal point for stories that are not historical but teach lessons that are true. For example, George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and admitting his guilt, "I cannot tell a lie" may not be historical. However, the story does teach a moral that is true: Honesty is the best policy. And so what value does the Book of Tobit have for us when it teaches us all about the practice of magic?

Or what value does the Book of Judith teach us when it is good for a woman to deceitfully offer sexual favors to a man in order to get what she wants. Is this good morality to teach to your children. I am glad I don't (or didn't) have you as a parent.

Or tell me all the valuable worth you got out of "Bel and the Dragon," how inspiring it was as the "Word of God."

Was the Book of Sussanna on the same par as the Book of Isaiah, and what exactly did it teach that was of any benefit.

Why were these books fabricated all between the 2nd cetury B.C. and the 1st century A.D., and written in Greek, when the canon of the Old Testament was closed by 400 A.D., and all the books had to be written in Hebrew, and had to be written before 450 B.C. in order to be admitted into the canon?

Your Apocrypha is discredited immediately on those grounds alone.
DHK

[Rachel]

Originally posted by D28guy:

I had heard a convoluted mess of requirments, ways to appease God, punishments, ways to increase my chances, lots of "hope so, think so, maybe so's", lots of works, works, works, works, and more works, with only a chance that I MIGHT go to heaven...but probably would go to purgatory for some unknown period of torment to burn for some extended period of time to somehow finally become "worthy" of heaven.

Mike This is a constant thing I hear from Catholics I know or come in contact with. You can't have assurance of salvation! It boggles my mind. graemlins/tear.gif But I won't give up spreading the gospel.


Ephesians 2:4-10, 13-22

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

†

[violet]

Originally posted by DHK:
I use commentaries, because I don't bother wasting my time reading through the books of the Apocrypha myself. It is a waste of time. That is one reason.

As far as the particular books of Scripture that were mentioned, a specific question was asked about them. It takes research from others who have done the work before you to quote what New Testament references are used in specific books of the Old Testament.

A similar question would be is how many times is the phrase "the Day of the Lord" used in the Book of Zephaniah, and is often repeated in the New Testament. The answer is five. But how would you know that if you didn't do some research first without using other peoples commentaries and research?
But then why do you get upset when a priest suggests that one of his parishoners use one?

[Living4Him]

Or what value does the Book of Judith teach us when it is good for a woman to deceitfully offer sexual favors to a man in order to get what she wants.The Book of Judith has a dramatic setting that appealed to Jewish patriotism, and it warned of the urgency of adhering to Mosaic law, generally speaking, but what accounted for its enduring appeal was the drama of its narrative.

The subject: a daring and beautiful woman in her full maturity, dressed as for the feast with all her spectacular jewels, accompanied by an apprehensive maid, succeeds in decapitating the invading general, Holofernes. The moral is as much about the dangers of a beautiful woman, as had been told of Dalilah and Samson, but here the woman was a culture-hero to the listeners.

And so what value does the Book of Tobit have for us when it teaches us all about the practice of magic?The book tells the story of a righteous Jew of the Tribe of Naphtali named Tobit living in Nineveh after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria. He was particularly noted for his diligence in attempting to provide proper burials for fallen Jews who had been slain. After Sennecharib's death, he was allowed to return to Nineveh, but again buried a dead man who had been murdered on the street. That night, he slept in the open and was blinded by bird droppings that fell in his eyes. This puts a strain on his marriage, and ultimately, he prays for death.

Meanwhile, in faraway Media, a young woman named Sarah prays for death in despair, because she has lost seven husbands to the demon Ashmodai
with each husband killed on the wedding night, before the marriage could be consummated. God sends the angel Raphael, disguised as a human, to heal Tobit and to free Sarah from the demon.

The main narrative is dedicated to Tobit's son, Tobiah or Tobijah (Greek: Tobias), of the Tribe of Naphtali, who is sent by his blind father to collect a sum of money that the latter had deposited some time previously in the far off land of Media. Raphael represents himself as Tobit's kinsman Azariah, and offers to aid and protect Tobijah on his journey. Under the guidance of Raphael, Tobiah makes the journey to Media. Along the way, he is attacked by a giant fish, whose heart, liver and gall bladder are removed to make medicines.

Upon arriving in Media, Raphael tells Tobiah of the beautiful Sarah, whom Tobijah has the right to marry, because she is in his family. He instructs the young man to burn the fish's liver and heart to drive away the demon when he attacks on the wedding night. The two are married, and the fumes of the burning organs drive the demon away to Upper Egypt, while Raphael follows him and binds him. Meanwhile, Sarah's father has been digging a grave to secretly bury Tobiah (whom he assumes will be dead). Surprised to find his son-in-law alive and well, he orders a double-length wedding feast (and has the grave secretly filled). Since he cannot leave because of the feast, Tobiah sends Raphael to recover his father's money. After the feast, Tobiah and Sarah return to Nineveh.

There, Raphael tells the youth to use the fish's gall to cure his father's blindness. Raphael then reveals his true identity and returns to heaven. Tobit sings a hymn of praise, and tells his son to leave Nineveh before God destroys it according to the prophecy of Nahum. After burying his father, Tobiah returns to Media with his family, where he later learns that the destruction of Nineveh took place as his father predicted.

It is a religious novel with certain historical elements. The value of prayer, fasting and almsgiving is particularly praised in this instruction. Doctrinally, the book is cited for its teaching on the intercession of angels, filial piety, reverence for the dead and purity in marriage.

Or tell me all the valuable worth you got out of "Bel and the Dragon," how inspiring it was as the "Word of God."The tale of Bel and the Dragon forms chapter 14 of the Book of Daniel. The chapter is formed of three independent narratives, which place the culture-hero Daniel at the court Cyrus, king of the Persians.

The narrative of Bel (14:1 - 22) is a folk tale ridiculing pagan worship. In it, the king asks Daniel "Do you not think that Bel is a living god? Do you not see how much he eats and drinks every day?" Daniel proves through a ruse that the sacred meal of Bel is actually consumed at night by the seventy priests and their wives and children, who entered through a secret door when the temple's doors were sealed. The priests and their wives and children are killed, and Daniel is permitted to destroy the idol of Bel and the temple.

In the brief companion narrative of the Dragon 14:23 - 30), "there was a great dragon, which the Babylonians revered." In this case the supposed god is no idol, but not all that eats is divine: Daniel slew the dragon by making cakes of pitch, fat and hair. The dragon ate them and burst open. Now the Babylonians were indignant. "The king has become a Jew; he has destroyed Bel, and killed the dragon, and slaughtered the priests," they said, and demanded that Daniel be handed over to them.

The third narrative (14:31 - 42), Daniel in the Lions' Den, is a variant of the tale told in Daniel 6. It has been made into a consequence of the preceding episode. Daniel remained unharmed in the den with seven lions, fed by the miraculous transportation of the prophet Habakkuk. "On the seventh day the king came to mourn for Daniel. When he came to the den he looked in, and there sat Daniel! The king shouted with a loud voice, "You are great, O Lord, the God of Daniel, and there is no other besides you!" Then he pulled Daniel out, and threw into the den those who had attempted his destruction, and they were instantly eaten before his eyes."

Was the Book of Sussanna on the same par as the Book of Isaiah, and what exactly did it teach that was of any benefit.Susanna is a narrative about a beautiful Jewish wife living in Babylon who becomes the object of the lustful schemes of two perverse Jewish elders. Because she refuses their advances, they falsely accuse her of an adulterous affair. She is condemned to death. But in answer to her prayer, God sends the young Daniel to defend her. His cross-examination exposes their deceit; Susanna is spared; and they are executed. The moral: God vindicates virtue.

[DHK]

Originally posted by violet:
But then why do you get upset when a priest suggests that one of his parishoners use one? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I have always advocated the use of extra-Biblical sources such as commentaries.
BTW, you are a Catholic aren't you?
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
Was the Book of Sussanna on the same par as the Book of Isaiah, and what exactly did it teach that was of any benefit.Susanna is a narrative about a beautiful Jewish wife living in Babylon who becomes the object of the lustful schemes of two perverse Jewish elders. Because she refuses their advances, they falsely accuse her of an adulterous affair. She is condemned to death. But in answer to her prayer, God sends the young Daniel to defend her. His cross-examination exposes their deceit; Susanna is spared; and they are executed. The moral: God vindicates virtue. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, "The moral of the story," It is a story that has a moral. Oh goody, goody. I have a copy of "Aesop's Fables" too. I think that will do just as well, and it is just as inspired, in fact it may be even more inspired than the books mentioned above. The issue is inspiration, not does the story have a moral. There are lots of good stories in this world. But there is only one Book that is the inspired Word of God, and that Book contains 66 separate books, written over a period of about 1500 years, composed of about 40 different authors all writing on the same theme: the redemption of mankind through faith in the blood of Christ.
DHK

[Living4Him]

DHK,

You asked about what one could learn from reading these books, so I gave you a summary.

Now, you are going back to them not being inspired.

Several posts have showed the history of the deuterocanonicals.

The fact is, while Anglo-American fundamentalists today reject their canonicity, they were translated and included in the original King James Bible of 1611. Why after so many years of Christianity are these books thrown out?

So those who completed the original canon of Scriptures that contained these books weren't lead by the Holy Spirit? I guess everyone was reading the "false Bible" until the deuterocanonicals were taken out?

[DHK]

The original KJV did not have 14 chapters in Daniel.
All of the Apocrypha was placed in the middle of the Bible, between the two Testaments and noted as the Apocrypha. It was placed there as reading material only (kind of like my concordance or dictionary). The translators knew that they were not inspired. You can buy bibles published from Protestant sources today that have the Apocrypha included in them. That doesn't make them any more inspired than the concordance or the maps at the back of the Bible. They are there simply for reading or reference. They were never considered inspired by any Protestant.
DHK

[martymaryk]

I have a neighbor who was planning on becoming a Nun, but then got married and had a family. She did teach in a Catholic School for 26 years before she retired. I gave her a Gideon New Testament... she told 'me what nice stories' that little book I gave her had in it.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:

So those who completed the original canon of Scriptures that contained these books weren't lead by the Holy Spirit? I guess everyone was reading the "false Bible" until the deuterocanonicals were taken out? I think you should throw away your false Catholic revisionist history. You are far too gullible, or have been fed a pack of lies and believe it.

Fact 1. The Apocrypha itself was never officially recognized as Scripture even by the Catholic Church until 1534, at the Council of Trent.

Fact 2. The Catholics themselves have been the only ones ever to accept the Apocrypha as inspired.

Fact 3 Not Jesus, not the Apostles, not the early believers, not any group outside the Catholic Church at all has ever accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture. You are a total minority on this issue.

Fact 4. Since the Apocrypha is placed in the Old Testament, and the Jews have never accepted them, this ought to be proof enough that they are spurious uninspired books.
But it seemss like the motto of the Catholic Church is: Where nonsense makes perfect nonsense then always believe the nonsense.
DHK

[violet]

Fact 3 Not Jesus, not the Apostles, not the early believers, not any group outside the Catholic Church at all has ever accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture. You are a total minority on this issue. The Catholics plus the Orthodox... at over a billion people I would hardly call that a minority...

[Living4Him]

I think you should throw away your false Catholic revisionist history. You are far too gullible, or have been fed a pack of lies and believe it.

Fact 1. The Apocrypha itself was never officially recognized as Scripture even by the Catholic Church until 1534, at the Council of Trent.

Fact 2. The Catholics themselves have been the only ones ever to accept the Apocrypha as inspired.

Fact 3 Not Jesus, not the Apostles, not the early believers, not any group outside the Catholic Church at all has ever accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture. You are a total minority on this issue.

Fact 4. Since the Apocrypha is placed in the Old Testament, and the Jews have never accepted them, this ought to be proof enough that they are spurious uninspired books.
But it seemss like the motto of the Catholic Church is: Where nonsense makes perfect nonsense then always believe the nonsense.It seems that protestant who want to reject certain doctrines are the ones who rewrote history.

In popular history the earliest known canon of old testament books is known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by seventy (hence Septuagint, commonly abbreviated LXX) scholars for Alexander's great library in Egypt around the year 300 BC.

The Septuagint contains the Old Testament books shared by all Christians along with the Deuterocanonical books used by Catholics, traditional Protestants , and many Orthodox Churches.

"In the first century the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in the words of the Lord, which long circulated in oral tradition, as is apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians." ("The Early Church" Henry Chadwick p 42)


The LXX version was also used by the authors of the New Testament. Most scholars date the New Testament books to various dates between 75 AD and about 150 AD depending on the book. The authors of scripture, writing in Greek, cite the Septuagint version Old Testament books since the Septuagint was in Greek.

The Council of Carthage (397) was the first Council to publish a list of all the inspired books of the Bible. The Council of Florence repeated the canon of the Bible, and it was restated at the Council of Trent. (No action of the Church causes a book to be inspired. The Church exercises its infallible judgment to certify post factum that a particular book was inspired when it was written. The fact that God is its Author makes a book to be inspired. The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from erring in judging which books are inspired and included in the Bible.)


For many years throughout Christendom the bible, with the Septuagint, was used. Martin Luther's break from Catholicism and the development of the idea of "faith alone" as the basis for salvation gave the reformers a chance to question books in the bible that did not support this view. The reformers particulary attacked Hebrews, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical books. Since the New Testament books had already been agreed upon at the council at Carthage in 395AD, the idea of removing Hebrews and Revelation from the bible was not widely embraced. The Deuterocanonicals, however, did not fare so well. Some reformation churches included them in scripture and others did not. Finally the Church was forced to formally recognized what books had been traditionally used. This was done at the council of Trent

In 397 the Old Testament canon containing all 46 books was formalized along with the 27 inspired books of the New Testament at the Council of Carthage. St. Jerome completed a Latin translation of the entire Bible in 405, called the 'Vulgate' which can still be found today. It always had all 73 books. All Christian Bibles for the next 1100 years had all 73 books. Martin Luther, at about 1521 decided to remove the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and put them in an appendix, because they had teachings of the Catholic Church which he rejected, such as Purgatory. He used as an excuse, that they were already removed at Jamnia, and never should have been considered as inspired. Yes, but don't forget that the Jews did it at Jamnia, not the Christians. On Luther's own initiative, he removed 7 books that had been in use from before the first day of Christianity. Let me ask you, if they were "added" at the Council of Trent in 1545, how could Luther have removed them some 20 years earlier if they weren't there?

The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a "reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament". They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them.

History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.

[violet]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
For many years throughout Christendom the bible, with the Septuagint, was used. Martin Luther's break from Catholicism and the development of the idea of "faith alone" as the basis for salvation gave the reformers a chance to question books in the bible that did not support this view. The reformers particulary attacked Hebrews, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical books. And the book of James-- the "epistle of straw."

[Doubting Thomas]

Living4Him,
It's no use. DHK totally ignored the evidence I presented from church historian JND Kelly showing that the earliest Christians (and the Jews of the Dispersion) did in fact use the deuterocanonicals and considered them to be Scripture. I guess it's best if we don't confuse him with the facts.
DT

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: I have a neighbor who was planning on becoming a Nun, but then got married and had a family. She did teach in a Catholic School for 26 years before she retired. I gave her a Gideon New Testament... she told 'me what nice stories' that little book I gave her had in it.

Response: If by this comment you are suggesting that this catholic had never heard the stories of the bible, then I would say either you made up the story OR you misunderstood the woman.

If all she did was go to mass and never picked up a bible she would have heard all the stories of the bible and would have been VERY familiar with the Bible. Also, in CAtholic school she would have done religion class with students and EVERY catholic school religion text book is filled with scriptures and bible stories. EVEN BEfore VATican II.

peace

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
It seems that protestant who want to reject certain doctrines are the ones who rewrote history.

In popular history the earliest known canon of old testament books is known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by seventy (hence Septuagint, commonly abbreviated LXX) scholars for Alexander's great library in Egypt around the year 300 BC.

The Septuagint contains the Old Testament books shared by all Christians along with the Deuterocanonical books used by Catholics, traditional Protestants , and many Orthodox Churches. Where do you get your history from? And your logic? Get your head out of Catholic sources that don't make sense and read some actual history that makes sense.
Read some factual information about the Apocrypha. The earliest possible date assigned to any of the apocryphal books is in the 2nd century B.C., while some of them were as late as the first century A.D., written after the Temple was destroyed in 70A.D. And you say they were in the Septuagint in 300 B.C.???? That is one nasty trick!! Incredible!! How does the Catholic Church accomplish such things without completely rewriting history. graemlins/laugh.gif
DHK

[D28guy]

TP,

"If all she did was go to mass and never picked up a bible she would have heard all the stories of the bible and would have been VERY familiar with the Bible."I can assure you, as one who spent 24 years as a Catholic, and now the past 23 years as a born again person, those little readings in mass are nothing...absolutly NOTHING...compared to prayerfully feeding on Gods scriptures all the time, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

After I was born of the Spirit I was more biblically literate after 3 months feeding on the scriptures myself than I was after 24 years of attending mass as a Catholic, or 8 years of catholic training in catholic parochial school.

And if those little readings are so effective, how come most Catholics are so mind numbingly illiterate regarding Gods truth found in the scriptures?

"Also, in CAtholic school she would have done religion class with students and EVERY catholic school religion text book is filled with scriptures and bible stories. EVEN BEfore VATican II."Wrong.

I spent 8 years going through parochial school...which included religion class...and it was primarily a class on learning the Catholic Catechism and being indoctrinated in Catholic dogma...and not feeding on Gods scriptures.

At 24 years of age, being raised Catholic, I was not only biblically illiterate...I was also dumbfounded when I heard the gospel of Jesus Christ for the 1st time being presented in its simplicity and truth.

I had never heard it before!

I could be reconciled with God, totally justified in His sight through faith in Jesus Christs work on my behalf alone, and recieving Him through faith alone???

I felt like going back to my old parish and grabbing those priests, nuns, and the monsignor and shaking them while asking "WHY DIDNT YOU TELL ME THIS???"

The answer was because they very well may have never heard the true gospel either and were too busy proclaiming a false one.

May God have mercy.

Sadly,

Mike

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
TP,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"If all she did was go to mass and never picked up a bible she would have heard all the stories of the bible and would have been VERY familiar with the Bible."I can assure you, as one who spent 24 years as a Catholic, and now the past 23 years as a born again person, those little readings in mass are nothing...absolutly NOTHING...compared to prayerfully feeding on Gods scriptures all the time, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

After I was born of the Spirit I was more biblically literate after 3 months feeding on the scriptures myself than I was after 24 years of attending mass as a Catholic, or 8 years of catholic training in catholic parochial school.

And if those little readings are so effective, how come most Catholics are so mind numbingly illiterate regarding Gods truth found in the scriptures?</font>[/QUOTE]I agee with you completely D28guy. I also was in the Catholic Church for 20 years, and now have been out of it for over 30. I came out of it shortly after I got saved, when the Holy Spirit entered into my heart and gave me understanding that I never had before as to what the Scriptures meant. I was saved through an organization that was working on the campuses of the university such as Campus Crusade. They immediately got me involved in Bible Study, how to have devotions, memorization of Scripture, the importance of fellowship, and other very basic things of practical Christian living. After two years a member of our church was ready to depart for the mission field (Brazil). She had studied for four years in a respected Bible College. She made this comment to the Pastor about me. "I have had four years of Bible College education. I have been raised in a Christian family. I am ready to depart to the mission family, but I cannot quote Scripture like him. I do not know my Bible as well as he does."
Being blinded by the Catholic Church for 20 years, starved for the Word of God, gave me a zeal to study the Word of God that I never had before. And when I studied God, through his Holy Spirit, gave me understanding. I memorized in such a way that I never forgot the verses that I first memorized. I was taught a method on how to do that. It does come through hard work however. After two years I was firmly grounded in the word of God, and after three years, I had the opportunity to go to Bible College, during which time the Lord called me into his service. I have never looked back since, and have never regretted that decision.
The Catholic Church taught the Catechism. Those that led me to the Lord taught the Bible. Oh, what a difference it made in my life--a life changing difference. It changed the course of my life forever.
DHK

[Living4Him]

DoubtingThomas,

You are right. This below is taken from greatsite.com They are dealers of antique Bibles. From reading info on their site, it appears that they are Christian but not Catholic Christians.

The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880’s, when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880’s, however, every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha was inspired. There is no truth to the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha, which stemmed from the fact that the Roman Catholics kept 12 of the 14 Apocrypha Books in their Bible, as the Protestants removed all of them. No real justification was ever given for the removal of these ancient Jewish writings from before the time of Christ, which had remained untouched and part of every Bible for nearly two thousand years.

[TP]

Greetings,

I lived in a Lutheran campus center in college: Born and raised catholic. I went to public schools. I did not think I was biblically literate at all. As you I would have thought my self biblically illiterate. However, we started to play bible trivia. I didn't want to because they all bragged about reading the bible-- they were Lutheran, they MUST know the bible. They were good lutherans living at the Lutheran campus center and they carried their bibles every where. Well, we played and I won. In fact I won many times after that throughout the year.

I thought I was biblically illiterate. I couldn't tell you chapter or verse of anything. However, the stories, the phrases, the quotes-- they had become part of me. I knew them all. I never missed mass, and even went in the mornings often. Scripture was part of me. My guess is that when you became born again, it was easy to become acquainted with scripture-- you probably assumed because you loved it so much. My bet is that you knew more than you realized.

Not regarding any of you, but I have also had negative experiences with some born agains who left my Parish. One of them gave me a copy of his 'testimonial' from his church. Half the testimonial was how he NEVER heard scripture preached at mass, never even knew that Jesus died for our sins, never got scripture in the catholic church. He said this with confidence: However, this man was brainwashed to say this. Every catholic is TAUGHT, TAUGHT to say they received no scripture. How can I say this? I was his priest: In Almost EVERY sermon I preach I mention that Jesus died for our sins. The Paschal mystery is the Center of ALL my preaching. All my preaching is based on scripture. He would have heard over 100 sermons of mine with that as CENTER. He and his wife Also spent 3 years in our bible study every week, and even threw the bible study Christmas party at their home. It was a blatant LIE that he never heard scripture in the Catholic church. It was just what he was taught to say.

peace

[DHK]

Originally posted by violet:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Fact 3 Not Jesus, not the Apostles, not the early believers, not any group outside the Catholic Church at all has ever accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture. You are a total minority on this issue. The Catholics plus the Orthodox... at over a billion people I would hardly call that a minority... </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe that the Catholic Religion is a Christian Religion; never have. It is one of the world's main religions by number only. It is on a par with Islam.
Islam believes that the Bible is a sacred Book.
Islam believes in Jesus.
Islam believes that Jesus is coming again.
But Islam does not necessarily believe in the Apocrypya.
Islam is the world's largest religion far outnumbering the Catholic Church.
Error is still error no matter how many people believe in it. That goes for both the Catholic Church and the Islaminc religion!

BTW, Violet, you have still not answered my question. Are you a Catholic?
DHK

[martymaryk]

TP-I did not make up a story about my Catholic friend who was not familiar with the New Testament,nor did I misunderstand her...I was glad to read the responsives from D28guy and DHK.

[TP]

Greetings,

Martymaryk, Then your friend either has NOT been a practicing Catholic For Many Many Many years and has forgotten those stories, OR she falls immediately asleep whenever she is in church. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be an attentive practicing Catholic and NOT at least get all the bible stories down pat. Even just living in American culture will give a person a good idea of some of the stories even outside of church.

You made it sound like she didn't even know what the bible was, didn't own a bible, and that all the stories in the bible were New to her. I do not believe that is possible for a practicing catholic.

peace

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

Martymaryk, Then your friend either has NOT been a practicing Catholic For Many Many Many years and has forgotten those stories, OR she falls immediately asleep whenever she is in church. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be an attentive practicing Catholic and NOT at least get all the bible stories down pat. Even just living in American culture will give a person a good idea of some of the stories even outside of church.

You made it sound like she didn't even know what the bible was, didn't own a bible, and that all the stories in the bible were New to her. I do not believe that is possible for a practicing catholic.

peace I do; I think you are biased.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:
I do; I think you are biased.HA! And you are not biased? graemlins/laugh.gif

[john6:63]

Originally posted by DHK:
I don't believe that the Catholic Religion is a Christian Religion; never have. It is one of the world's main religions by number only. It is on a par with Islam.
Islam believes that the Bible is a sacred Book.
Islam believes in Jesus.
Islam believes that Jesus is coming again.
But Islam does not necessarily believe in the Apocrypya.
Islam is the world's largest religion far outnumbering the Catholic Church.
Error is still error no matter how many people believe in it. That goes for both the Catholic Church and the Islaminc religion!
I even met a few atheists in my soul winning adventures that even believed there was A Jesus, but just as an Islamic, they don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world and was buried and resurrected on the third day and now sits at His Fathers right hand. There’s the difference.

A Catholic, just as any Baptist believes the same thing regarding Jesus and His purpose of doing the will of His Father, and to lump a Catholic with Islam shows your bias towards the Catholic Church, especially from someone who claimed to have been raised Catholic.

[violet]

Originally posted by DHK:BTW, Violet, you have still not answered my question. Are you a Catholic?
DHK Sorry. I didn't see it earlier (bottom of a page). Yes. After a lifetime as evangelicals, my husband and I are recent converts-- still settling in.

[DHK]

Originally posted by john6:63:
I even met a few atheists in my soul winning adventures that even believed there was A Jesus, but just as an Islamic, they don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world and was buried and resurrected on the third day and now sits at His Fathers right hand. There’s the difference.

A Catholic, just as any Baptist believes the same thing regarding Jesus and His purpose of doing the will of His Father, and to lump a Catholic with Islam shows your bias towards the Catholic Church, especially from someone who claimed to have been raised Catholic. Perhaps you havent' followed this part of the debate closely enough John. Violet made a remark which is totally illogical, in reference to who has accepted the Apocrypha and who has not.

Here are the facts again, and let me remind you that it has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers.
Throughout the ages:
The Jews have never accepted the Apocrypha,
The Apostles never accepted the Apocrypha,
The early church never accepted the Apocrypha,
Before the Reformation different groups of all kinds of stripes and colors never accepted the Apocypha.
After the Reformation, all the various Protestant denominations never accepted the Apocrypha.
The only ones that have ever accepted the Apocrypha are the Catholic Church, and then they only officially accepted them as inspired books at the Council of Trent in 1534.

Clearly the Catholic Church is in the minority regarding this issue.

Being in the minority has nothing to do with numbers as you can see. Violets response was that the Catholic Church had one billion adherents. That is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the facts presented. The Catholic Church is the only group of all the ones presented that believe the Apocrypha is part of the Canon of Scripture. They are in the minority. That is a fact.
DHK

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: Throughout the ages:
The Jews have never accepted the Apocrypha,
The Apostles never accepted the Apocrypha,
The early church never accepted the Apocrypha,
Before the Reformation different groups of all kinds of stripes and colors never accepted the Apocypha.
After the Reformation, all the various Protestant denominations never accepted the Apocrypha.
The only ones that have ever accepted the Apocrypha are the Catholic Church, and then they only officially accepted them as inspired books at the Council of Trent in 1534.

Response: You are VERY incorrect in your history. The Early church used the Septuigint version of scriptures(They were writing in Greek to dispora often). The Septuigint INCLUDED the Deuterocanonical books(what you call the apocrapha). It is quoted verbatim in many of the New Testament quotes of the OT.
Also, when the lists of the canon are given in the Councils of carthage, Hippo, and by Innocent I which gave us the New Testament canon: All these lists included the deuterocanolicals. Why would you accept the New Testament list, but not the Old Testament list.

Lastly, you accuse the catholics of adding the Deuterocanonical books at Trent. However, the Greek Orthodox, who broke from the Catholic Church in 1054 Also has the Deuterocanonical texts in their canon. That means it was part of the canon when we split: Or are you saying that after Trent the catholics went to the Greeks and forced them to accept the books. Also, the Coptic Church which was separated from the CAtholic around AD 600 because the muslims invasion: Copts were in the south and the rest of Christianity were north of the muslims: They have the deuterocanonical books in their canon. So that means by at least AD 600 those books were canonical.

Luther changed everything when he took the hebrew scriptures which were defined at Jamnia around AD 90, but these leaders ALSO condemned all the Gospels and letters of Paul-- So that could not have been an inspired Group.

peace

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:

Response: You are VERY incorrect in your history. The Early church used the Septuigint version of scriptures(They were writing in Greek to dispora often). The Septuigint INCLUDED the Deuterocanonical books(what you call the apocrapha). It is quoted verbatim in many of the New Testament quotes of the OT.This lame argument really makes me laugh. I have explained it before. ALL of the apocryphal books were written between the end of 2nd century B.C. and the end of the first A.D. Lest there be any confusion concerning dating, let me give you an example. The first century B.C. is from 0 to 99 B.C. and the 2nd century B.C. is from 100 to 199 B.C. Thus the oldest book of the apocrypha would have a "1" in front of it, as in 150 B.C. Some were written as late as the end of the 1st century A.D. after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.!
Now the Septuagint was written between 250 and 300 B.C. Please explain how these 14 book written between 199 B.C. and 99 A.D. would get into a book written around 250 B.C. Was it the Book of Tobit that taught about sorcery and magic?? The Septuagint used by the Christ and the Apostles did not have the Apocrypha in it. This much is quite evident. The Apocrypha crept into the modern day editions of the Septuagint at a much later date. You just can't have a book written after the destruction of Jerusalem ocntained in a book written 250 years before the birth of Christ. You have a problem!!

The greater problem is this. The Septuagint is simply a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Nothing was added. The Hebrew Scriptures were completed in 400 B.C. and considered as canonized by that time. The Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek; Not Greek fairy tales translated into Greek! :rolleyes: Again, the Hebrew Scriptures were completed in 400 A.D. Then they--those Hebrew Scriptures and none others--were translated into Greek in 250 B.C. Where does that leave your beloved Apocrypha? As good as in the garbage I would say. (If you are speaking of inspiration)
DHK

[TP]

Greetings,

You wrote: The Septuagint is simply a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Nothing was added. The Hebrew Scriptures were completed in 400 B.C. and considered as canonized by that time.

Response: Again, you leave a lot out. WHICH Hebrew Scriptures are you speaking of? At the time of Jesus the Pharisees had a different canon from the Saducees. The Saducees accepted ONLY the Torah, the first 5 books. That is why they did not believe in resurrection, angels, etc. The Essenes had a very Large canon of scripture including many of their own WRitings. There was the Babylonian Canon which was missing many of the prophets. There was the Septuigint which DID include the Deuterocanonical books. The Hebrew canon was Never set until Jamnia around AD 90: At this council since it was a council of pharisees took the expanded canon, but removed anything NOT in hebrew. This council also removed ALL the Christian books. The Hebrew CAnon which Luther moved to was set by a council that Also condemned All christian books. Your understanding of the development of the OT canon is very reductionist.

peace

[TP]

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: This lame argument really makes me laugh.

REsponse: I responded to your arguement. However, you only dealt with ONE of my arguements. I also had other arguements regarding the Councils which set the new testament canon and their list of the Ot. Also the arguements dealing with the Orthodox and coptic churches.

peace

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

You said: This lame argument really makes me laugh.

REsponse: I responded to your arguement. However, you only dealt with ONE of my arguements. I also had other arguements regarding the Councils which set the new testament canon and their list of the Ot. Also the arguements dealing with the Orthodox and coptic churches.

peace I can respond to the arguments. But all the other arguments in the world don't make one iota of difference. If you can't resolve this one major point then everything you have said has gone right down the drain.
How can a book written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. supposedely be included in a book that Jesus quoted from written in 250 B.C.? First answer that for me. All other questions are irrelevant concerning the apocrypha.
DHK

[steaver]

I can respond to the arguments. But all the other arguments in the world don't make one iota of difference. If you can't resolve this one major point then everything you have said has gone right down the drain.
How can a book written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. supposedely be included in a book that Jesus quoted from written in 250 B.C.? First answer that for me. All other questions are irrelevant concerning the apocrypha.
DHK You have my attention brother! graemlins/thumbs.gif I am eager to here an answer.

God Bless!

[TP]

Greetings,

I have done some research and I stand corrected. Not all of the deutercanonical books are in the LXX(septuigint). Although Some are: Judith and Wisdom were in the LXX. I also did some research and NONE of the writings were from the Christian era: Tobit 200 BC, 1/2 Maccabees 140 BC, Sirach 180 BC(possibly much older), Baruch 250 BC.

However, that does NOT exclude them from being canonical. Daniel was written in 165 BC and we still see Daniel as canonical.

All of these books were listed as canonical at the council of Hippo 393, Councils of Carthage 397 and 419. These were the same lists where we get the New Testament canon, these were councils that determined canonicity.

peace

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

I have done some research and I stand corrected. Not all of the deutercanonical books are in the LXX(septuigint). Although Some are: Judith and Wisdom were in the LXX. I also did some research and NONE of the writings were from the Christian era: Tobit 200 BC, 1/2 Maccabees 140 BC, Sirach 180 BC(possibly much older), Baruch 250 BC.

However, that does NOT exclude them from being canonical. Daniel was written in 165 BC and we still see Daniel as canonical.

All of these books were listed as canonical at the council of Hippo 393, Councils of Carthage 397 and 419. These were the same lists where we get the New Testament canon, these were councils that determined canonicity.

peace Good points. Plus, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread various early Fathers--Polycarp, Clement (of Rome), Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Clement (of Alexandria) and others--quote from these various deuterocanonical books as Scripture. Church historian JND Kelly documents this in his work Early Christian Doctrines and mentions how the Hellenic Jews of the Dispersion included these books mixed in with the protocanonicals according to genre (ie history, prophets, poetic). There are just certain folks here who would prefer to ignore these facts. :cool:

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

I have done some research and I stand corrected. Not all of the deutercanonical books are in the LXX(septuigint). Although Some are: Judith and Wisdom were in the LXX. I also did some research and NONE of the writings were from the Christian era: Tobit 200 BC, 1/2 Maccabees 140 BC, Sirach 180 BC(possibly much older), Baruch 250 BC.

However, that does NOT exclude them from being canonical. Daniel was written in 165 BC and we still see Daniel as canonical.

All of these books were listed as canonical at the council of Hippo 393, Councils of Carthage 397 and 419. These were the same lists where we get the New Testament canon, these were councils that determined canonicity.

peace There are too many inaccuracies in your post to make it believable. Apparently you have gleaned your information from modernistic and liberal sources that have nothing else in mind but to discredit the Bible. Let’s take the most glaring example first—the Book of Daniel.

The Hebrew Old Testament Canon was completed in 400 B.C. and you say that Daniel was written in 165 B.C. This really is absurd. It is a denial of the authorship of Daniel. It is a denial of the words of Christ. It is a denial of the facts of history. It is borne out of a denial of a belief in the supernatural. Those modern day scholars who want to discredit the Bible because they refuse to believe in the supernatural, the prophecies of Daniel assign a later date to Daniel, making Daniel’s prophecies look like history thereby discrediting them as being prophetic and supernatural. Thus the late date. This late date (165 B.C.) has long ago been refuted. Let’s look at the facts.

1. The Jews would not accept any book into their canon of Scripture that was not extant at 400 B,C, That eliminates the late date right there.

2. Daniel was carried off in the first deportation (603-604 B.C.) to Babylon. This is the time period that we are dealing with—very early 7th century to late 6th century B.C. –the time that Daniel was alive in Babylon.

3. We have the clear testimony of Jesus Himself in Matthew in the Olivet discourse.
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
--If these words of Christ are reliably reported, we can only conclude that He believed the historic Daniel to the personal author of the prophecies containing this phrase. The prepositions used for “by” is “dia.” No other interpretation is possible in the light of this preposition, which refers to personal agency.
Was Christ lying?

4. The author of Daniel shows such an accurate knowledge of the 6th century events as would not have been open to a 2nd century writer; for example in 8:2, the city of Shushan is described as being in the province of Elam back in the time of the Chaldeans. But from the Greek and Roman historians Shushan was assigned a different province which was named after it.

5. We have in chapter 9 a series of remarkable predictions which defy any other interpretation by that they point to the coming of Christ and his crucifixion ca. A..D. 30, followed by the destruction of the city of Jerusalem within the ensuing decades.

The Maccabean date theory allege that it was impossible for a sixth century author to have composed such detailed predictions concerning coming events in the history of Israel. Thus the make the hook history itself! Incredible!
The theory is one borne out of unbelief. This date that you have affixed to the Book of Daniel calls into question your integrity regarding the dating of the other books.

Were Judith and Wisdom already in the LXX as you claim? Either you are ignorant of their dates, or are deliberately telling an outright lie. Let me state again. The Septuagint (LXX) was written no later than 250 B.C. No apocryphal (deuteron-canonical) book was written that early. How therefore do you claim that Judith and Wisdom was in the LXX, when they were written after the fact? Preposterous!!
Concerning Judith, though its exact date is uncertain, most put it in the Maccabean Age around 170 B.C. However one of the bigger problems with this book is its historical inaccuracies, which in itself makes it entirely uninspired. God makes no mistakes, especially glaring ones like this:
The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.
Such inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.
A book written in ca. 170 B.C. cannot be included in the Septuagint written in 250 B.C.

Wisdom of Solomon: The book was probably composed about 120-100 BC. (ISBE)
Again, the same question is asked: How can a book written 150 years after the LXX, by included in the LXX? :rolleyes:

I and II Maccabees
I Maccabees: The First Book of the Maccabees covers the period of forty years from the accession of Antiochus (175 B.C.) to the death of Simon the Maccabee (135 B.C.).
The terminus a quo of the work is found in the fact that John Hyreanus I., who began to reign in 135 B.C., is mentioned at the close of the book (xvi. 21-24)
As the Romans are throughout spoken of in terms of respect and friendliness, it is clear that the terminus ad quem must be sought at some time before the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.C. As to whether the date can be more nearly determined scholars are not agreed. The determining fact is held by most to be the statement in xvi. 23, 24, that the "rest of the acts of John . . . are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood." It is thought by many that this implies that John had died and that a sufficient time had elapsed since his death to permit the circulation of the chronicles. Bissell (Lange's "Commentary," p. 479) thinks that not more than a score or two of years had passed, while Schürer ("Hist. of the Jewish People," div. ii., vol. iii., p. 8) and Fairweather (in "Cambridge Bible" and Hastings, "Dict. Bible") think that not more than a decade or two had elapsed, and date the work in the first or second decade of the first century B.C.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=18&letter=M

Thus the date of I Maccabees would be no later than 20 B.C.

II Maccabees
The Second Book of the Maccabees opens with two letters written by Jews resident in Palestine to brethren dwelling in Egypt.
The time covered by this material is barely fifteen years, from the very end of the reign of Seleucus IV., whose servant was Heliodorus, to the victory of Judas over Nicanor (175-160 B.C.)
Jason is thought by Schürer (l.c. p. 212) to have compiled his work from hearsay shortly after 160 B.C. at Cyrene. If this is true, the work of Jason, like II Maccabees, concluded with the victory over Nicanor. There can be no doubt that both the work of Jason and that of his epitomizer (i.e., the author of II Maccabees) were written in Greek, and that the latter was a Hellenistic Jew.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=18&letter=M

Tobit:
More historical inaccuracies : (1) There are historical and geographical inaccuracies in the book. It was not Shalmaneser (Enemessar) who made the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun exiles in Assyria, but Tiglath-pileser (734); see 2 Kings 15:29. Sennacherib was not the son of Shalmaneser (Tobit 1:15), but of Sargon the Usurper. Moreover, the Tigris does not lie on the way from Nineveh to Ecbatana, as Tobit 6 f. imply. (ISBE)

The writer has borrowed largely from other sources, Biblical and non-Biblical, and he shows no regard for correctness of facts so long as he succeeds in making the teaching clear and the tale interesting. The legend about the angel who pretended to be an orthodox Jew with a proper Jewish name and pedigree was taken from popular tradition and could hardly have been accepted by the writer as literally true. (ISBE)

The Book was written about 160 B.C. What a forgery that one is!

Sirach:
Sirach is the largest and most comprehensive example of Wisdom Literature
and it has also the distinction of being the oldest book in the Apocrypha,
It was written between 180 and 200 B.C. This is the oldest book of the Apocrypha, still at least 50 years short of the writing of the Septuagint.

Baruch:
One may conclude that the introduction was the last part of the book to be composed and that therefore its date is that of the completion of the book. Reasons will be given (see below) for believing that 4:5 through 5:9 belongs to a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD. This is still more true of this introduction intended as a foreword to the whole book.
The second temple was in existence in the writer's day. Baruch 2:26 must (with the best scholars) be translated as follows: "And thou hast made the house over which thy name is called as it is this day," i.e. the temple--still in being--is shorn of its former glory. Moreover though Daniel 9:7-14 is largely quoted in Baruch 1:15 through 2:12, the prayer for the sanctuary and for Jerusalem in Daniel 9:16 is omitted, because the temple is not now in ruins.
There is irrefutable evidence that the Book of Baruch was written well after 70 A.D. as he looks back at the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/ID/1187


II Esdras:
Since the eagle in the fifth vision undoubtedly represents the Roman empire, most critics agreeing that the three heads are Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, and since the destruction of Jerusalem so often referred to must be that by Titus in 70 C.E., the book must date from the last quarter of the first century—probably between 90 and 96.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=463&letter=E
Here is a book written not only after the birth of Christ, but near the completion of the New Testament as well! And you expect us to believe that it should be included in the Old Testament Canon??

Councils convened 300 years after the completion of the New Testament have no bearing on what should be included in the Old Testament. The Jewish Canon was decided in 400 B.C. It was not decided by the Catholic Church, and neither was the New Testament. For your information, neither was the trinity discovered by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the audacity to claim many things: everything from the nature of God to the inspiration and canonicity of the Word of God, but in reality they had nothing to do with it all.
DHK

[Living4Him]

God makes no mistakes, especially glaring ones like this:That's the problem with the fundamentalist approach to the Scriptures. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, but that does not mean that dictated Word for Word what the writers of the Bible should convey.

Once again from what I posted on page 9

The Bible is the inspired Word of God and it is to teach the truths needed for our salvation.

The contexual approach of interpreting the Bible, will enable us to go back to the original intent of its authors by analyzing their times, culture, languages, and other circumstances.

The contextual approach to the Bible does not deny the truth of the Bible. God is the author of the Bible. Since God is the author of the Bible, the books of Scripture teach without error the truths that God intends to reveal for the sake of our salvation.

But truth is expressed in different ways in various literary forms, such as history, prophecy, poetry, law, proverbs (wise sayings), myths (stories or descriptions of actual events that explain ultimate reality), legends (popular unverifiable stories handed down from the past, often conveying a moral), fables (fictitious stories, often with animal characters, that teach a lesson), and parables (simple stories that illustrate a moral or a religious lesson).

All these literary forms are capable of communicating truth in dramatic fashion. They express truths in ways that a mere dictionary cannot.

Worth noting, is the distinction between truth and historical actuality. A story which is not historical can convey truth, as the parables of Jesus show.Why do you suppose so many people argue over the creation account and the scientific age of the earth? Using the straight literal six day approach doesn't work. However, if you read Genesis from the contextual approach, you'll understand that the story is meant to convey the truth that all things were created by God out of nothing and that God is the uncreated who has always been and will always be.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
Why do you suppose so many people argue over the creation account and the scientific age of the earth? Using the straight literal six day approach doesn't work. However, if you read Genesis from the contextual approach, you'll understand that the story is meant to convey the truth that all things were created by God out of nothing and that God is the uncreated who has always been and will always be. Why?
Because some people want to believe in the lie of evolution.
Because some people have a problem believing that God is a God of the supernatural and is quite able to do miracles.
Because some people will do everything in their power to discredit the Bible.
Because some people do not want to believe the written Word of God, not even the history of it.
Because some people have an easier time believing a secular history book written by an atheist than a sacred history book written by God, and his prophets.

Those are just some reasons for starters. I am sure there are many more.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> God makes no mistakes, especially glaring ones like this:That's the problem with the fundamentalist approach to the Scriptures. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, but that does not mean that dictated Word for Word what the writers of the Bible should convey.

Once again from what I posted on page 9</font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't matter what you wrote on page 9.
Here is the full quote of what I said:
God makes no mistakes, especially glaring ones like this:
The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.The very fact that the book has such glaring historical inaccuracies demonsrates that the book is not inspired. How can an inspired book make such mistakes as this. To believe that this book is inspired (without error) only makes one look foolish, when confronted with such errors as this.
DHK

[Living4Him]

The very fact that the book has such glaring historical inaccuracies demonsrates that the book is not inspired. How can an inspired book make such mistakes as this. To believe that this book is inspired (without error) only makes one look foolish, when confronted with such errors as this.DHK,
It appears that your not hearing or it's not registering with you.

Look at the resurrection narratives. The all have something different in each one of the accounts. They are not precisely identical.

How can that be? According to your logical, they can't be inspired as they contain "errors" as to what happened.

However, it doesn't matter that the accounts differ, what matters is the Truth that Christ is risen and was seen by many

Matthew
28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

28:2
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

28:3
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

28:4
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

28:5
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

28:6
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

28:7
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

28:8
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

28:9
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mark
16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

16:2
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

16:3
And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

16:4
And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

16:5
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

16:6
And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

16:7
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

16:8
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

16:10
And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

16:11
And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

16:12
After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

16:13
And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Luke
Luke 24:1
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

24:2
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

24:3
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

24:4
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

24:5
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

24:6
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

24:7
Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

24:8
And they remembered his words,

24:9
And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

24:10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

24:11
And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

24:12
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

24:13
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

24:14
And they talked together of all these things which had happened.

24:15
And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

24:16
But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

24:17
And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?

24:18
And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?

24:19
And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

John
John 22:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

20:2
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

20:3
Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

20:4
So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

20:5
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

20:6
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

20:7
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

20:8
Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

20:9
For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

20:10
Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

20:11
But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

20:12
And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

20:13
And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him.

20:14
And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

20:15
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

20:16
Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

20:18
Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

20:19
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

20:20
And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.

[DHK]

This did not happen. Look it up in history. It is a lie of history. How much plainer can I be.
The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.

Now, If you cannot reconcile the above statements of Scripture for yourself, and see how they harmonize together, I feel sorry for you. There are no contradictions.
DHK

[TP]

Greetings,

You continue to insist that: The Jewish Canon was decided in 400 B.C.

Response: This is 100% ERROR. We are still in temple based Judiaism at the time of Jesus. The Priestly class was the class that governed the Jewish people: The priests of the Temple. At the time of Jesus the Priestly Class ACCEPTED only the Torah as scripture. ONLY the first 5 books of the Old Testament. This is why they did NOT believe in resurrection, or angels, etc. They did not see many of historical books or prophets as part of divinely revealed scripture. They didn't even seen the psalms which were used in temple worship as divinely inspired. If you are looking for canon from long ago, then you are left with only the first 5 books.

The rest of the OT was from the Pharisaical/lawyer class. But these were just pious lay people- not the official priestly class. The Hebrew scriptures as thought of as canonical today were collected at Jamnia AFTER the destruction of the temple at the end of the first and beginning of the second century AD. I have NO idea where you are getting your 400 BC number from, but it sounds like you are pulling it out of the air.

peace

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

You continue to insist that: The Jewish Canon was decided in 400 B.C.

Response: This is 100% ERROR. We are still in temple based Judiaism at the time of Jesus. The Priestly class was the class that governed the Jewish people: The priests of the Temple. At the time of Jesus the Priestly Class ACCEPTED only the Torah as scripture. ONLY the first 5 books of the Old Testament. This is why they did NOT believe in resurrection, or angels, etc. They did not see many of historical books or prophets as part of divinely revealed scripture. They didn't even seen the psalms which were used in temple worship as divinely inspired. If you are looking for canon from long ago, then you are left with only the first 5 books.
No, it is not error. The Jews would not allow any book written after the date of 400 B.C. to even be considered as canonical. That in itself excludes all apocryphal books, the oldest of which dated back to ca. 180 B.C. The period between the two testaments (New and Old), called the inter-testamental period. It was during this period that Pharisees and the Sadducees arose, not before. The Sadducees were hellenized Jews, those who had accepted the Greek culture, and thus had denied some of the fundamentals of the faith. They were the liberals of the day.

The last prophet was Zechariah

Matthew 23:34-35 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

2 Chronicles 24:20-21 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.

Note that Christ said that He (God) sent them prophets from Abel to Zacharias, all of whom they had killed. Zacharias was the last of the prophets. In the Hebrew Canon of Scripture there are only 22 books because many of the books are combined. For example all 12 of the minor prophets are combined into just one book. They are also in a different order. The last book of the Masoretic Text is 2Chronicles. So Christ says: Behold, from the first of all the prophets (Adam in the first book, Genesis) to Zecharias (the last prophet in the last book 2Chronicles), all of them you have taken and murdered.
I and II Chronicles were written by Ezra. Ezra and Malachi were contemporaries. Jesus was pointing to Zecharias as the last prophet of the Old Testament. After that, there was 400 silent years when God didn’t speak to any prophet. Those that claim that God spoke to them, are false prophets. Thus all the apocryphal books can be said to be written by false prophets.

Other Scripture:
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
--There are only three categories to the Hebrew Old Testament, and Jesus mentions them here:
1. The Law of Moses or the Torah
2. The Prophets
3. The Psalms (literally the writings—mostly poetical books)

Josephus wrote near the end of the first century:
”We have but 22 (books) containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men” (contra pionem, 1.8).(Gleason Archer)
The oldest catalogue of the books of the Old Testament canon now in existence is the list of Bishop Meito of Sardis, written ca. A.D. 170. He states that he went to the Orient to investigate the number and order of the books of the Old Testament and came to the following result: “Five of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the Prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.” In this list note: 1) Lamentations is omitted but probably subsumed under Jeremiah; 2) Nehemiah likewise, but probably included with Ezra; 3) Esther is omitted altogether for unknown reason; 4) no book of the Apocrypha is included.(Gleason Archer)
[quote]In the third century Origen left a catalogue of 22 books of the Old Testament which was preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (6:25). This indicates the same list as the 22 book canon of Josephus and of the MT). Tertullian and Jerome also give similar lists. It was Jerome that did not want to put the apocrypha into his vulgate, but only did so under great pressure of the church authorities.
DHK

[Living4Him]

It is a lie of history. How much plainer can I be.Judith is a parable - a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle, a spiritual truth. History doesn't have to be accurate in a parable. People do not have to be real and factual historical figures in a parable.

According to Haper's Bible Dictionary parables can be either historical or fictional, and the fictional ones may be either possible or impossible.

[TP]

Greetings,

You keep saying: No, it is not error. The Jews would not allow any book written after the date of 400 B.C. to even be considered as canonical.

Response: what happened in 400 BC. There was no council, there was no king or leadership who made this decision. There is no document saying or listing the canon. It is as if you picked this date out of the air. The Rabbinic Canon was NOT set until Jamnia at the end of the FIRST CENTURY AD. The Priest of the Temple Never Accepted Any of the books other than the first 5.

peace

[BobRyan]

Why do you suppose so many people argue over the creation account and the scientific age of the earth? Using the straight literal six day approach doesn't work. However, if you read Genesis from the contextual approach, you'll understand that the story is meant to convey the truth that all things were created by God out of nothingThis is the muddled and confused logic of those who have rejected the Word of God on this subject.

SCIENTISTS do NOT claim that SCIENCE shows them that "ALL Things were CREATED by God out of NOTHING"!!! You would have to read the Bible to get that view of the origins of ALL THINGS!

This could not be any more obvious.

When you say that 6 days "won't work" -- there is NOTHING THAT DOES WORK from Man's POV!! NO one has been able to create ANYTHING!! It is not like "six days won't work but six years works just fine"!!

When you begin to reject the Word of God from the VERY START and argue in favor of the confused and conflicting traditions and speculations of man OVER God's WORD - is it any wonder we end up with "prayers to the dead"???

Actually it is MORE likely (and historically accurate) that such rejection of the Bible in favor of speculations from atheists results in extermination of the Jews, abortion rights, destruction of the sanctity of marriage etc. (Yes - EVEN among Christian groups!)

In Christ,

Bob

[Living4Him]

Actually it is MORE likely (and historically accurate) that such rejection of the Bible in favor of speculations from atheistsBob,
I was speaking of the Christian POV.
I have seen on this very website different Christian groups debating over the age of the earth and if Genesis is a literal six day or not.

[BobRyan]

However, that does NOT exclude them from being canonical. Daniel was written in 165 BC and we still see Daniel as canonical.Yet "another lie"???

Is there no end to the lies that have been accepted as "truth" by our befuddled brethren??

I truly feel sorry for a group so steeped in myth and lies that it can not tell the truth when it sees it!!

How sad that a "Christian" should deny the historic account of Daniel - though CHRIST HIMSELF endorses it!!

IN Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Actually it is MORE likely (and historically accurate) that such rejection of the Bible in favor of speculations from atheistsBob,
I was speaking of the Christian POV.
I have seen on this very website different Christian groups debating over the age of the earth and if Genesis is a literal six day or not. </font>[/QUOTE]The myth that the Bible is not true regarding origins -- but the speculation of atheist story telling IS true -- is simply another sad case of Christians being duped by non-Christian story telling. In this case duped into dumping Scripture.

As the Atheist Collin Patterson said about this atheist system of story telling "These are STORIES easy enough to TELL but they are NOT science!!"

If EVEN THE ATHEIST can admit to this - why not the confused and befuddled Chrsitians that have swallowed those "stories" instead of accepting the Word of God??!!

Your point that Christians have become so weak on their acceptance of the Word of God that they would EVEN cling to what ATHEISTS THEMSELVES call "STORIES NOT SCIENCE" in place of God's Word - is simply PROOF beyond a DOUBT that there are Christians out there that are barely in the faith at all!!

A "thinking" person should NOT be surprised that ATHEISTS NEED another story for "origins" other than the Bible's "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD CREATED the heavens and the EARTH the SEA and ALL THAT IS IN THEM". And of course that fact that it is in Bible HISTORY - "THE ACCOUNT of the creation of the earth" in Gen 1-2 AND ALSO in the SPOKEN LAW of God in Exodus 20 would not bother an ATHEIST one single bit.

But where is the "reason" in the CHristian's compromise with Atheism?? Nowhere!

Notice that when this subject is brought up and the BIBLE is the text of review EVEN THE CHRISTIAN evolutionists FLEE THE BUILDING!!

Time after time this has been demonstrated on this very forum!! THe Christian evolutionists FEAR and AVOID any discussion on a BIBLE Basis when it comes to their support of the ATHEIST view of ORIGINS instead of the Bible view!!

The PATTERN of dumping God's Word with every wind of "Story telling" from tradition or atheism is all too common among some groups!!

IN Christ,

Bob

[Living4Him]

The Hebrew Old Testament Canon was completed in 400 B.C. and you say that Daniel was written in 165 B.C. This really is absurd. It is a denial of the authorship of Daniel. It is a denial of the words of Christ. It is a denial of the facts of history. It is borne out of a denial of a belief in the supernatural.DHK,

You had posted links to the Jewish encyclopedia. Reading the Jewish encyclopedia, they also conclude that Daniel was written in the year 165BC.

While Sirach (see § 6) knew and made use of most of the books of the Hagiographa, his chapters contain no allusion whatever to Ecclesiastes, Esther, or Daniel. It does not follow from this that he did not know these books, but that he simply did not consider them Holy Writings; moreover, it is certain that in 200 B.C. the canon of the Hagiographa did not exist in its present form. A second foundation for this theory would be the date of the Book of Daniel, which in its present form, and with its allusion to Antiochus Epiphanes, was not known before 165.

[Living4Him]

Yet "another lie"???

Is there no end to the lies that have been accepted as "truth" by our befuddled brethren??

I truly feel sorry for a group so steeped in myth and lies that it can not tell the truth when it sees it!!

How sad that a "Christian" should deny the historic account of Daniel - though CHRIST HIMSELF endorses it!!Bob,
TP is not speaking a lie or saying that he doesn't believe Daniel.

The point that he is trying to make is that DHK states the canon of scripture was closed in 400 BC, but that can't be correct if Daniel wasn't written until 165 BC

[BobRyan]

Daniel lived during the time of the Babylonians (Nebuchadnezzar) and the early Persian empire - that was LONG before 165 BC (Which was the end of the Greek empire and start of the Roman Empire)!!

The reason I am so livid about that - (if I can be livid) is that the ONLY reason to abuse the Word of God in that way is because Daniel made such ACCURATE historic statements about the world empires that would FOLLOW Medo-Persia.

Our agnostic and atheist friends could not think of a way to discredit the Bible on this point - so they "make up" the idea that Daniel DID NOT WRITE DANIEL. They turn it into a bogus history book PRETENDING to have prophecy!!

The fact that the RC posters here would swallow that line of balloney as fast as they take in evolutionism, purgatory, prayers to the dead etc should probably not be a big surprise -- I just could not refrain from commenting on the absurdity and "pattern" they are establishing for themselves!

I also don't think it is accidental that a religion that NEEDS to down play scripture and raise tradition of man to par with God's Word -- would JUMP at the chance to discredit Gen 1-2 and even the book of Daniel. The MORE UNTRUSTWORTHY the Bible is said to be - the more NECESSARY some other anchor point -- like the myths and traditions of the Catholic magesterium for example.

In the dark ages their "ploy" was that only THEY could read the Bible - now the ploy is that the Bible can not be trusted if you simply READ IT -- you would need THEM to tell you WHEN it is really TRUE!

In Christ,

Bob

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is a lie of history. How much plainer can I be.Judith is a parable - a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle, a spiritual truth. History doesn't have to be accurate in a parable. People do not have to be real and factual historical figures in a parable.

According to Haper's Bible Dictionary parables can be either historical or fictional, and the fictional ones may be either possible or impossible. </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus told a story about the rich man and Lazarus. Everything he said about Abraham was true and factual. Jesus would never tell any untruths or lies about the characters in his parables or stories. Even in a parable, Jesus wouldn't lie. He would still have the facts straight. If I write a story about you, use your name, call you a rapist, a murderrer and a sex offender, and then say it was just a parable, what would you think??
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

You keep saying: No, it is not error. The Jews would not allow any book written after the date of 400 B.C. to even be considered as canonical.

Response: what happened in 400 BC. There was no council, there was no king or leadership who made this decision. There is no document saying or listing the canon. It is as if you picked this date out of the air. The Rabbinic Canon was NOT set until Jamnia at the end of the FIRST CENTURY AD. The Priest of the Temple Never Accepted Any of the books other than the first 5.

peace No, there was Jesus, whom I have already quoted to you. If you fail to take his word, whose word will you take? Jesus said that the Jews had killed ALL the prophets from ABEL to ZECHARIAS (the first to the last). From shortly after Creation to the fifth century B.C. The next prophet that Christ refers to is John the Baptist, whom they also took and killed. The inference there is as clear as crystal. Between Zecharias and John, God did not speak to any prophet. There was a period of about 400 years silence. God broke that silence when he spoke to a priest "Zecharias," telling him that his wife Elizabeth would have a son (Luke 1:5-25).
Between that time there was a period of 400 and some years when God was silent. The major part of the Apocrypha was written then. That is one of the major reasons we know that it is a forgery, and uninispired. Jesus attests to who the prophets were: the last Zecharias, and the next John. There were none inbetween. But the RCC claims to have 14 "prophets" or books written during that time. BTW, according to Peter all the OT was written by "prophets." Can we hold the Apocrypha up to that standard as well? All the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Not the Apocrypha. All the Old Testament was written before 400 B.C. I hold you to this fact. You cannot point to one book that was written after this date. The Jews would not allow it. If what I say is false, point to one book that was written after 400 B.C. as evidence.
DHK

[Living4Him]

400 B.C. I hold you to this fact. You cannot point to one book that was written after this date. The Jews would not allow it. If what I say is false, point to one book that was written after 400 B.C. as evidence.Why does that Jewish Encyclopedia state that Daniel was written around 165 BC ?

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />400 B.C. I hold you to this fact. You cannot point to one book that was written after this date. The Jews would not allow it. If what I say is false, point to one book that was written after 400 B.C. as evidence.Why does that Jewish Encyclopedia state that Daniel was written around 165 BC ? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know that it does. If it does it is because it is liberal and has accpeted a liberal theology. Here are some others that are more conservative and have not fallen prey to the liberal higher criticism.

The notes that preface the Book of Daniel in my Bible.
Survey of the Old Testament--Gleason Archer
Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament
MacDonald's Believer's Bible Commentary
--Almost every source I look at agrees that the Book of Daniel was written near the end of the 6th century B.C.
Why?
The answer is obvius. Daniel was carried off into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the first deportation 603 B.C. Daniel was the author of the Book of Daniel. Unless you are an apostate, an unbeliever, a modernistic liberal who denies the words of Jesus and has one sole purpose of discrediting the Bible as the Word of God, you will have to agree that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel as he said he did.

Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
The exile is the historical basis of Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel implies in the first chapter, which commences with the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the captivity (Da 1:1,21; compare Da 9:1-2). A new stage in the theocracy begins with the captivity. Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Judah. The first under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the theocracy to the Babylonian world power. The second (598 B.C.) was that in which Jehoiachin and Ezekiel were carried away. In the third (588 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah.(Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)

Daniel 1:6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:

Daniel 1:8-9 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.

Daniel 1:21 And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.

Daniel 2:48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.

Daniel 4:27-28 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity. All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.
--Daniel is speaking. It is his prophecy. And his prophecy comes true.

Throughout the book Daniel narrates it. Daniel speaks with the first person singular. Daniel writes it from his perspective. Is there any reason not to believe that Daniel didn't write the book that bears his name?

If you suggest a date of 165 B.C., and Daniel was already a teen-ager, at the youngest 15 years, when he was deported into Babylon in 603, then in 165, he would be 438 years old when he wrote this book. Is this what you believe?
DHK

[DHK]

"Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?"

This is the original title of this thread. If the affirmative would be true, then discussions surrounding the Bible would be more than welcome by Catholics, True? Two of our young people went out to speak to others about Christ. They met a Catholic, and to the best of my memory, here is how they related the conversation to me:
We were out witnessing on Tuesday evening. We came across one cantankerous Catholic.
"Do you know for sure that you are saved and going to heaven," they asked.
"Yes, I know I am saved," he answered.
"How do you know?" they asked.
"Because I have given money to the Catholic Church," was the answer.
I guess he answered that not only had he given money to the Catholic Church, but when he goes to heaven, he expects to take his own money with him as well.
"Why are you out doing this," he asked?
"Because the Bible commands us to," one of them answered, and then quoted the Great Commission. "You are just following a guy," he said.
"No, we are following our Saviour."

He said that their time would be more valuably spent out mowing lawns than doing this. They had no right to come and bother him during his supper hour telling him he needed to be saved. During the conversation this Catholic man had no qualms about cussing and swearing. And in the end of the conversation he told them, or even threatened them not to come back again or he would call the police for trespassing.This is one of many typical Catholic conversations. Catholics don't have any interest in discussing the Bible. Their confidence is in the RCC to get them to Heaven. Beyond that they can live like the devil, do what they want, and get away with murder. The Catholic Church will take care of every thing else. Pity isn't it?
DHK

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: This is one of many typical Catholic conversations. Catholics don't have any interest in discussing the Bible.

Response: In my parish you would NOT have had that conversion. In fact, many of my parishioners would have been the ones bringing up their faith in Jesus Christ with YOU.

I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky. He was a police officer who was to drive me around all day. I had a tee-shirt with a quote about the Eucharist. When He asked what it meant: I said, "The Lord's supper"-- After further discussion this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story. I suppose I should write off all baptists because of this experience. Generally, my experience of baptists are pretty ignorant of scriptures. However, personal exerience is NOT a good indicator of the reality of the total situation.

Generally, I have found Lutheran to be very bible proficient, moreso than some other protestant denominations.

peace

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

You said: This is one of many typical Catholic conversations. Catholics don't have any interest in discussing the Bible.

Response: In my parish you would NOT have had that conversion. In fact, many of my parishioners would have been the ones bringing up their faith in Jesus Christ with YOU.

I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky. He was a police officer who was to drive me around all day. I had a tee-shirt with a quote about the Eucharist. When He asked what it meant: I said, "The Lord's supper"-- After further discussion this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story. I suppose I should write off all baptists because of this experience. Generally, my experience of baptists are pretty ignorant of scriptures. However, personal exerience is NOT a good indicator of the reality of the total situation.

Generally, I have found Lutheran to be very bible proficient, moreso than some other protestant denominations.

peace Your church may be an exception to the rule, largely due to your own personal influence. Location also has much to do with it. You live in Wisconsin. I used to live there for a while. It used to be known as a graveyard for Baptist churches. But that was some years ago. Either way you look at it, Wisconsin has comparatively few Baptist churches when compared to the southern states.

As for where I live, I live in a nation that is predominately Catholic. Half of our nation is Catholic. That percentage is greater than any one denomination in the U.S. I have talked personally with priests, and other Catholic leaders. All of them seem to be relatively ignorant of the Bible. Where you got your knowledge of the Bible, I don't know. But there is a dearth of Bible knowledge among Catholics here, even a hatred of it. "I don't want to talk about the Bible" is the prevailing attitude among Catholics here. And why should they? They have the church to instruct them, and it isn't out of the Bible.
DHK

[john6:63]

Originally posted by TP:
I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky...this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story.I have to agree TP, in my fundamentalist church of almost 450 members; only 75 attend Sunday school, which only lasts for 35 minutes. We read responsively on average 8 verses of Scripture and then we get to hear a sermon on why Bush is such a great president (which I’m not denying) and why the KJV was preserved by God and then the finale, an altar call.

I, being raised a Fundamentalist, actually attended 4 years of Disciple classes at a United Methodist Church in order to get a good study of God’s Word.

[DHK]

Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TP:
I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky...this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story.I have to agree TP, in my fundamentalist church of almost 450 members; only 75 attend Sunday school, which only lasts for 35 minutes. We read responsively on average 8 verses of Scripture and then we get to hear a sermon on why Bush is such a great president (which I’m not denying) and why the KJV was preserved by God and then the finale, an altar call.

I, being raised a Fundamentalist, actually attended 4 years of Disciple classes at a United Methodist Church in order to get a good study of God’s Word. </font>[/QUOTE]I am surprised you call yourself IFB, or are even a member of one. If you disagree so much with an IFB churhc, such as the one that you are a member of, then why don't you join a church that is more in line with what you believe instead of bashing IFB churches. That doesn't give you any brownie points here.
DHK

[john6:63]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TP:
I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky...this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story.I have to agree TP, in my fundamentalist church of almost 450 members; only 75 attend Sunday school, which only lasts for 35 minutes. We read responsively on average 8 verses of Scripture and then we get to hear a sermon on why Bush is such a great president (which I’m not denying) and why the KJV was preserved by God and then the finale, an altar call.

I, being raised a Fundamentalist, actually attended 4 years of Disciple classes at a United Methodist Church in order to get a good study of God’s Word. </font>[/QUOTE]I am surprised you call yourself IFB, or are even a member of one. If you disagree so much with an IFB churhc, such as the one that you are a member of, then why don't you join a church that is more in line with what you believe instead of bashing IFB churches. That doesn't give you any brownie points here.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I’m not bashing IFB churches, not all are the same, but I get tired of hearing the same ‘ol, same ‘ol about other denominations and some are in error and as I am slowly finding out, some aren’t as I once perceived. My dad will go so far to say “if you ain’t a fundamentalist Baptist, you’re Hell bound.” Being raised and indoctrinated in fundamentalism, and then converting my wife to fundamentalism, it’s not that easy to just leave. I do feel I am on a spiritual journey and I am excited about where the Lord is leading me.

[violet]

They had no right to come and bother him during his supper hour telling him he needed to be saved.You know, most people DON'T like to be bothered during their dinner and/or family time and will pretty much say anything to anyone to get them to shut up and go away. I once told a door to door security systems salesman that yes, I would like someone to come rob my house just so that he would end his schpeel and move on...

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by DHK:
I am surprised you call yourself IFB, or are even a member of one. If you disagree so much with an IFB churhc, such as the one that you are a member of, then why don't you join a church that is more in line with what you believe
I am going to go out on a limb here and make a "prediction about the past" -- John 6 already DID THAT!

He USED to be IFB - before becoming Catholic. The whole point of the argument John6 makes is to show that the IFB Upbringing that he had did not prepare him to withstand the myths and fables of Catholicism!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />400 B.C. I hold you to this fact. You cannot point to one book that was written after this date. The Jews would not allow it. If what I say is false, point to one book that was written after 400 B.C. as evidence.Why does that Jewish Encyclopedia state that Daniel was written around 165 BC ? </font>[/QUOTE]The Jewish encylcopedia claims that Satan is a GOOD ANGEL!

It claims that evolution is true.

It buys into liberal historical critical methods that are "Designed" to unseat faith in scripture - because the Reformed and Liberal branches of Judaism have no interest in the Bible being accurate at all.

Orthodox Judaism has some interest in it - but even they claim that TRADITION is the REAL "standard" of reliability NOT the trustworthy nature of scripture.

The REASON for placing Danile OUTSIDE of the 6 century B.C (when he actually LIVED) is because of the NEED of liberal scholars to DENY that prophecy actually EXISTS!

This is well known.

In Christ,

Bob

[john6:63]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I am surprised you call yourself IFB, or are even a member of one. If you disagree so much with an IFB churhc, such as the one that you are a member of, then why don't you join a church that is more in line with what you believe
I am going to go out on a limb here and make a "prediction about the past" -- John 6 already DID THAT!

He USED to be IFB - before becoming Catholic. The whole point of the argument John6 makes is to show that the IFB Upbringing that he had did not prepare him to withstand the myths and fables of Catholicism!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Bob, but you are again wrong. I am still technically an IFB, still on the role; still attending Sunday school, and every service thereof.

My IFB upbringing did more that prepare me to withstand, as you say, “myths and fables of Catholicism.” Trust me, you should see my collection of books. My IFB upbringing also prepared me how to recognize cults, and NO IFB church I had ever been a member of referred to Catholics as being cultic, unlike your religious preference, the Seventh Day Adventist, which were lumped together with the JWs and Mormons all being cults.

My IFB upbringing taught me that the Baptist Church was the Church established by Christ. The book Trail of blood was my Baptist history book.

My IFB upbringing taught me that God preserved the KJV and all other versions were counterfeit.

One morning on a cold Indiana winter day this past January, sitting in my car waiting for a training class to begin, I was reading the Gospel of John for the umpteenth time in my life and there John 6 hit me like a ton of bricks. I read John 6 three times. What was so different this time? I had always thought John 6 to be metaphoric, but as I was reading John 6 and reading the reactions of the Jews and Jesus’ disciples, I could no longer attribute John 6 to mere metaphoric. It scared me to death! I went home and asked my wife to read John 6 and we discussed it through tears. I called my associate Pastor, desperately seeking an explanation, I called friends of mine in previous bible study classes, looking, searching. I prayed, fasted and finally I just had to accept it, John 6, was more than just metaphoric.

Were do I go now? What else have I been taught in my IFB upbringing that is wrong or in error? I have never been to a Catholic Mass and never spoken with a Catholic Priest, but I have made a point to objectively study the Catholic Church and her doctrines, no longer am I going to be judgmental and read one-sided material. I blast the Liberal media for doing that and here I was doing the exact same thing!

Right now my goal is to improve my relationship with Christ, that my relationship with Christ can be more intimate. I am getting board of the fire and brimstone preaching, week in and week out. I am 34 years old and all I want to do now is glorify and praise God in worship! And if being a Catholic will get me to that level of intimacy, then the Lord will lead me to her. In the mean time I am waiting patiently on the Lord and He’s hearing my cry and I am slowly emerging from the grip the IFB church has had on me over the years.

[DHK]

Originally posted by violet:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They had no right to come and bother him during his supper hour telling him he needed to be saved.You know, most people DON'T like to be bothered during their dinner and/or family time and will pretty much say anything to anyone to get them to shut up and go away. I once told a door to door security systems salesman that yes, I would like someone to come rob my house just so that he would end his schpeel and move on... </font>[/QUOTE]Your right they don't. And most Christians (sad to say) are more gutless than the J.W.'s when it comes to evangelization. Jesus gave a command. It is called the Great Commission. Are you involved in carrying it out?
DHK

[violet]

Of course. I just don't go door to door... ;)

[DHK]

Originally posted by john6:63:
I am still technically an IFB, still on the role; still attending Sunday school, and every service thereof.I am sorry that you have had such a bad experience with your church. Don't judge all IFB churches by the one that you are in. There are a wide variety of them. Some follow a man more than they follow Christ. It becomes more like a dictatorship, rather than congregational government. Not all churches are like that.
My IFB upbringing did more that prepare me to withstand, as you say, “myths and fables of Catholicism.” Trust me, you should see my collection of books. My IFB upbringing also prepared me how to recognize cults, and NO IFB church I had ever been a member of referred to Catholics as being cultic, unlike your religious preference, the Seventh Day Adventist, which were lumped together with the JWs and Mormons all being cults.Most IFB churches will point out error, even error of other false religions or cults. It is a Biblical mandate for them to do so. Wrong doctrine, even heresy, such as purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, praying to the dead, indulgences, confession to a priest, all the doctrines associated with Mariolatry, such as the assumption of Mary, etc. These are all heretical man-made doctrines totally unproveable by the Bible. It is impossible for one to know what the Bible teaches, and know what the Caholic Church teaches and be saved at the same time.
The simple reason is this. What does it mean to be born again? Jesus said "You must be born again."
In fact he said, "Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This is one of the most important doctrines of the Bible, dealing directly with one's salvation.
The evangelical will correctly interpret this as trusting Christ as one Saviour (John 1:12,13, 1Pet.1:24). But the Catholics are adamnant in their belief that to be born again means to be baptized. The two beliefs are opposed to each other. The Bible teaches that it is impossible to get to heaven through baptism. For by grace are you saved through faith, not baptism. Thus a Catholic who believes that baptism saves him cannot be saved. A Catholic who believes that to be born again is to be baptized cannot be saved. Yet, that is Catholic theology. How can a Catholic be saved believing this? They can't.

My IFB upbringing taught me that the Baptist Church was the Church established by Christ. The book Trail of blood was my Baptist history book.--I wouldn't go so far as to say that; and I do recognize that there are some historical innacuracies in the Trail of Blood. What I do believe is that there are churches in every age from the Apostles onward that believe as Baptists today believe, though not called Baptist. God has preserved in every age a people for his own. He has never left himself without a witness. And that witness is not the murderous Catholic Church which has been constantly persecuting evangelical Christians.

My IFB upbringing taught me that God preserved the KJV and all other versions were counterfeit.Perhaps an extreme statement the way it is stated. Basically there are two Bibles. Ones that are translated from the Critical Text, and ones that are translated from the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text. No translation (including the KJV0 is inspired and infallible). God has preserved his Word in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. I personally believe that he has preserved His Word in the Received Text that underlies the KJV (and NKJV). It is preserved in the Greek, not the English, so that other translations may be made as well. No translation can be more accurate than the language that it was taken from.

One morning on a cold Indiana winter day this past January, sitting in my car waiting for a training class to begin, I was reading the Gospel of John for the umpteenth time in my life and there John 6 hit me like a ton of bricks. I read John 6 three times. What was so different this time? I had always thought John 6 to be metaphoric, but as I was reading John 6 and reading the reactions of the Jews and Jesus’ disciples, I could no longer attribute John 6 to mere metaphoric. It scared me to death! I went home and asked my wife to read John 6 and we discussed it through tears. I called my associate Pastor, desperately seeking an explanation, I called friends of mine in previous bible study classes, looking, searching. I prayed, fasted and finally I just had to accept it, John 6, was more than just metaphoric.So, who put that idea in your head? When Jesus spoke consistently all through the chapter in metaphors, why would it make sense for him to suddenly change? That is not good hermeneutics as I have pointed out to you, and smacks of predudicial Roman Catholicism. You seem to have been listening to something or someone that has been influencing you that way. There is no reason to take that passage that way.

Were do I go now? What else have I been taught in my IFB upbringing that is wrong or in error?Check Acts 17:11. Have you just been sitting in a pew absorbing everything your pastor is teaching you like a mindless sponge. Don't you study the Word for yourself, "to see whether these things are so," as the Bereans did. Paul commanded Timothy, as he does us:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If your pastor or church has taught you other errors, than you should have caught them already, by your own study of the Word.
I have never been to a Catholic Mass and never spoken with a Catholic Priest, but I have made a point to objectively study the Catholic Church and her doctrines, no longer am I going to be judgmental and read one-sided material. I blast the Liberal media for doing that and here I was doing the exact same thing!Be objective then. Find the above Catholic doctrines that I mentioned to you in the Bible. Prove Catholicism from the Bible. I have an outstanding challenge to my Catholic parents.
Show me from the Bible that Catholicism is Biblical, and I will be a Catholic, but if I can show you what I believe is from the Bible, will you be saved and come to our church.
They have never taken up that challenge yet.
The reason--Catholicism, with all its man-made doctrines cannot be demonstrated from the Bible. It is a man-made religion. I know. I was there for 20 years, and never heard the gospel preached once.

Right now my goal is to improve my relationship with Christ, that my relationship with Christ can be more intimate.That of course is more personal than anything else. Getting alone with God, spending time in His Word, and in prayer are key to your relationship with Christ. Make sure that you are born again, saved by grace through faith, and not by works (Eph.2:8,9). The Catholic Church will teach you the opposite.
Then make sure that you are in a good Bible believing church, not necessarily a KJVO church, but rather an IFB church that is more moderate toward the KJV. A church that faithfully preaches the Word of God, not one that is based on a man, but rather the Word of God, and centered and focused on Christ. Go to a friendly church where you can be involved.
I am getting board of the fire and brimstone preaching, week in and week out. I am 34 years old and all I want to do now is glorify and praise God in worship!Not every church is like that. That is what I am trying to say. For example in our church, I preach what is called expository preaching. In the morning I have been going through 2Corinthians, and in the evening 1Peter. I don't "situation preach." In other words, verse by verse, or passage by passage, I preach whatever is there. That way the sheep are being fed. One Sunday the text may fall on a passage where the text speaks about the woman's role in the church, and so I must speak on it even if I want to stay away from it. Check 1Pet.3. The following passage speaks about the husbands duty to his wife. In the next verses they speak of compassion, love, and suffering. Whatever is there, that is what I preach. That way the sheep are fed. And that is the command that Jesus gave Peter: Feed my sheep.
Like I said, every church is different. Don't judge them all by your experience with one.

And if being a Catholic will get me to that level of intimacy, then the Lord will lead me to her. In the mean time I am waiting patiently on the Lord and He’s hearing my cry and I am slowly emerging from the grip the IFB church has had on me over the years. The Catholic Church does not emphasize a personal relationship with Christ; it emphasizes liturgy. If you are not being fed by the church you are going to find another one, but not another false religion.
DHK

[violet]

another false religion?

[DHK]

Originally posted by violet:
another false religion? False error means a false religion.
Can you prove your doctrines through the Bible alone?
If not then it is a false religion. Quite frankly you believe in a religion that is riddled with man-made doctrines that are unproveable by the Bible. I have listed some of them above. If you want another list let me know.
DHK

[Living4Him]

The Catholic Church does not emphasize a personal relationship with Christ; it emphasizes liturgyThat's a new one to me.

Every Mass our parish priests (there are three, so it depends are who is the celebrant)all tell us how much God loves us and that Christ freely gave His life to redeem us. They also point out from the gospels how we can grow in our love of God and serve Him with our whole heart.

Can you prove your doctrines through the Bible alone?SS is a false man-made doctrine. It most certaintly wasn't around in the time of the early Christians and this has been proven by several sources. So, I guess you are following a false religion since you adhere to a false doctrine that isn't even scriptural.

[violet]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by violet:
another false religion? False error means a false religion.
Can you prove your doctrines through the Bible alone?
If not then it is a false religion. Quite frankly you believe in a religion that is riddled with man-made doctrines that are unproveable by the Bible. I have listed some of them above. If you want another list let me know.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]If you read what I wrote, I emphasized "another"... since you said "another false religion" I thought that you were suggesting that he would be going from one false religion (IFB) to another one. (I already know that you believe Catholicism to be false-- just wasn't too sure why you said "another.")

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Catholic Church does not emphasize a personal relationship with Christ; it emphasizes liturgyThat's a new one to me.

Every Mass our parish priests (there are three, so it depends are who is the celebrant)all tell us how much God loves us and that Christ freely gave His life to redeem us. They also point out from the gospels how we can grow in our love of God and serve Him with our whole heart.</font>[/QUOTE]So a priest tells you how much God loves you. Mormons do the same. That says nothing of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ which apparently (by your post) you know nothing about.

Can you prove your doctrines through the Bible alone? SS is a false man-made doctrine. It most certaintly wasn't around in the time of the early Christians and this has been proven by several sources. So, I guess you are following a false religion since you adhere to a false doctrine that isn't even scriptural. So says the Catholic Church which has indoctrinated into every Catholic to hate SS becasue it so devastates all of their beliefs, since their beliefs come straight from the Magesterium and not from the Bible. SS would devastate all the man-made heretical doctrines such as Purgatory, the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, indulgences, prayers to the dead, confession to a priest, etc. These man-made doctrines are heretical, anti-biblical doctrines, some of which go directly against the grace of God in salvation. Catholics (either knowingly or unknowingly) spit in the face of God telling him that his blood was not sufficient enough to atone for their sins. They insult him and the salvation that he has so graciously provided.
DHK

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I am going to go out on a limb here and make a "prediction about the past" -- John 6 already DID THAT! (Join a church more to his doctrinal bent rather than staying with the IFB)
Originally posted by john6:63:
Sorry Bob, but you are again wrong. I am still technically an IFB, still on the role; still attending Sunday school, and every service thereof.

My IFB upbringing did more that prepare me to withstand, as you say, “myths and fables of Catholicism.” Trust me, you should see my collection of books. My IFB upbringing also prepared me how to recognize cults, and NO IFB church I had ever been a member of referred to Catholics as being cultic,
So then you ... "became one"??


John 6 -

One morning on a cold Indiana winter day this past January, sitting in my car waiting for a training class to begin, I was reading the Gospel of John for the umpteenth time in my life and there John 6 hit me like a ton of bricks. I read John 6 three times. What was so different this time? I had always thought John 6 to be metaphoric,
You mean - like CLEMENT and TURTULLIAN say THEY VIEWED IT???!!

How "interesting"!!

"IF" you are "REALLY" still in the IFB as a faithful member - then why don't YOU take a crack at the list of "details" in John 6 that CATHOLICS can not make themselves read?!!

Surely as a member of the IFB faithful YOU would not need to fear the details of John 6 the way our Catholic posters have been doing so far.

Why so "shy"??

John 6

I called my associate Pastor, desperately seeking an explanation (for John 6), I called friends of mine in previous bible study classes, looking, searching. I prayed, fasted and finally I just had to accept it, John 6, was more than just metaphoric.
Ohhh - so Clement and Turtullian were WRONG!!???

Well then maybe you can finally "Address" those pointed segments that are so devastating to Catholicism - as listed already!

OR "is it not time yet"??


Were do I go now? What else have I been taught in my IFB upbringing that is wrong or in error? I have never been to a Catholic Mass and never spoken with a Catholic Priest, but I have made a point to objectively study the Catholic Church and her doctrines,One step towards error - followed by another - eh?

Just let me know before you start trying to murder fellow Catholics as did the RCC in the dark ages - or try "exterminating" non-Catholics as the Lateran IV council demanded.

Praying to the dead lately?

Getting "all cleaned up for purgatory" today?

Had any heart-to-heart discussions with the QUEEN of the UNIVERSE today?

Ok - I am just kidding!! Of course you would not leap "That far" into the dark in your Catholic enthusaism. I just could not resist asking!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you prove your doctrines through the Bible alone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L4H
SS is a false man-made doctrine. It most certaintly wasn't around in the time of the early Christians See? Catholics don't READ their Bibles and then they try to defend that practice by attacking Sola Scriptura as the basis for Doctrinal proof!

Notice that in Acts 17:11 they are APPROVED who REJECT that Catholic Model and INSTEAD follow the SS practice "studying the SCRIPTURES DAILY to see IF THOSE THINGS spoken to them by PAUL were SO".

So what is the Catholic "answer"??

#1. DON't READ that!!

#2. PRETEND that NOBODY ELSE read that either!

#3. CLAIM that there is NO history of that!!

In Christ,

Bob

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: One step towards error - followed by another - eh?

Just let me know before you start trying to murder fellow Catholics as did the RCC in the dark ages - or try "exterminating" non-Catholics as the Lateran IV council demanded.

Praying to the dead lately?

Getting "all cleaned up for purgatory" today?

Had any heart-to-heart discussions with the QUEEN of the UNIVERSE today?

Ok - I am just kidding!! Of course you would not leap "That far" into the dark in your Catholic enthusaism. I just could not resist asking

Response: Wow, are you scared. That was the most viceral attack on the catholic church I have heard recently. I could understand if you tried to explain John 6, but this attack is very odd.

If you have the truth, then do not fear if someone asks questions. True search for the truth should not make us fear, because the true searcher will find the truth. If you have the truth, then don't fear.
peace

[john6:63]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
One step towards error - followed by another - eh?

Just let me know before you start trying to murder fellow Catholics as did the RCC in the dark ages - or try "exterminating" non-Catholics as the Lateran IV council demanded.

Praying to the dead lately?

Getting "all cleaned up for purgatory" today?

Had any heart-to-heart discussions with the QUEEN of the UNIVERSE today?

Ok - I am just kidding!! Of course you would not leap "That far" into the dark in your Catholic enthusaism. I just could not resist asking!

In Christ,

Bob Ha, Ha, Bob what whit, but seriously, what kind of idiotic response was that Bob? Sad thing is that YOU, a member of the Seventh Day Adventist, a religion that meets ALL the hallmarks of a CULT have the gall of pointing his finger at the Catholic Church and me!

You need to look at your own religions beliefs who hold’s their leaders, Ellen G. White’s bible, The Clear Word Bible contradictions over the Word of God, before you start on the Catholic Church and I’m supposed to take YOUR word. Yeah, right.

[TP]

Greetings,

The interesting thing about sola Scriptura is that it depends on the magisterium for the existance of the scripture, then denies the same magisterium. To deny the authority of the magisterium would also deny the scripture that the magisterium canonized. The Holy Spirit is with the Magisterium guiding it, and there by we can trust scripture as also guided by the Holy Spirit.

Scriptures were not completely written until the end of the first century. It then took about 75-100 to be all dispersed throughout christianity. However, along with normal scriptures were MANY other writings. So in 393, 397, 401, 419 councils were held to determine the canon of scriptures. That is where we get the canon of the new testament. In order to Trust the scriptures we have You MUST believe that the Holy Spirit kept the magisterium infallible at least in regards to scripture. To deny magisterium is to deny the scripture in which they were instrumental in collecting together.

peace

[Living4Him]

That says nothing of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ which apparently (by your post) you know nothing about.What makes you think that I don't?

I know that I was created to know, love, and serve God in this life so that I may spend eternity with Him.

Jesus is the true love of my life and has always been. Daily, I seek Him and I carry my cross for Him.

[D28guy]

Living4Him,

"SS is a false man-made doctrine."All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If the scriptures are insufficient, and something more is needed, than how could the scriptures make us complete, and thoroughly equipped?

If more were needed than we would be incomplete and partially equipped with only the scriptutres.

God says we are complete and thoroughly equipped with the scriptures.

I choose to believe God and not the nonsense of men, and their silly traditions.

"These were more fairminded than those at Thessolanica, in that they recieved the word with all readiness,and they searched the scriptures daily, to see whether these things be so"

Clear as a bell, isnt God?

It most certaintly wasn't around in the time of the early Christians and this has been proven by several sources.There were no early christians during the book of Acts years.

What were they then...Buddhists?

Thank God for His wonderful scriptures,

Mike

[D28guy]

Bob Ryan said...

"See? Catholics don't READ their Bibles and then they try to defend that practice by attacking Sola Scriptura as the basis for Doctrinal proof!

Notice that in Acts 17:11 they are APPROVED who REJECT that Catholic Model and INSTEAD follow the SS practice "studying the SCRIPTURES DAILY to see IF THOSE THINGS spoken to them by PAUL were SO".

So what is the Catholic "answer"??

#1. DON't READ that!!

#2. PRETEND that NOBODY ELSE read that either!

#3. CLAIM that there is NO history of that!!"graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

Mike :D

[Living4Him]

D28guy,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."You are taking this verse out of context.

The earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.


It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

A good part of the New Testament was not written in his (Timothy's) boyhood. Some of the epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.

When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What most protestants often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

[D28guy]

Living4Him,

"You are taking this verse out of context.

The earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal;"Nice diversionary attempt, but it wont work. And btw, why stop there? Why not also say that that passage of scripture only applies to men, and not women, since it says

"that the man of God might be complete..."THAT would be just as silly as what you did post.

The truth is...That was then. This is now. God knows the beginning for the end, and the end from the begoinning.

They had all the word of God that was available at that time...and it was called the scriptures.

Tody we have all the word of God that is avaiable now...and it is called the scriptures.

And so, this is just as true for us as it was for them:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work.""NOT all traditions. NOT all oral teaching. NOT all that the church fathers taught. NOT all that a hierarchial monstrocity will dictate.

All scripture.

God will continue to allow false religious systems to flail about in their falsehoods, superstitions, traditions and contradictions to His truth.

God bless,

Mike

[Living4Him]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Living4Him,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"You are taking this verse out of context.

The earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal;"Nice diversionary attempt, but it wont work. And btw, why stop there? Why not also say that that passage of scripture only applies to men, and not women, since it says

"that the man of God might be complete..."THAT would be just as silly as what you did post.

The truth is...That was then. This is now. God knows the beginning for the end, and the end from the begoinning.

They had all the word of God that was available at that time...and it was called the scriptures.

Tody we have all the word of God that is avaiable now...and it is called the scriptures.

And so, this is just as true for us as it was for them:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work.""NOT all traditions. NOT all oral teaching. NOT all that the church fathers taught. NOT all that a hierarchial monstrocity will dictate.

All scripture.

God will continue to allow false religious systems to flail about in their falsehoods, superstitions, traditions and contradictions to His truth.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Mike,

Your logic doesn't make any sense. You are just proving that SS is a recent man made invention.

If you stick by your logic, the OT was the only thing known to be Scripture.

By SS, you would have no idea what NT books should be included in the canon of Scriptures, because the Bible didn't have a little index.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
What makes you think that I don't?

I know that I was created to know, love, and serve God in this life so that I may spend eternity with Him.

Jesus is the true love of my life and has always been. Daily, I seek Him and I carry my cross for Him. Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Has always been? all your life?

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 3:10-12 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

You have sinned. You have fallen short of God's glory. What do you mean you have a personal relationship with Christ. You have been sinning since the day that you were born. You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ as long as sin stands in the way, and it is impossible for man (a priest) to forgive that sin.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:

If you stick by your logic, the OT was the only thing known to be Scripture.

By SS, you would have no idea what NT books should be included in the canon of Scriptures, because the Bible didn't have a little index. The canonicity of Scripture is one topic. It is a closed topic as far as we are concerned. There are 66 books in the canon of Scripture and:

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The Catholic Church only brings upon itself a curse by adding to it.

Sola Scripture has nothing to do with this topic.
The Bereans used SS long before this as was amply demonstrated many times.

Philip use SS when speaking to the Ethiopian Eunuch in the same way. What did Phiip do? Appeal to the Catholic Magesteriam graemlins/laugh.gif Hardly!!

His appeal was to Scripture, and strictly to Scripture.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
DHK

[Living4Him]

You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ as long as sin stands in the way, and it is impossible for man (a priest) to forgive that sin.Well, I guess you are calling God a liar.

Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave the power and authority to Peter, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18, Jesus gave this power to all of the Apostles, "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."

John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'."

2Corinthians 5:17-20, "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

2Corinthians 2:10, "Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST."

[Living4Him]

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.A brief review of some historical facts should clear up this issue. The Bible is a collection of sacred writings that were compiled into book format centuries after the death of the original writers. When the Apostle John wrote these verses, the Bible as we know it today had not been compiled yet. Therefore, his words could not possibly be applied to the entire collection of writings today known as the Bible. John was referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.

Additionally, even though Revelation is traditionally placed last in the Bible, most Biblical scholars do not believe that it was the last book to be written among the compiled records contained in the Bible. If your reasoning is true, then those Books would also have to be removed from the Bible and discarded as false.

Even J. Veron McGee, a wonderful protestant preacher concurs with this.

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: Philip use SS when speaking to the Ethiopian Eunuch in the same way. What did Phiip do? Appeal to the Catholic Magesteriam?

Response: What a wonderful example. Philip WAS part of the CAtholic Magisterium, and like all the Magisterium this evangelist used scripture to explain his point. This is a wonderful example of the magisterium at work. Imagine this: Philip was explaining Jesus using the Old Testament and Tradition(his experience of the Risen Christ--No new testament, remember).
peace

[D28guy]

TP,

"The interesting thing about sola Scriptura is that it depends on the magisterium for the existance of the scripture,..."It is nothing less than stunning the arrogance of the Catholic Church. They actually claim...with a straight face...that we owe the cultic Teaching Majesterium of the Catholic Church a debt of gratitude for giving to the world the scriptures of God.

Ignoring of course the fact that the scriptures were all inscripturated...at the very least...about 300 years prior to the "Catholic Church" coming into existance, and those now known as the old testament a much much longer period.

"...then denies the same magisterium. To deny the authority of the magisterium would also deny the scripture that the magisterium canonized."Utter nonsense. Complete lunacy. The scriptures were inscripturated hundreds of years prior to Constantines decisions which resulted in the "pagan/religious" entity known as the Catholic Church to come into existance.

The fact that Almighty God chose to use Catholic people to copy or have a part in compiling His scriptures puts the Catholic Church in the same league as the Donkey whom God used one time to help in a situation in the old testament.

Do you believe we should all now bow down to Donkeys for doing something that Almighty God was actually the author of?

"The Holy Spirit is with the Magisterium guiding it,..."Now? No, the Holy Spirit isnt. SOME spirit might be involved, but not the Holy Spirit.

"...and there by we can trust scripture as also guided by the Holy Spirit.Our understanding that the Holy Spirit of God brought about the inscripturating of the scriptures is no justification for lifting up the Majesterium of the Catholic Church.

"Scriptures were not completely written until the end of the first century. It then took about 75-100 to be all dispersed throughout christianity. However, along with normal scriptures were MANY other writings. So in 393, 397, 401, 419 councils were held to determine the canon of scriptures. That is where we get the canon of the new testament. In order to Trust the scriptures we have You MUST believe that the Holy Spirit kept the magisterium infallible at least in regards to scripture."Regarding the Holy Spirit infallibly orchestrating the inscripturating of and compiling of the scriptures we all agree. But to go the next step and say that we now have justification for the absurd and cultic teachings of the Majestierium is exceedingly problematic.

"To deny magisterium is to deny the scripture in which they were instrumental in collecting together."Nonsense.

Grace and peace to you, in the midst of your confusion,

Mike

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
[QUOTE]You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ as long as sin stands in the way, and it is impossible for man (a priest) to forgive that sin.[qb] Well, I guess you are calling God a liar.

Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave the power and authority to Peter, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Non Sequitor.
This has nothing to do with the verses that I posted, nor with the subject of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As others have put it: a typical Catholic diversionary tactic.

You really have not studied out what the "keys of heaven" are, have you. You have to take the Magesterium's word that they are right. There is no room for SS here. So you don't know if this group of wicked sinful men could be wrong. As my post indicated "All have sinned," including the magesterium. The only perfect man was Christ; he alone did not sin. All others are depraved in their nature and sin on a daily basis. Why should anyone trust them?

Matthew 18:18, Jesus gave this power to all of the Apostles, "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."So what. This has nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In fact if you read the context it has to do with local church discipline. It doesn't have anything to do with Peter or the apostles. Again, non sequitor.

John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'."Do you know the meaning of this verse? Probably not. You will probably look it up in the catechism or some other Catholic source and spew out the official Magesterium position on it. After all you are not allowed SS. You are restriced in your own Bible study.
Again this is non sequitor.
It has nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is just another diversionary tactic from answering the real question and getting away from the topic at hand.

2Corinthians 5:17-20, "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." Well good, we are gettng closer to the mark now.
The question is: How does a person become a new creation in Jesus Christ?
How are old things passed away? What does that mean?
How are all things made new? What does that mean?
How are we reconciled to God? What did God do in order for that to happen, and is there any obligation on our part? If so what is it?
What does he mean, when he says that he has given us the ministry of reconciliation?
Can you answer those questions for me.

2Corinthians 2:10, "Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST." Again non sequitor.
Only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. Even the Jews recognized that fact.

Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

Mark 2:9-10 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:

Additionally, even though Revelation is traditionally placed last in the Bible, most Biblical scholars do not believe that it was the last book to be written among the compiled records contained in the Bible. If your reasoning is true, then those Books would also have to be removed from the Bible and discarded as false.

Even J. Veron McGee, a wonderful protestant preacher concurs with this. "Most Biblical scholars." Yeah I know. Those are "most Biblical scholars" that TP quoted that denied the authorship of Daniel, put the date of Daniel at 165 B.C., even though Daniel lived about 435 years before that! "Most Biblical Scholars!" Yeah right! Most of your liberal scholars who want to tear down the Bible, deny its integrity, because they do not believe in the supernatural. The date for the writing of the Book of Revelation is conservatively put at 98 A.D. and is the last book of the Bible to be written. Being the last book of the Bible to be written, the verses not only apply to the Book of Revelation specifically, but the entire books of the Bible in general.
DHK

[john6:63]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Living4Him,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"You are taking this verse out of context.

The earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal;"Nice diversionary attempt, but it wont work. And btw, why stop there? Why not also say that that passage of scripture only applies to men, and not women, since it says

"that the man of God might be complete..."THAT would be just as silly as what you did post.

The truth is...That was then. This is now. God knows the beginning for the end, and the end from the begoinning.

They had all the word of God that was available at that time...and it was called the scriptures.

Tody we have all the word of God that is avaiable now...and it is called the scriptures.

And so, this is just as true for us as it was for them:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work.""NOT all traditions. NOT all oral teaching. NOT all that the church fathers taught. NOT all that a hierarchial monstrocity will dictate.

All scripture.

God will continue to allow false religious systems to flail about in their falsehoods, superstitions, traditions and contradictions to His truth.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]The bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura D28guy, and if you will back up to verses 14 and 15, you will see how you and I once took this verse 16 way out of context, 14 and 15 states by Paul: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You read Paul telling Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition; the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So D28guy, must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition, which is handed down by word of mouth, which Paul states in 2 Tim. 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Paul also disagees with your sola scriprtura here in his letter to the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples in Luke 10:16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. Jesus commissioned them, saying in Matthew 28:19 to 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations …

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction per Romans 10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time see 1 Peter 1:25. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Note that the word has been preached—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

Again this is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Matthew 18:18, Jesus gave this power to all of the Apostles, "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."So what. This has nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In fact if you read the context it has to do with local church discipline. It doesn't have anything to do with Peter or the apostles. Again, non sequitor. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the context shows that it has everything to do with the apostles since that's who Christ is specifically addressing (Doh! tongue.gif ) They are the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20) (Of course, by extension it does have to do with church discipline as the bishops are the successors to the apostles)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'."Do you know the meaning of this verse? Probably not. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you know the meaning? Personally, I think the verse is pretty self-explanatory. It's also interesting that you dismissed the plain meaning out-of-hand without providing us with a creative alternate "interpretation" (but I'm sure that will be forthcoming... :cool: )

You will probably look it up in the catechism or some other Catholic source and spew out the official Magesterium position on it. As you will rush to consult your favorite Protestant commentaries in the vain attempt to explain away the clear meaning of the text (sorta' like you do with the John 6 passage, and many other Bible passages for that matter). Barring that I'm sure you'll come up with something creative. :cool:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2Corinthians 2:10, "Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST." Again non sequitor.
Only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. Even the Jews recognized that fact.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course thou art begging the question since in John 20:21-23 Christ Himself empowers the apostles to do the same:
"If you [ie the APOSTLES] forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain them, they are retained." John 20:23.

[D28guy]

DoubtingThomas,

You said...

"Actually, the context shows that it has everything to do with the apostles since that's who Christ is specifically addressing (Doh! )"Actually, if my understanding is correct the *official* spelling of that oh so repetitiously used "female teenspeak" word is...

"Duh???"...with a descending tone and the accompanying look of disbelief at the adults cluelessness. tongue.gif ;)

Mike

[violet]

I think it's a Homer Simpsonesque "DOH!"

[D28guy]

Violet,

Is that how its spelled on that show?(I've never seen that Homer show)

It seems like I've seen it written as "Duh" before. Maybe in some comic strip or something.

Maybe both will do!

Mike

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Rachel:
A while back I was talking to one of my Catholic friends about church and all. She mentioned that at her church (its a big one too) she doesn't see anyone ever carry their bibles to church.Most Roman Catholic Churches have pew booklets that have the Bible readings (At any given Sunday mass, there is usually 1 reading from the OT, 1 from the Gospels, and 1 from the Epistles) and responsive readngs in them.

Many Presbyterian churches I've been to don't have a lot of members carrying Bibles either. Come to think of it, the Jews and early Christians of Paul's day didn't carry bibles/OT scriptures to worship with them either. I think it's somewhat unrighteous of us to judge other individuals based on whether they're carrying a Bible under their arm on Sunday mornings. Besides, I've always felt that a Bible doesn't belong under your arm. It belongs on your bedside where you should be reading it in your own home.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Most Roman Catholic Churches have pew booklets that have the Bible readings (At any given Sunday mass, there is usually 1 reading from the OT, 1 from the Gospels, and 1 from the Epistles) and responsive readngs in them.

Many Presbyterian churches I've been to don't have a lot of members carrying Bibles either. Come to think of it, the Jews and early Christians of Paul's day didn't carry bibles/OT scriptures to worship with them either. I think it's somewhat unrighteous of us to judge other individuals based on whether they're carrying a Bible under their arm on Sunday mornings. Besides, I've always felt that a Bible doesn't belong under your arm. It belongs on your bedside where you should be reading it in your own home. [/QUOTE]
That is only partly true.
What was an Ethiopian Eunuch doing reading the Book of Isaiah, if the didn't carry Scriptures with them.
What did the Bereans have with them if the didn't have the Scritpures search at the synagogue. How did they get there? And how were they made so available to them when the Scripture says they (plural) searched the Scriptures daily.
When Paul was in prison he asked that the Scriptures be brought to him. Obviously they were not just confined to synagogues, and the such, but were carried around in scrolls.

Many Protestant churches make Bibles available to their congregations by putting them in the pews. Though the congregations may not be seen carrying their Bibles to the church, the Bibles are often there.
As you say, many, if not most, in the Protestant camp (especially Baptist) have Bibles at home. Very few Catholics I know of own a Bible, (unless it is a huge family Bible passed down from generations for genealogical purposes). I have seen a couple of those. But they aren't read. They are just decoration pieces.

The fact remains that in general Protestants study the Bible, and Catholics will look at their missals and Catechisms.
DHK

[Johnv]

Synagogues then, as now, had copies of the OT there. Some had multiple copies for study by members of the congregation.

Copies of the scriptures in those days were large, expensive, heavy, and cumbersom. So to imply that people going to church in Paul's time carried scriptures with them to and fro in a casual manner is simply incorrect.

I would disagree with you that "few Catholics ... own a Bible". Every Catholic I know, even those whom I am unsoure about in regards to salvation, have one or more copies of the Bible at home,and not just the "huge family" Bibles you're referring to. I mean the typical portable paperback kind. In fact, my own mother goes to a "little old ladies" bible study at her Catholic church ever week during the day. Guess what they do? They all bring their bibles with them. So I would disagree with you: the notion that protestants study their bible and catholics do not is by no means a "fact".

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Actually, the context shows that it has everything to do with the apostles since that's who Christ is specifically addressing (Doh! tongue.gif ) They are the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20) (Of course, by extension it does have to do with church discipline as the bishops are the successors to the apostles)CONTEXT:
Matthew 18:15-18 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

There is nothing directed to the Apostles here. This is general advice given to the church that will be. It is how a brother should be reconciled to his broher and the church. It is about church discipline and nothing more. Don't read anything more into the Scripture than that which is written.

Christ was also directly addressing either one of the apostles or some of them when he said:
"Get thee behind me Satan."
"If any man will come after me let him first deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me."
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

But Catholics don't like to talk about these verses do they?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'." Do you know the meaning of this verse? Probably not. Do you know the meaning? Personally, I think the verse is pretty self-explanatory. It's also interesting that you dismissed the plain meaning out-of-hand without providing us with a creative alternate "interpretation" (but I'm sure that will be forthcoming... The Bible does not contradict itself. We have already established in Mark 2, that only God can forgive sins. Jesus Christ is God, therefore he can forgive sins. A priest cannot forgive sins, neither can the apostles. Only God can forgive sins. The bible does not contradict itself. Do you contradict the Bible. Having said that, what does the Scripture mean? Not so self-explanatory anymore is it?

You will probably look it up in the catechism or some other Catholic source and spew out the official Magesterium position on it. As you will rush to consult your favorite Protestant commentaries in the vain attempt to explain away the clear meaning of the text (sorta' like you do with the John 6 passage, and many other Bible passages for that matter). Barring that I'm sure you'll come up with something creative. </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't do that, did I? I left that job for you.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2Corinthians 2:10, "Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST." Again non sequitor.
Only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. Even the Jews recognized that fact.</font>[/QUOTE] Of course thou art begging the question since in John 20:21-23 Christ Himself empowers the apostles to do the same:
"If you [ie the APOSTLES] forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain them, they are retained." John 20:23. I am not begging the question. You are avoiding Scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself. It clearly says that only God can forgive sins. This is a truth. To say otherwise is to say that God lies. Man cannot forgive sins. Where in the Book of Acts did any of the Apostles ever forgive sins? Chapter and verse please! Only God can forgive sins! Confession of sins to a priest is heretical. Christ never empowered the disciples to forgive sins. You just don't know what the verse means. You had better (using SS) find out what the verse means.
DHK

[Living4Him]

This has nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus ChristDKH,

Well of course not.

All those verses that I posted showed about confessing sins to a priest. Since you stated "and it is impossible for man (a priest) to forgive that sin"

Only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. Even the Jews recognized that fact.

Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?Don't you mean to say that only GOD can forgive sins. The Jews were grumbling that Jesus forgave sins. Jesus gave God's authority to the apostles to forgive sins.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, my Lord and My Savior.

I don't believe that you are in a position to sit in judgement as to what my personal relationship with Jesus is.

Also, using the Bible only philosophy, where does it state to have a personal relationship with Jesus?

[Living4Him]

DKH,

Looking from Scripture, when did Jesus give the apostles the authority to forgive sins?

It was after His resurrection and before His Ascension into Heaven.

Christ was also directly addressing either one of the apostles or some of them when he said:
"Get thee behind me Satan."So are you saying that Jesus literally meant that Peter was Satan?

[Living4Him]

Ignoring of course the fact that the scriptures were all inscripturated...at the very least...about 300 years prior to the "Catholic Church" coming into existance, and those now known as the old testament a much much longer period.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...then denies the same magisterium. To deny the authority of the magisterium would also deny the scripture that the magisterium canonized."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utter nonsense. Complete lunacy. The scriptures were inscripturated hundreds of years prior to Constantines decisions which resulted in the "pagan/religious" entity known as the Catholic Church to come into existance. Mike,
You need to seriously take a history class on religion. A real one, not an IFB one.

Constantine DID NOT start a religion.

Did you not read the copy of the Edict of Milan that I posted? (One from a Methodist site and one from a secular university History Department.)

Also, every bishop in the Catholic Church can trace their ordination back to one of the apostles. How could they do that if as you claim the Catholic Church started with Constantine.

Also why don't you check out the Bible timeline at greatsite.com They are the world’s largest dealer of rare & antique Bibles, ancient Biblical manuscripts, and antiquarian theology books. Oh yes, and they don't appear to be Catholic.

[D28guy]

Living4Him,

You said this to DHK:

"All those verses that I posted showed about confessing sins to a priest. Since you stated "and it is impossible for man (a priest) to forgive that sin" "All those verses that I posted showed about confessing sins to a priest."And these are the verses you are referring to from your earlier post...

"Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave the power and authority to Peter, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18, Jesus gave this power to all of the Apostles, "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."

John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'."

2Corinthians 5:17-20, "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

2Corinthians 2:10, "Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST."."And I sit again in a state of stunned disbelief.

I keep thinking that it cant get worse...then it does.

I keep thinking "it cant more absurd then THIS?...then it does.

I keep thinking that "this is the worst. The mangling and torturing of the scriptures by the Catholic Church cant get any more comical"...then it does.

The humiliation just keep going to lower and lower levels.

"All those verses that I posted showed about confessing sins to a priest."Those verses you posted...confessing sins to a priest.

It stuns the mind. It staggers the normal thinking mind.

Honestly, I imagine that this is the level of absurdidty and the complete absence of normal common sense objectivity and clarity of thinking skills that those "deprogrammers" encounter who rescue cultists from groups like the Hare Krishnas must encounter.

It just keeps getting worse...is their any end to it?

Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave the power and authority to Peter, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Those keys belong to every born again person. The keys are the gospel. He who accepts the gospel will be "bound" in heaven. He who rejects the gospel remains "loosed" in heaven.

"Matthew 18:18, Jesus gave this power to all of the Apostles, "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."See previous post.

"John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'."Anyone who is born again has recieved the Holy Spirit. And any born again person can declare someones sins forgiven if and when the person they are counseling enters into relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ through faith alone.

If anyone rejects Christ, any christian can warn them that they are still in their sins, and they have not been remitted, and are retained.

"2Corinthians 5:17-20, "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."That doesnt have even the tiniest thing to do with confessing sins to a priest for forgiveness. It refers to the new creation anyone becomes when they enter into relationship with, and embrace Christ through faith alone.

"2Corinthians 2:10, "Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST."."That doesnt have the slightest thing to do with confessing sins to a Catholic priest. Paul was simply saying he agreed with the forgiviness extended to an erring brother at Corinth.

The level of confusion and borderline brainwashing that the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church is capable of inflicting on their victims is almost criminal

Sadly, very VERY sadly,

Mike

[D28guy]

Living4Him,

"You need to seriously take a history class on religion. A real one, not an IFB one."I have no idea whey IFB means.

"Constantine DID NOT start a religion."I never said he did.

I said...

"Utter nonsense. Complete lunacy. The scriptures were inscripturated hundreds of years prior to Constantines decisions which resulted in the "pagan/religious" entity known as the Catholic Church to come into existance."Do you see it now, or do I have to break it down into itty bitty segments for you?

Stunned again,

Mike

[Rachel]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
Most Roman Catholic Churches have pew booklets that have the Bible readings (At any given Sunday mass, there is usually 1 reading from the OT, 1 from the Gospels, and 1 from the Epistles) and responsive readngs in them.

Many Presbyterian churches I've been to don't have a lot of members carrying Bibles either. Come to think of it, the Jews and early Christians of Paul's day didn't carry bibles/OT scriptures to worship with them either. I think it's somewhat unrighteous of us to judge other individuals based on whether they're carrying a Bible under their arm on Sunday mornings. Besides, I've always felt that a Bible doesn't belong under your arm. It belongs on your bedside where you should be reading it in your own home. </font>[/QUOTE]That is only partly true.
What was an Ethiopian Eunuch doing reading the Book of Isaiah, if the didn't carry Scriptures with them.
What did the Bereans have with them if the didn't have the Scritpures search at the synagogue. How did they get there? And how were they made so available to them when the Scripture says they (plural) searched the Scriptures daily.
When Paul was in prison he asked that the Scriptures be brought to him. Obviously they were not just confined to synagogues, and the such, but were carried around in scrolls.

Many Protestant churches make Bibles available to their congregations by putting them in the pews. Though the congregations may not be seen carrying their Bibles to the church, the Bibles are often there.
As you say, many, if not most, in the Protestant camp (especially Baptist) have Bibles at home. Very few Catholics I know of own a Bible, (unless it is a huge family Bible passed down from generations for genealogical purposes). I have seen a couple of those. But they aren't read. They are just decoration pieces.

The fact remains that in general Protestants study the Bible, and Catholics will look at their missals and Catechisms.
DHK [/QUOTE]

I agree with DHK.

Johnv,
I have never been in a bible-believing teaching church that hasn't put a HUGE emphasis on bringing your bible to church and actually OPENING it and following along with the Pastor. And these churches have bibles in the pew for visitors that didn't bring a bible. That's not including always being reminded to study the Word at home. Because it's very important to study the Word for ourselves and not depend on the Pastor for everything! People are led astray so much by not studying for themselves. I think it's good to have Bibles all throughout your house, not just on a nightstand.

Unrighteous to judge someone for not carrying a bible under their arm? Next time read the whole post so you know what it said.

What is wrong is she's never heard her priest say she should read and study the Bible for herself! She said never. For a Minister to never talk about that is so unbelievable and just plain wrong! And she said no one ever brings a Bible to church. No wonder if the bible isn't important to them!

That is why I posted what I did, seriously wondering if all Catholic churches were like this. I certainly hoped they were not. Every Catholic and ex-Catholic I have known are completely ignorant of what's in the bible. It makes me wonder why the Word of God is NOT important to them and if they are learning anything at all about God.

In case you missed it, here is the whole post.....

--A while back I was talking to one of my Catholic friends about church and all. She mentioned that at her church (its a big one too) she doesn't see anyone ever carry their bibles to church. She also said she's never heard her Priest say you should read and/or study the Bible for themselves. I've heard that many times that Catholics don't carry their bibles or even read them at home. I know some have to, I hope? I'm sure some have to have that desire to learn about God?

Do any Catholic Priests out there tell their flock they should read/study their Bibles or is this everywhere that they don't??

She mentioned that her sister gave her something nice and she put it on her fridge, she said about God loving the world. I said do you mean John 3:16 For God so loved the world......
She said yes that's it! I was so shocked she didn't know that was in the Bible and she also asked me if the ten commandments were in the Bible! She's completely ignorant of what's in there. I was just completely stunned let me tell you!! I told her how important it was for us to read the bible for ourselves and can and will help so much in life when you get the Word of God in you. But really, I don't think she takes it that seriously but I'm sure she might if her Priest said it.

This is just so sad! Do Catholics learn anything about God in church or what?

I would really appreciate some responses from Catholics here about this too.-----

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ as long as sin stands in the way, and it is impossible for man (a priest) to forgive that sin.Well, I guess you are calling God a liar.

Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave the power and authority to Peter, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18, Jesus gave this power to all of the Apostles, "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."

John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'."

2Corinthians 5:17-20, "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

2Corinthians 2:10, "Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST." </font>[/QUOTE]Lets try this post again L4H.
"You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ as long as sin stands in the way." (See previous verses posted). Now what do these verses (if anything,) have to do with having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Try and stay on topic this time.
DHK

[Living4Him]

Now what do these verses (if anything,) have to do with having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.They don't.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, my Lord and My Savior.

I don't believe that you are in a position to sit in judgement as to what my personal relationship with Jesus is.

Also, using the Bible only philosophy, where does it state to have a personal relationship with Jesus?

[Living4Him]

The scriptures were inscripturated hundreds of years prior to Constantines decisions which resulted in the "pagan/religious" entity known as the Catholic Church to come into existance."D28guy,

Okay, so help me understand. Are you saying that because Constantine ended the emperor's persecution of Christians, that this resulted in the Christians becoming pagan and thus the Catholic Church came into existance?


Also, what do you mean by inscripturated?

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by violet:
I think it's a Homer Simpsonesque "DOH!" Violet is correct. graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:
There is nothing directed to the Apostles here.Context, DHK--He's the directly addressing the apostles, the foundation of the Church, since that is to whom
He's talking. (DOH!! DOH!!...now I'm really wishing there was a Homer Simpson emoticon.)

Don't read anything more into the Scripture than that which is written.I'm not reading anything "more" into Scripture, since the fact that He's talking to the Apostles is right there.

Christ was also directly addressing either one of the apostles or some of them when he said:
"Get thee behind me Satan."You're right...He was. smile.gif

The Bible does not contradict itself. We have already established in Mark 2, that only God can forgive sins. Jesus Christ is God, therefore he can forgive sins.And yet this same Jesus Christ empowered the apostles to do the same. We have established this in John 20. If Christ had not so empowered the apostles, then I'd agree with you. But since it says that very thing right there in the text, I'm going to have to pass on agreeing with you. Sorry.

The bible does not contradict itself. Do you contradict the Bible. Having said that, what does the Scripture mean? Not so self-explanatory anymore is it? Nope, despite your leaps of illogic, it's still self-explanatory. The apostles are able to declare sins forgiven or retained by the power of God given to them by Christ Who is God. Seems like God can grant that power to whomever He desires. If He wants to forgive sins through the agency of men whom He has chosen, I have no problem with that. Afterall, He is God, and who are we to argue with God??? graemlins/thumbs.gif


I am not begging the question. You are avoiding Scripture.Looks like you're the one avoiding Scriptures you don't like. How very Protestant of you! :D
Christ never empowered the disciples to forgive sins. You just don't know what the verse means. This is pretty comical! Do you actually have a straight face when you type this stuff? I mean it's almost hilarious how you can read a verse which plainly says "x" and turn around and write "this verse is not saying "x"! PLEASE stop it, man, you're killing me!
graemlins/laugh.gif

You had better (using SS) find out what the verse means.
DHK Already have. And looking at the context and the plain meaning, Christ gives His authority to His apostles to carry on His work which includes the forgiveness of sins. No "magisterium" had to tell me that. :cool:

[Living4Him]

DT,

Is it just me or do you also get the impression that a few people here appear to hold to the notion that Jesus spoke in parable/metaphors/riddles in all of His teachings?

It is as if "Jesus didn't mean what He said."

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
DT,

Is it just me or do you also get the impression that a few people here appear to hold to the notion that Jesus spoke in parable/metaphors/riddles in all of His teachings?

It is as if "Jesus didn't mean what He said." I'm getting that impression as well. It's as if more than few people are quick to exclaim "Parable!...metaphor!...riddle!..." when the plain statements of Christ cause offense to them. In this manner they are able to summarily dismiss any of the plain teachings of Christ with which they happen to disagree. As a result, they've turned their private (or their denomination's) interpretation of the Bible into an idol. How sad.
:(

[D28guy]

Living4Him,

"Okay, so help me understand. Are you saying that because Constantine ended the emperor's persecution of Christians, that this resulted in the Christians becoming pagan and thus the Catholic Church came into existance?"Constantine didnt wake up one day and call a bunch of people togther and say "OK! Lets get together and creat a religious organisation that will blend together some chrstian truths, some pagan ideas, some ridiculous and idolatrous things it will invent on its own, and we'll call it the Roman Catholic Church!"

But he made certain decisions, in some part due to a religious experience he claimed to have had, that initially appeared to only be the end of christian persecution...but in time it led to the monstrocity now know as the "Catholic Church".

Constantines decisions are universally regarded...but christians and secular historians...as being the beginning of the Catholic Church. A slimy blended together mess of *some* christian truth, idolatry, "christianised" Paganism, extreme false teachings, cultlike control mechanisms that are inflicted upon her victims, etc etc etc.


The only people who would argue would probably be Catholics, since they seem very determined to perpetuation the ridiculous and comical idea that Catholicism goes back to the 1st century, with...incredibly..."Peter is the 1st Pope!" probably being the most hilariously comical.

"Also, what do you mean by inscripturated?"When Gods truth was 1st recorded in some way for reference.

Chisled in stone tablets by God Himself, or recorded in scrolls, manuscripts or letters. Such as the OT ones found in the dead sea scrolls or NT ones sent to a particular fellowship or believers by a particular believer.

God bless,

Mike

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Constantine didnt wake up one day and....
...But he made certain decisions, ......but in time it led to the monstrocity now know as the "Catholic Church".What specific "decisions"? are you talking about?

The only people who would argue would probably be Catholics, since they seem very determined to perpetuation the ridiculous and comical idea that Catholicism goes back to the 1st century,The first recorded mention of the "catholic" church was by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch at the very beginning of the 2nd century. (His usage indicating that the term was already in use.) Ignatius was a follower of the Apostle John.

... with...incredibly..."Peter is the 1st Pope!" probably being the most hilariously comical.Actually, the early Christians mentioned that the first Roman Bishop--Linus-- was ordained by Peter and Paul.

[Living4Him]

the ridiculous and comical idea that Catholicism goes back to the 1st century, with...incredibly..."Peter is the 1st Pope!" probably being the most hilariously comical.No, it's not a ridiculous claim. Like I have stated every Catholic Bishop can trace their ordination back to one of the Apostles.

Here are the list of Popes (265)in all. Imagine that, 32 Popes before Constantine even produced the Edict of Milan.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) -- Omitted from many lists (including the Vatican's) because he died before being consecrated.
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45)
Sylvester III (1045) -- Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)