No debate in ‘questions asked to Catholics’

Home Forums All Things Catholic No debate in ‘questions asked to Catholics’

This topic contains 10 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  LARobert 6 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1827

    In response to the link to the site; quote
    [i:8gfh36lr]I found this article both very true, and funny. Written by another former. “Bible Christian” who submitted his life to the Biblical Christ, as taught by the Biblical Church, (The Catholic Church) it expresses some of the frustrations met with attempting to discuss the Truths of the Bible with “Bible Christians” http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea3.asp[/i:8gfh36lr]

    the authors attempt to be humorous in belittling Bible Believers was a poor attempt and I am saddened by the fact Jon admin found it interesting with his obvious intelligence but it shows he favors his faith without exploring truth much like holding to the traditions of men that Paul must not of obviously meant for us to seriously stay away from. This is just the Bible in my brain right?

    anyway some thoughts I came across to ponder;
    1st mistake
    ‘we are here to talk about the Bible’

    It is a mistake
    1. To add to what we KNOW is true is to say that mans finite ability has something worthwhile to add to Gods infinite knowledge and His ability to provide for us a full true message

    2. The presumtion the author made supposedly knowing what goes on in the mind of his friend the ‘Bible Believer’ is some what godlike in ability

    3. I think the main point the author was trying to make is that the Bible believers hold the Bible out as Gods true message therefore a measuring rule we can trust to be heald up to life and death and all religion

    What I am longing to understand is why my Catholic brothers and sisters hold to the traditions passed down from the Papacy when if you have a look at the fruits of the Papal legacy there is so much evil, corruption and error.

    Every Church is full of error but it’s in admitting that we are human with error and sin which brings us back to a source of truth which remains true through all the ages Gods word. If I interpret wrong or a church doctrine is wrong God knows the motive behind the attempt surely does He not?
    I would rather get it wrong trying then foolishly listen to somebody else’s failed attempt.

    #8854

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    While I won’t address the article you link to because I did not write it nor was I involved in it in any way other than reading it a few years ago.

    [quote:9tw5vhve]What I am longing to understand is why my Catholic brothers and sisters hold to the traditions passed down from the Papacy when if you have a look at the fruits of the Papal legacy there is so much evil, corruption and error.[/quote:9tw5vhve]
    The Catholic Church is not a top down institution in that the pope makes up doctrine and we are all supposed to follow it – he is not a general, a dictator or anything like that.

    And yes, the popes are still human and susceptible to sin, just like you and me. Unfortunately, many people in power over the course of human history have abused their power, even the popes.

    However, since Catholic doctrine isn’t shaped exclusively by the pope the truth has been able to develop and be passed on for 20 centuries.

    #8856

    How can you honestly say that we must trust the truth passed down through tradition when you openly admit that the Popes have them selves been corrupted by sin.
    We all have which is why we as corrupted humans need something that is not corrupted; we have it THE BIBLE!

    In the Old Testament the prophets and other authors refer to what is written as being the very word of God more than 3,800 times.
    New Testament writers quote the Old Testament as the Word of God 320 times and refer to it at least a thousand times. And New Testament writers repeatedly claim divine inspiration as did the Old. Jesus Himself claims that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are inspired by God.

    So if this is true we can definitely conclude that the Bible is the word of God. Now I can talk for a month about the sufficiency of scripture but I would rather turn to our other option.
    TRADITION or trust man!

    Now that means we put the Bible down to turn to people like the Popes, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Jehovahs Witness just about anybody who has something to add to Gods word and that means we have to trust that the corrupted flesh that lies, cheats and steals is not corrupted enough to get things wrong over 2000 years of traditions.

    Outrages to believe that you and I can’t go a day without sinning but we are supposed to believe there are ‘holy men’ who have kept the truth in tact separate from Gods proven truth!

    #8858

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    [quote:zpllvauv]And New Testament writers repeatedly claim divine inspiration as did the Old.[/quote:zpllvauv]
    [quote:zpllvauv]So if this is true we can definitely conclude that the Bible is the word of God.[/quote:zpllvauv]
    The Qu’ran also claims divine inspiration. Just because something claims to be something is not a valid criteria. I claim to be a billionaire. Am I? No. Get my point?

    [quote:zpllvauv]Jesus Himself claims that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are inspired by God.[/quote:zpllvauv]
    Considering Jesus died between the years 30-33 AD and the first Gospel was written around the year 75 (similar with the letters of Paul) Jesus didn’t even have knowledge of the New Testament – it didn’t exist. The Bible as we know it didn’t really exist until the 3rd or 4th century. And yes, Jesus, as a faithful Jew, believed in and adhered to the Hebrew Scriptures (called by Christians, the Old Testament).

    You’re a fool if you think the Bible is not “corrupted” by humans. Humans have been translating and copying the Bible for centuries…some words have changed, some parts of books have been added later by later editors (evidenced by looking at the known Greek manuscripts), etc. However, we still believe that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Likewise, Jesus is with the Church, “until the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20) protecting it from the devil (Matthew 16:18).

    Only through modern technology have we been able to keep the Bible’s texts roughly the same for a few hundred years, whereas centuries ago, people changed things without license.

    The Scriptures were not dropped down by God; people had a hand in them too, the same people capable of sin, lying, theft and cheating as anyone else. They are a human account of their interaction with God, inspired by (not dictated by) the Holy Spirit.

    #8861

    LARobert
    Participant

    [quote:2esblcb4]How can you honestly say that we must trust the truth passed down through tradition when you openly admit that the Popes have them selves been corrupted by sin.
    We all have which is why we as corrupted humans need something that is not corrupted; we have it THE BIBLE![/quote:2esblcb4]
    The question you pose is one that really boils down to where to you place your faith?

    As Catholics we place our faith in God Himself. In the second person of the Trinity, Jesus commanded that a man, one who we all know sinned and denied Him three times after the cock crowed to “feed my sheep” and to “feed my lambs” Sheep adult animals akin to those more advanced in faith, lambs the new born in the faith.

    When Jesus also told that sinful man Peter, “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah, thou art Kephas, which is Peter, (the rock) upon this rock I will build my Church.” Now I know a little over a hundred years ago an Evangelical Minister thought he would be able to deny that Jesus was speaking of building His Church on Peter, but was referring rather to Himself. Aside from being a novel doctrine, disconnected and divorced from anything Christianity had taught in the first fifteen hundred years since it was founded by Christ, it just does not make sense that Jesus would be talking to Simon, changing his name as He did Abram to Abraham when he made him the Patriarch and Father of Israel, and without any explanation make the Rock Himself. While Jesus is in some places referred to as the Rock, and is also referred to as the foundation stone, so too the Apostles are referred to as the foundation.

    What Protestants miss is that Jesus, the foundation, Jesus who is true God, can and as is evidenced by scripture did by His authority choose Peter as His Vicar. He gave Peter the Keys, something that a King would give to his vicar, giving him the king’s own authority. Peter does not teach by his own authority, as a sinful man he cannot. He teaches by the authority given him by Jesus. The Popes, (successors of Peter) like Peter capable of sinning do not hold authority based on their sinful humanity, but rather they have the authority given them by Christ Jesus. It is the authority and guarantee of Jesus that makes a Pope when teaching in the capacity given him by Jesus that we assent to the teachings. When he speaks guided by the Holy Ghost, and with the promises of Jesus, that charism exists. When he speaks as an individual sinful man, he is that, (possibly holy and well educated, or possibly a simple sinful man at any given time.) But we don’t place our hope in that sinful man, but in the promise of Christ to remain with the Church, and the Holy Spirit to guide that same Church.

    As to [quote:2esblcb4]”we as corrupted humans need something that is not corrupted; we have it THE BIBLE”[/quote:2esblcb4]
    While I do not deny the importance and the place of the Written Word of God in our spiritual lives, it begs the question….. What version? and on who’s authority do we choose that version? For the King James only (don’t forget the first “Authorized Version” contained the deuterocanonical books) By what authority did King James “authorize” a translation? Many versions among the Protestants or if you don’t like the term, the misnomer, “Bible Christians” contradict each other, as do the interpretations of those who use the same translations. Like Babble of old they speak different things when they try and communicate.

    #8863

    The Qu’ran is written by one of the false prophets Jesus warned about isn’t it?

    True the Bible is interpreted wrongly by men, but the original, written by the apostles I believe to without error.
    You say Jesus will be with the church always, he said this, this is true! There are sincere Catholic Christians who put there whole trust in Jesus and wait upon Him day and night for His return, that I am sure of.

    My Church has error, every Church has error, if we deny our Church has error we are in grave error!
    There is only ONE without error. The LORD and that’s why I believe there is One way, through Jesus and One message, the Bible in it’s original!

    Like I said I would rather an attempt that fell short relying on Grace to make the difference rather than relying on man’s traditions and saying this is sufficient.

    You said Jesus didn’t have the New Testament that it was 3rd -4th century in coming
    Is Jesus not God in the Flesh our all knowing LORD and Savior?

    I am a fool I admit that but not for what you quoted, ‘that I believe the Bible is not corrupted in it’s translations. Satan and his pride has tarnished all things on earth.

    If Jesus was with the Catholic Church always was he on the popes throne through the dark ages. My dear friend like I pointed too we must look at the fruit of a tree to see what it produces, that will determine what type of tree it actually is!

    Those that produce good fruit will be given fruit from the eternal tree that which was just a weed will be thrown into the fire.

    Now I am not gloating in pride and arrogance; like Paul writes about himself in the New Testament i also have a past as dreaded as Paul’s was. I didn’t go and kill Christians but I was as vile a character as any man woman or child on the earth.

    So my dear friend before the devil is at work once again and trying to play games by deceiving mankind like he did to Eve in the garden by saying; (don’t pay attention to God’s word it don’t mean diddly squat listen to me or man then you will live life to the fullest, it’s your pride that will hate this post and in the end crucify it like the Pharisees crucified the savior himself!)

    You can still receive Jesus to the fullest Jon first put away your pride then mans ways and then the idols!

    #8866

    LARobert
    Participant

    [quote:b9zee3bh]If Jesus was with the Catholic Church always was he on the popes throne through the dark ages. My dear friend like I pointed too we must look at the fruit of a tree to see what it produces, that will determine what type of tree it actually is![/quote:b9zee3bh]
    First of all, yes. What historians of the last century called the “Dark Ages” was anything but. If you look into the “Dark Ages” you will see human corruption from place to place, but what is overlooked is that it was an age of deep and abiding faith. The development of Monasaries, which supported the local community, where medicine was developed and the poor where treated by the monk physicians free of charge as an act of Christian Charity, from these institutions we have our modern hospitals and medical schools. Them there where the scriptoriae, where written liturature, included among the books preserved by copiest who penned the books by hand page by page is the Bible. Without the Scriptoriae (and God’s will) it would probably not have survived until the advent of movable type, (and by the way the first book printed by Guttenberg was the Catholic version of the Bible. If the Catholic Church tried to supress the Bible as many Protestants claim why would it be the first printed book? Local princes and Lords during the “Dark Ages” attempted to rob, rape and otherwise abuse serfs. It was the Church that saw to it that the excesses of the Secular rulers where kept in check.

    If you can check your prejudices at the door, read through “Those Terrible Middle Ages”
    [url:b9zee3bh]http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=396&SKU=TTMA-P&Category_ID=62[/url:b9zee3bh] For the Catholics on the board who may have trouble answering this old canard of Jewish and Protestant detractors, it is a good book to help debunk the myths of how horrible the Church and her leaders where in the “Dark Ages”.

    #9233

    James
    Member

    I was told that the new testament wasn’t written until a few hundred years after the foundation of the church.

    So for Catholics, tradition is a huge part of their faith. When Christ gave authority to Peter, (in Catholic theology,) this is were the succession of Peter, the Popes, are considered biblical.

    This is were the Catholics believe both in Scripture and Tradition.

    #9234

    LARobert
    Participant

    Well what you where told is sort of true. The books of the New Testament where finished by around 90 AD. For the first few centuries there where quite a few more books that some accepted as Scriptural and others did not. There was the Gospel of Thomas, and various other Letters of Paul, Peter, James and other Apostles. The Gospel of Mary the Shepherd or Hermas, the Epistles of Clement (one of St. Peter’s successors in Rome) It was a couple of Centuries after Jesus death and resurrection that the Church was able to gather in Council and decide what books should be included in the Canon of Scripture, and which should not. While some books listed above where for one reason or another rejected as Inspired books, they do give us a peek into some of the beliefs, (both firmly Catholic, and heretical) that where floating around the Early Church.

    The Council of Carthage pronounced on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible restricted to: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Paralipomenon, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Machabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.

    Many Protestants rejected some of the Old Testament books, and even wanted to reject the Epistle of James from the New Testament, as they contained teachings that they did not like. They claimed that the Hebrew Bible did not contain some of the Books that Carthage had decided to incorporate into the Canon. What they fail to take into account is that the Jewish Canon was not finalized until after 600 AD and it was primarily in reaction to the Rabbi’s who where upset that Christians where claiming to prove the Messiahship of Jesus in part by using the Jewish Scriptures. The Jewish Canon accepted only those books originally written in Hebrew, and rejected those written in Aramaic and Greek. Today you will see some Protestant books and websites claim that the Catholic Church “Added” books to the Bible at the Council of Trent. The fact is the Books “Added” at the Council of Trent, really did not get added, but the Council simply affirmed that all the books which had been decided on at Carthage where Scripture, after the Protestants and Jews had removed them from the Canon.

    #9249

    James
    Member

    Do the Jewish believe in the Old Testement of the Bible?
    I know that they have the Torah but i’m sure if that’s the same or not.

    #9250

    LARobert
    Participant

    The Torah are the first five books of the Christian Old Tesament. Then there is Halftorah, which includes the Prophets. And the Writings, which include Psalms, Ruth, Esther etc. The Torah us believed inspired, the other books accepted as a second canon, but not inspired. The listing we have today only comes from the middle 600s (AD) as a response to problems of Christians using the Old Testament to prove the Claims of Jesus, and the rejection of those books that where not originally written in Hebrew, but in Aramaic or Greek, so you will see in the list below of the Canon as it exists today, that Maccabees and other books that had originally been held as part of the canon, and later rejected do not occur. At the time of Jesus and the Apostles there where three separate Jewish canons of scripture, the Torah alone school, the Septuagent school and a third which selected some of the Septuagent books, but only in Hebrew. The Septuagent was the entire Old Testament as it occurs in Catholic Bibles and was the text used in the New Testament when Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament, and the most accepted canon at the time among the jews.

    [i:1dke92um][b:1dke92um]Chumash / The Five Books of Moses[/b:1dke92um][/i:1dke92um]

    Bereshit Genesis
    Shemot Exodus
    VaYikra Leviticus
    BaMidbar Numbers
    Devarim Deuteronomy

    [i:1dke92um][b:1dke92um]Neviim / The Prophets[/b:1dke92um][/i:1dke92um]

    Yehoshua Joshua1
    Shoftim Judges
    Shmuel A 1 Samuel
    Shmuel B 2 Samuel
    Melachim A 1 Kings
    Melachim B 2 Kings
    Yishiyah Isaiah
    Yermiyah Jeremiah
    Yechezchial Ezekiel

    [i:1dke92um][b:1dke92um]Treisar / The Minor Prophets[/b:1dke92um][/i:1dke92um]

    Hoshea Hosea
    Yoel Joel
    Amos Amos
    Ovadiyah Obadiah
    Yonah Jonah
    Michah Micah
    Nachum Nahum
    Habakkuk Habakkuk
    Tzefaniyah Zephaniah
    Haggi Haggai
    Zechariyah Zechariah
    Malachi Malachi

    [i:1dke92um][b:1dke92um]Ketuvim / The Writings[/b:1dke92um][/i:1dke92um]

    Tehilim Psalms
    Mishlei Proverbs
    Eyov Job
    Megilot Megilot
    Shir HaShirim Song of Songs
    Ruth Ruth
    Eichah Lamentations
    Keholet Ecclesiastes
    Esther Esther
    Daniyel Daniel
    Ezra Ezra
    Nechemiyah Nehemiah
    Divrei Yamim A 1 Chronicles
    Divrei Yamin B 2 Chronicles

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.