|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/16/2008 10:55:03 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 91
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Doghouse:
Where have you been? I am still waiting to hear from you regarding my last couple of PM's.
quote:
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
I also have a question about your signature line quoted above. Exactly how does the verse Acts 15:28 support your statement?
Here is the verse as written in the KJV.
" For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" Acts 15:28 KJV
I am just wondering where the connection is between your signature line and this verse? Probably best to PM your answer to me rather than answer here. It may get us off topic.
2Preacher
_____________________________
"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer." Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/18/2008 7:53:20 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
" For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" Acts 15:28 KJV The key words to me are underlined. It was not just up to the Holy Spirit, but also "to us", which I interpret within the context it is used in Acts to be the type of thing "binding and loosing" is from an authoritative point of view - the Church is given authority over matters of faith and practice, and may exercise this authority in judgment of "necessary things" and the required "burden" to be placed on the faithful.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/18/2008 8:03:05 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 91
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
" For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" Acts 15:28 KJV
The key words to me are underlined. It was not just up to the Holy Spirit, but also "to us", which I interpret within the context it is used in Acts to be the type of thing "binding and loosing" is from an authoritative point of view - the Church is given authority over matters of faith and practice, and may exercise this authority in judgment of "necessary things" and the required "burden" to be placed on the faithful.
Doghouse:
Ah Ha!!! so you do engage in "private interpretation"!!!!! I thought so. I say that because I have never seen those words interpreted that way before.
Just playing with you man. Thanks for the answer. I was wondering, but I thought it would be something like that.
Peace to you my friend.
2Preacher
_____________________________
"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer." Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/19/2008 5:57:56 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ah Ha!!! so you do engage in "private interpretation"!!!!! I thought so. Only if it toes the company line...of course.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/20/2008 4:12:07 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
" For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" Acts 15:28 KJV
The key words to me are underlined. It was not just up to the Holy Spirit, but also "to us" It's not just up to God?....I sure wouldn't admit that's what I believed.
So, when the "us" adds burdens to the people, apparently the "us" doesn't feel the need for the burdens to "seem good to the Holy Ghost".....just to "us".
Yep, another perfect example of how not to read Scripture - pick out the "key words" you like.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 5/21/2009 2:23:21 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwissGuard
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
......you've no evidence that the Apocrypha was EVER considered Scripture - none whatsoever. The Jews most certainly did not.....
Ridiculous. If the Jews did not consider them scripture then why did they include them in the canon. Even Wikipedia states: "...The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint—which includes the deuterocanonical books..."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books#Influence_of_the_Septuagint You need to read more carefully and do a little more investigation. The above says nothing about the Apocrypha being a part of the Hebrew Bible. What it does is that the Apocrypha was included in the Septuagint. However, the fact remains that there is no evidence that the original Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. Only later extant Christians copies included some of these non-canonical books - none of which agreed with one another, btw. The dogmatic declaration of the OT canon was not until Trent in 1546 which ignored the huge numbers of people who rejected the Apocryphia from the beginning of the church age right up until the Reformation. Interestingly, no Greek manuscript has the same books accepted by Trent.
Jerome said the church reads the Apocrypha “for example and instruction of manners” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine” (“Preface” to Vulgate Book of Solomon, cited in Beckwith, 343).
At first, Jerome even refused to translate the Apocrypha into Latin, but later made a hurried translation of a few books. After listing the exact books of the Jewish and Protestant Old Testament, Jerome concludes:
And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law [according to the letters of the Jewish alphabet], that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nineof the Hagiographa......introduction to all the biblical books which we have translated from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha.
In his preface to Daniel, Jerome clearly rejected the apocryphal additions to Daniel (Bel and the Dragon and Susanna) and argued only for the canonicity of those books found in the Hebrew Bible. He wrote:
After all, both Origen, Eusebius and Appolinarius and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebre,and therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no
authority as Holy Scripture. Dr. Norman Geisler (from Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Book House, 1999)
Jerome, writing to Paulinus (a Christian Bishop), makes none others canonical than the Protestants. He writes in his preface to the book of Chronicles, “The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.”
“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else” (NPNF2, Vol. 6, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).
quote:
Also, just because the POST-resurrection rabbis did not accept them, I say: WHO CARES! Yoiu want to follow the Rabbis who rejected Christ? Be my guest. We Catholics follow the apostles, not the rabbis, and the apostles accepted the deuterocanonicals. To say otherwise is just a lie. You guys really have to try to make up your minds. First you say "we must follow our Jewish roots"....then you say "WHO CARES about them".
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 5/24/2009 4:05:31 PM
|
|
|
SwissGuard
Posts: 256
Joined: 12/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
.....However, the fact remains that there is no evidence that the original Septuagint contained the Apocrypha.....
AllAboutGOD.com has a seperate website, http://www.septuagint.net/ , which flatly states:
".....The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes......"
source:
http://www.septuagint.net/
_____________________________
"I too hope in this short reign to be a man of peace." - Pope Benedict XVI
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.ewtn.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 5/25/2009 5:07:44 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwissGuard
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
.....However, the fact remains that there is no evidence that the original Septuagint contained the Apocrypha.....
AllAboutGOD.com has a seperate website, http://www.septuagint.net/ , which flatly states:
".....The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes......"
source:
http://www.septuagint.net/
People "flatly state" lots of things...don't make 'em true, though. No on can state categorically that the Apocrypha books were EVER in the original Septuagint. Besides, you forgot the rest of the quote: "The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches include the Apocrypha in their Bible (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh)."
Why not just believe one of RC's own saints? Jerome, writing to Paulinus (a Christian Bishop), makes none others canonical than the Protestants. He writes in his preface to the book of Chronicles, “The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.”
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 5/25/2009 9:54:13 AM
|
|
|
SwissGuard
Posts: 256
Joined: 12/23/2008
Status: offline
|
Jerome is entitled to his opinion.
In this case, he was wrong, and so are you.
_____________________________
"I too hope in this short reign to be a man of peace." - Pope Benedict XVI
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.ewtn.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 5/27/2009 10:13:57 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwissGuard
Jerome is entitled to his opinion.
In this case, he was wrong, and so are you.
Cardinal Cajetan, an eminent supporter of the papacy and no friend of the Reformation, said that Jerome was right and that other opinions should be subordinated to that of Jerome.
Cardinal Cajetan: good enough to be the papal legate in Wittenberg, good enough for the Fifth Lateran Council, good enough for pope Leo X, but compared to SwissGuard's own personal judgment ...
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 5/28/2009 2:10:04 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwissGuard
Jerome is entitled to his opinion.
In this case, he was wrong, and so are you.
Imagine that....a "canonized" saint, a Doctor of the Church, a Scripture scholar...a master of Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Chaldaic languages, one learned enough to prepare a translation of the Bible which came to be called the Vulgate...still, his credentials aren't good enough for you....
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/13/2009 8:02:01 AM
|
|
|
keithyhuntington
Posts: 814
Joined: 7/7/2009
From: Tulsa, Okla.
Status: offline
|
ok new to this discussion. first of all i dont want to start or cause any real debate or whatever. i just want some quick (or not so quick, whatever you feel like typing) answers.
i now have a list of the 'catholic bible' OT books... as follows....
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Kings (Samuel)
2 Kings (Samuel)
3 Kings
4 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
1 Esdras
2 Esdras (Nehemiah)
**Tobias
**Judith
Esther
**1 Maccabees
**2 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Canticle of Canticles
Wisdom
**Ecclesiasticus
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
**Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
so is that the whole enchilada? were there other books removed at some point because they were deamed heretical? if so is there a reason why? and also is there a reason to read any of these to get my own oppinion? and how can i receieve the catholic bible? to teh churches still use it today? like can i go to a catholic church and pick one up or something? just curious about whats in teh extra books and what they are about. thats all =)
also were there any books from the NT that were taken out as well?
i've heard a rumor there was a book that mentioned vampires... anything to substantiate such a claim?
_____________________________
Jesus Christ please help me 'cause i'm lonely. Whats the use in living, if you can't make a good living?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/13/2009 3:50:59 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
You should put the double-asterisks in front of Wisdom.
Tobit rather than Tobias
**Sirach after what will be **Wisdom
No books about vampires, as such.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 10/27/2009 8:12:23 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2227
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
JKaplan
I have a facsimile copy of the Original 1611 King James Bible which actually contains 11 New Testament cross-references to the “Apocryphal” books of the Old Testament.
Some of these include,
Matt 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Heb 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26
Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:15
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7
Here’s a close look at one example for folks not familiar with the apocryphal books in the original KJV.
Matt 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
In the marginal notes of Matthew 23:37 the KJ translators cross- referenced 2Esdras 1:30 in the margins.
(2Esdras 1:29-30) for context,
29That ye would be my people, and I should be your God; that ye would be my children, and I should be your father?
30I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.
The verses are strikingly similar. Jesus seems to be quoting this verse in 2Esdras directly. His plea is the same as his father’s plea. The KJ translators obviously saw the connection. Aren’t the King James translators acknowledging the connection between these two verses by providing a cross-reference in the margins?
I heard that King James himself actually limited marginal notes to only cross-references of one scripture to another.
King James:
"7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another." [As found in "The Church History Of Britain" by Thomas Fuller, Oxford, M.DCCC.XLV]
What is the significance of these marginal cross-references given that a large part of the Protestant community doesn’t consider the apocryphal books to be inspired?
Greetings
quote:
What is the significance of these marginal cross-references given that a large part of the Protestant community doesn’t consider the apocryphal books to be inspired?
The significance of the marginal cross-references is worthless
Ro 8:14 - Show Context
For as ….”many”…. as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
The other …many… use cross-references
LG
< Message edited by LoyalGypsy -- 10/27/2009 8:19:05 PM >
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 10/28/2009 1:52:36 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
quote:
JKaplan
I have a facsimile copy of the Original 1611 King James Bible which actually contains 11 New Testament cross-references to the “Apocryphal” books of the Old Testament.
Some of these include,
Matt 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Heb 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26
Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:15
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7
Here’s a close look at one example for folks not familiar with the apocryphal books in the original KJV.
Matt 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
In the marginal notes of Matthew 23:37 the KJ translators cross- referenced 2Esdras 1:30 in the margins.
(2Esdras 1:29-30) for context,
29That ye would be my people, and I should be your God; that ye would be my children, and I should be your father?
30I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.
The verses are strikingly similar. Jesus seems to be quoting this verse in 2Esdras directly. His plea is the same as his father’s plea. The KJ translators obviously saw the connection. Aren’t the King James translators acknowledging the connection between these two verses by providing a cross-reference in the margins?
I heard that King James himself actually limited marginal notes to only cross-references of one scripture to another.
King James:
"7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another." [As found in "The Church History Of Britain" by Thomas Fuller, Oxford, M.DCCC.XLV]
What is the significance of these marginal cross-references given that a large part of the Protestant community doesn’t consider the apocryphal books to be inspired?
Greetings
quote:
What is the significance of these marginal cross-references given that a large part of the Protestant community doesn’t consider the apocryphal books to be inspired?
The significance of the marginal cross-references is worthless
Ro 8:14 - Show Context
For as ….”many”…. as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
The other …many… use cross-references
LG
Hmm...
I suppose from a certain perspective I can see your point. The marginal cross-references are added by translators. Are they worthless? Maybe, maybe not.
In this case they seem to be telling in so much as the King James translators used them to compare scripture. The point the poster is trying to make is that they used marginal cross-references to compare NT scripture to what some Protestants feel were books "added" at Trent.
At the very least it goes to show the ignorance of such a view. The King James translators had no loyalty to Rome and could have easily ignored the similarities between the mentioned verses.
So in this case it doesn't seem to be "worthless" to any fan of non revisionist history. It clearly shows the importance of the apocryphal writings and their role in Christianity.
Whatever side you take on this particular debate it would be important to understand some of the points being made here. Ignoring them is only ignoring truth.
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 10/31/2009 9:12:44 PM
|
|
|
Digrieze
Posts: 99
Joined: 8/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keithyhuntington
ok new to this discussion. first of all i dont want to start or cause any real debate or whatever. i just want some quick (or not so quick, whatever you feel like typing) answers.
so is that the whole enchilada? were there other books removed at some point because they were deamed heretical? if so is there a reason why? and also is there a reason to read any of these to get my own oppinion? and how can i receieve the catholic bible? to teh churches still use it today? like can i go to a catholic church and pick one up or something? just curious about whats in teh extra books and what they are about. thats all =)
also were there any books from the NT that were taken out as well?
i've heard a rumor there was a book that mentioned vampires... anything to substantiate such a claim?
The issue of the Apocryphal books is more complicated than that. First, the Catholics do not refer to them as "apocrypha", they are called deuterocannonical or "second cannon". Additionally, there are other groups that have OTHER lists of Old Testament books. Generally it is as follows (in addition to those in the protestant bible).
1. Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles:
Tobit, Judith, Additions to the Book of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and The Dragon (The last three are additions to Daniel).
2. Books in the Greek and Slavonic, but not in Roman Catholic Bibles:
1 Esdras (2 Esdras in Slavonic, 3 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix), Prayer of Manassah, Psalm 151 (following Psalm 150 in the Greek Bible), 3 Maccabees
3. In The Slavonic Bible and in the LAtin Vulgate Appendix:
2 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Slavonic, 4 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix, in the Vulgate Eztra & NEhimiah are 1 and 2 Esdras).
4. In the Greek Bible Appendix:
4 Maccabees
There were several gnostic books that were never recognized as part of the new testament, so you can't really say they were removed.
There were no books mentioning vampires, but it does make a good line for a movie.
You can get all these books in a good translation in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV (I have the Third Edition from my last seminary, get a newer one).
Hope that helps!
_____________________________
My hope, my wish, my prayer is that you find the life that Jesus created you to live and has hidden within Himself so in living that life you may have a uniquely intimate communion with Him. (Col.3:1-4)
Yours in the love of Jesus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 11/20/2009 10:13:29 PM
|
|
|
newcatholic
Posts: 1
Joined: 11/20/2009
Status: offline
|
I have recently started converting to the catholic church from protestant. While I find these postings very worthwhile and interesting, I do not know enough to argue the point. I am however alarmed at the respect martin luther still receives after his appalling view towards jews. A short look at
"THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES"
OF THE UNKNOWABLE NAME AND THE GENERATIONS OF CHRIST (1543)
Volume 47: "The Christian in Society" IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268-293
a book written by martin luther and published by the lutheran church
would shed some light on the true martin luther..
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
