Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
~ St. Paul to the Thessalonians

A former student of mine is thinking of becoming a Catholic, and she had a question for me. “I don’t understand the deuterocanonical books,” she ventured. “If the Catholic faith is supposed to be a fulfillment of the Jewish faith, why do Catholics accept those books and the Jews don’t?” She’d done her homework, and was troubled that the seven books and other writings of the deuterocanon had been preserved only in Greek instead of Hebrew like the rest of the Jewish scriptures—which is part of the reason why they were classified, even by Catholics, as a “second” (deutero) canon.

My student went on. “I’m just struggling because there are a lot of references to those books in Church doctrine, but they aren’t considered inspired Scripture. Why did Luther feel those books needed to be taken out?” she asked. “And why are Protestants so against them?”

The short answer sounds petty and mean, but it’s true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those “extra” Old Testament books—Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the like—because they were inconvenient. The Apocrypha (or, “false writings”), as they came to be known, supported pesky Catholic doctrines that Luther and other reformers wanted to suppress—praying for the dead, for instance, and the intercession of the saints. Here’s John Calvin on the subject:

Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?

However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldn’t very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven “apocryphal” books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible.

Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today don’t even reference the Apocrypha at all. Thus, the myth is perpetuated that nefarious popes and bishops have gotten away with brazenly foisting a bunch of bogus scripture on the ignorant Catholic masses.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, it was Luther and Calvin and the other reformers who did all the foisting. The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity. Thus, by selectively editing and streamlining their own versions of the Bible according to their sectarian biases (including, in Luther’s case, both Testaments, Old and New), the reformers engaged in a theological con game. To make matters worse, they covered their tracks by pointing fingers at the Catholic Church for “adding” phony texts to the closed canon of Hebrew Sacred Writ.

In this sense, the reformers were anticipating what I call the Twain-Jefferson approach to canonical revisionism. It involves two simple steps.

  • Step one: Identify the parts of Scripture that you find especially onerous or troublesome. Generally, these will be straightforward biblical references that don’t quite square with the doctrine one is championing or the practices one has already embraced. Mark Twain is the modern herald of this half of creative textual reconstruction: “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me,” Twain wrote, “it is the parts that I do understand.”
  • Step two: Yank the vexing parts out. It’s what Thomas Jefferson literally did when he took his own Bible and cut out the passages he found offensive—a kind of “scripture by subtraction” in the words of religion professor Stephen Prothero.

The reformers justified their Twain-Jefferson humbug by pointing to the canon of scriptures in use by European Jews during that time, and it did not include those extra Catholic books—case closed! Still unconvinced? Today’s defenders of the reformers’ biblical reshaping will then proceed to throw around historical precedent and references to the first-century Council of Jamnia, but it’s all really smoke and mirrors.

The fact is that the first-century Jewish canon was pretty mutable and there was no universal definitive list of sacred texts. On the other hand, it is indisputable that the version being used by Jesus and the Apostles during that time was the Septuagint—the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luther’s rejected apocryphal books. SCORE: Deuterocanon – 1; Twain-Jefferson Revisionism – 0.

But this is all beside the point. It’s like an argument about creationism vs. evolution that gets funneled in the direction of whether dinosaurs could’ve been on board Noah’s Ark. Once you’re arguing about that, you’re no longer arguing about the bigger issue of the historicity of those early chapters in Genesis. The parallel red herring here is arguing over the content of the Christian Old Testament canon instead of considering the nature of authority itself and how it’s supposed to work in the Church, especially with regards to the Bible.

I mean, even if we can settle what the canon should include, we don’t have the autographs (original documents) from any biblical books anyway. While we affirm the Church’s teaching that all Scripture is inspired and teaches “solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings” (DV 11), there are no absolutes when it comes to the precise content of the Bible.

Can there be any doubt that this is by God’s design? Without the autographs, we are much less tempted to worship a static book instead of the One it reveals to us. Even so, it’s true that we are still encouraged to venerate the Scriptures, but we worship the incarnate Word—and we ought not confuse the two. John the Baptist said as much when he painstakingly distinguished between himself, the announcer, and the actual Christ he was announcing. The Catechism, quoting St. Bernard, offers a further helpful distinction:

The Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.”

Anyway, with regards to authority and the canon of Scripture, Mark Shea couldn’t have put it more succinctly than his recent response to a request for a summary of why the deuterocanon should be included in the Bible:

Because the Church in union with Peter, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) granted authority by Christ to loose and bind (Matthew 16:19), says they should be.

Right. The Church says so, and that’s good enough.

For it’s the Church who gives us the Scriptures. It’s the Church who preserves the Scriptures and tells us to turn to them. It’s the Church who bathes us in the Scriptures with the liturgy, day in and day out, constantly watering our souls with God’s Word. Isn’t it a bit bizarre to be challenging the Church with regards to which Scriptures she’s feeding us with? “No, mother,” the infant cries, “not breast milk! I want Ovaltine! Better yet, how about some Sprite!”

Think of it this way. My daughter Margaret and I share an intense devotion to Betty Smith’s remarkable novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. It’s a bittersweet family tale of impoverishment, tragedy, and perseverance, and we often remark how curious it is that Smith’s epic story receives so little attention.

I was rooting around the sale shelf at the public library one day, and I happened upon a paperback with the name “Betty Smith” on the spine. I took a closer look: Joy in the Morning, a 1963 novel of romance and the struggles of newlyweds, and it was indeed by the same Smith of Tree fame. I snatched it up for Meg.

The other day, Meg thanked me for the book, and asked me to be on the lookout for others by Smith. “It wasn’t nearly as good as Tree,” she said, “and I don’t expect any of her others to be as good. But I want to read everything she wrote because Tree was so wonderful.”

See, she wants to get to know Betty Smith because of what she encountered in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. And all we have are her books and other writings; Betty Smith herself is gone.

But Jesus isn’t like that. We have the book, yes, but we have more. We still have the Word himself.

Richard Becker

By

Richard Becker is a husband, father of seven, nursing instructor, and religious educator. He blogs regularly at God-Haunted Lunatic.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    Apocrypha does not mean “false writings” ; it is from ἀποκρύπτειν, meaning to hide away, hence “obscure.”

    • DE-173

      Well then, Protestants make easy play with Greek, as well.

      “…The New Testament Apocrypha consists of a very extensive literature, which bears distinct evidences of its non-apostolic origin, and is utterly unworthy of regard.”

      Whatever the authentic etymology of the word; it is colloquially used to indicate false writing.

      • dougpruner

        Protestants? That’s also the Catholic Encyclopedia’s take on NT Apocrypha.

      • Heidi keene

        Apocrypha means ‘hidden’ books. It has never meant false writings. The word for false writings is pseudopygripha. Eusebius denounces the gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and Peter as pseudopygripha. The reason the 7 hidden books of the OT got pegged as ‘hidden books’ is because St. Jerome, when translating the Vulgate at the request of the Pope, wrote in his footnotes (never trust the footnotes!!) that these books should not be read publicly at the liturgy- but that they were good to read for personal growth..etc.

        Luther and Calvin picked up on this and agreed that these books should not be given the status of Divinely inspired sacred scripture and thus demoted them.

        Mr. Becker is in error in his claim that Jews at the time of Christ used a canon which included these books. It is true that the septuagint (the greek translation of the hebrew texts) was universally used in the synagogue and for scribal study. However, not all the 43 books of the Catholic OT were translated into what was then the septuagint. Most scholars agree that the Pentateuch was certainly translated, but they are uncertain which, if any, of the other works were translated perhaps at a later date. Scholars agree that probably some of the prophets and the psalms were also translated, but not at the same time as the Pentateuch. So the septuagint, as we know it, was not a reality until much later than the 1st ce AD.

        What we do know is that there was no ‘Council of Jamnia’ where it was alleged by two Protestant scholars of the 19th ce, that the Rabbis officially closed the canon of scripture. This imaginary council has been called “an invention of Protestant scholarship aimed at anchoring the Protestant canon in the 3rd ce AD, thereby antedating the canonization of the Catholic Bible”.

        At the time of Jesus, we have record from Josephus, that there were many different ‘canons’ among the different sects of Judaism. The Pharisees had a 22 book canon, the Sadducees 5 book canon, and at Qumran there were so many scrolls found that it is impossible to distinguish which were accepted as inspired and which weren’t. In fact, all of the Catholic ‘hidden books’ were found at Qumran, as well as Jewish apocrypha such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees as well as pseudopygripha.

        Great resources on the subject are:
        Formation of the Bible: The Story of the Church’s Canon [Paperback]
        Lee Martin McDonald (Author)
        This is a baptist scholar who’s work here was highly recommended by Professor Brant Pitre

        Brant Pitre gives a short talk on the formation of the bible called “The Origins of the Bible”
        Excellent work http://www.catholicproductions.com

        The Sacred Page blog covers a lot:
        http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

        I worked up a short video myself on the subject:
        http://cafecatechesis.com/2014/06/28/the-history-of-the-bible-2/

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          Miss Keene,
          What is your source that the LXX wasn’t completed “until much later than the [First Century, A.D.]”? From what I’ve read (I’m no expert), the Torah was translated sometime in the middle of the Third Century, B.C.; while the rest was probably completed by the end of the Second Century, B.C.
          Christ, in the Gospels, quotes more from the LXX than from the Hebrew. The other books of the New Testament also quote more frequently from the LXX.
          Thanks, for the links. I love The Sacred Page. God Bless!

          • heidi keene

            Hi Nick from Detroit,
            I apologize for being unclear. I said that the translations of all the books were not done at the same time and that the LXX as we know it- that is to say as a completed canonized whole- was not known until the church closed the canon. The reason I pointed that out is because many people will pick up the LXX as we have it today and assume that this canon was available at the time of Christ. However, there is still dispute as to what writings had indeed been translated by the time of Christ (and were circulating).

            The LXX should be looked at not as a whole, but rather as a collection. The first books (the Alexandrian collection) were translated around 307-283 bc.
            In the letter to Aristeas: “Philadelphus fell in with the suggestion, and despatched an embassy to Jerusalem with a letter to the High Priest Eleazar, in which the latter was desired to send to Alexandria six elders learned in the law from each of the tribes of Israel to execute the work of translation. In due course the seventy-two elders, whose names are given, arrived in Egypt, bringing with them a copy of the Hebrew Law written in letters of gold on rolls1 composed of skins”. The story of Aristeas is repeated more or less fully by the Alexandrian writers Aristobulus and Philo, and by Josephus. As the letter states, the Hebrews brought for translation only the Law -or the five books of Moses.
            “From the second century a.d. the letter of Aristeas is quoted or its contents are summarised by the fathers of the Church, who in general receive the story without suspicion, and add certain fresh particulars.”

            “The canon of the Prophets seems to have scarcely reached completion before the High-Priesthood of Simon II. (219–199 b.c.)4If this was so in Palestine, at Alexandria certainly there would be no recognised body of Prophetic writings in the reign of the second Ptolemy. The Torah alone was ready for translation, for it was complete, and its position as a collection of sacred books was absolutely secure.

            The writer of the prologue to Sirach, who arrived in Egypt in the 38th year of Euergetes—i.e. in the year 132 b.c. if, as is probable, the Euergetes intended was the second of that name—incidentally uses words which imply that “the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the books” were already current in a translation.
            On the whole, though the direct evidence is fragmentary, it is probable that before the Christian era Alexandria possessed the whole, or nearly the whole, of the Hebrew Scriptures in a Greek translation. For the first century a.d. we have the very important evidence of Philo, who uses the lxx. and quotes largely from many of the books. There are indeed some books of the Hebrew canon to which he does not seem to refer, i.e. Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel. ”

            Excerpts from:
            AN INTRODUCTION TO
            THE OLD TESTAMENT IN GREEK
            HENRY BARCLAY SWETE D.D., F.B.A.

            Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 113. Cf. Buhl, p. 12.

            I love TSP too!!! Great stuff!
            God bless you!

            • Nick_from_Detroit

              Miss Keene,
              Thanks for the explanation. I now see what you meant. Forgive my obtuseness. Don’t you wish TSP would have kept the podcasts going? Luckily, I have them all on my computer. God Bless!

        • DE-173

          “Apocrypha means ‘hidden’ books. It has never meant false writings.”

          I refer you to the following:

          “Whatever the authentic etymology of the word; it is colloquially used to indicate false writing.”

        • Rod

          References to St Jerome’s notes on the deuterocanonical books in defence of Protestant arguments for the Protestant Bible fall flat. Firstly, he is a Catholic Saint! That enough should give any Protestant pause in using him to defend a doctrine rejected by the Church… But more, various books have been doubted by many various and sundry scholars throughout the ages. But using St Jerome to “prove” the unworthiness of the deutero’s is surely the lamest of all. Indeed, St Jerome not only translated them but did so for a reason; he accepted the authority of the Church and specifically the Pope. St Jerome thus proves to us that even where he personally may have doubts he accepts the authority of the Church established by Christ.

  • fredx2

    You got the whole “Jefferson Bible” thing wrong, as so many do these days. Thomas Jefferson wanted to study the practical effects of various ethical systems and their systems of morality.

    In order to study the ethical teachings of Christianity, unvarnished by any other material that might exist in the bible, he took a bible, and cut and pasted the parts that Jesus spoke that dealt with morality, how to live, etc. He omitted the parts that contained miracles, the supernatural etc. – because that was not the focus of his study – not because he objected to those passages, because they upset him or because he was a near atheist or any of the other silly explanations that get bruited around nowadays.

    Letter from Jefferson to John Adams, October 13, 1813

    “In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demiurgos, Æons, and Daemons, male and female, with a long train of &c. &c. &c. or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds, in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Christians, of the first century.”

    In the same letter, he then compares the Christian view of things, with Greek morality.

    And note his conclusion, that the Christian system is “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man, ever.”

    Jefferson never meant to create a “bible”, he merely collected a portion of the New Testament for his own personal use for study. He did not offer an alternate bible, etc. He did not have it published, he merely used a razor and cut sections out of a King James bible and pasted them into other sheets of paper.

    • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

      Thanks, enlightening (in an Enlightenment kind of way).

      • Ght

        Jefferson said he was a Epicurian at one point in a letter to a friend. He was clearly not interested in supernatural explanations of how things work, like the Epicurians.

        • redfish

          Not passing comment on Jefferson, since I’m not an expert on him, but its not quite evidence of a rejection of the supernatural. There have been Catholic Epicureans. Pierre Gassendi, who had spent time as a priest, wrote a book reconciling Epicurean and Christian ideas, Syntagma philosophicum. Doing a quick Google search, I see Jefferson alludes to Gassendi in the letter you’re talking about.

    • Heidi keene

      Dear Fred,
      Let’s not mince words regarding Mr. Jefferson’s denial of the supernatural and embrace of rationalism.
      “We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demiurgos, Æons, and Daemons, male and female, with a long train of &c. &c. &c. or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. ”

      Dismiss the logos as nonsense?

      Mr. Jefferson did not believe Christ was God, and states so plainly in the excerpt you have chosen above. Certainly, he did not have his bible published but recommended his work ‘in pursuit of the historical Jesus’ to many around him.

      Mr. Jefferson’s moves are the natural result of the reformation’s shameless audacity- and he was no friend of Christianity.

      • Howard

        It depends what is meant by “their Logos”. I strongly suspect that Jefferson tossed the baby out with the bathwater, but the best evidence in that quote is his inclusion of Scholastics. The list “Logos and Demiurgos, Æons, and Daemons, male and female” reads like a dramatis personæ of the absurd gnostic mythology condemned by St. Irenaeus in Against the Heresies.

    • HigherCalling

      I understand your reflexive defense of the Founders on Christian grounds, because I was once there myself. I’d probably still be there if not for stepping back a few paces and making a conscious effort to look at the Founding with intellectual honesty and through Catholic, rather than ‘conservative’ American, eyes. If nothing else the effort exposed many of the prevailing myths surrounding the devout “Christianity” of the American Founding.

      Jefferson “omitted the parts that contained miracles, the supernatural, etc.” because that’s what Lockean Enlightenment Unitarian Materialist rationalists do. It was the next logical stage in the descending path of 18th century Liberalism. In the spirit of his mentor, Locke, Jefferson rejected the foundational Christian dogma of the Trinity as “The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus,with one body and three heads,” ” the confection of Platonizing priests,” and the “abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” Even while admiring Jesus as a great moralist, Jefferson denied that Jesus had ever claimed divinity though “ascribing to himself every human excellence.” He goes further, declaring that the atonement of Christ was a mixture of “follies, falsehoods and charlatanisms,” and predestination and original sin were “heresies of bigotry and fanaticism.”

      In his effort to extract the true teachings of Jesus, he removed the “pretensions of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven…,” in the manner of removing “diamonds from a dunghill.” Referring directly to Christ’s teaching, Jefferson wrote, “It is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require a counter-poise of good works to redeem it.” Defending a rationalist critique of Christian dogma in a letter to his nephew, Jefferson advised atheism to critical inquiry: “Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort & pleasantness you feel in its exercise…”

      America’s “Founder of Liberty” refused to serve as godfather for children of his Anglican friends, because godfathers had to profess a belief in what he viewed as the unreasonable doctrine of the Trinity. He stated with confidence in an August 22, 1813 letter to John Adams that “there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.” That Unitarian deity he described as the “Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe,” and a “Being in whose hands we are.” In a letter from John Adams to Jefferson on September 14, 1813, Adams, who earlier mocked the Catholic Mass, concurs with Jefferson’s view of the Trinity:

      “Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai to behold the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have the courage to deny it, but We sould not have believed it.”

    • Um. No.

      Uhh… He did publish his version of the new testament…. And he was a Deist… Talk about rose-colored glasses….

    • Tomacz Tesla

      I am one who stands in awe of Jefferson’s intelligence being also a former Charlottesvillian. This experiment you described so well is perfectly valid but it betrays Jefferson’s imperfect knowledge of Scripture and hermeneutics. He should have known better. After all Tom J. lived about five or six centuries after Aquinas. He was looking for straight commandments, suggestions, and such. Once I was explained (by a Rabbi) that the distinction between clean and unclean animals was a divine metaphor prepared from the beginning of the world: the animal that splits the hoof and chews the cud is unclean and so are those that split the hoof and don’t chew the cud. But the clean animal is the one that chews the cud and splits the hoof. The image teaches subtly that we must meditate the Law of God and also walk by it. Thing the thought and walk the walk. There is no way to cut out that kind of teaching off a Bible with scissors. Tom Jefferson’s exercise may have been useful but it was kind of incomplete.

      • HigherCalling

        Is there any doubt that great minds like Jefferson’s, operating within a two-century old Protestant cosmology, would be atheistic today? Modern Atheism is merely Protestantism’s blatant and prideful rejection of legitimate doctrinal and moral authority taken to its logical conclusion. Among the intellectual ruling elite in the 18th century, Christianity had already “progressed” (i.e. devolved) from Individualism through Rationalism and Deism to Jefferson’s Materialism and Secularism — succeeded in the following two centuries by Naturalism, Scientism/Darwinism, deepening Secularism, and to the penultimate stage to Atheism: Relativism. Today’s intellectual ruling elite in America, if not already smugly atheistic, are certainly ‘progressive’ relativists. The way in which Jefferson’s exercise was incomplete was that it had not yet reached explicit and outright Godlessness.

        • Tomacz Tesla

          I agree. Either they “pope” or they “dope”

  • Objectivetruth

    When discussing scripture with a Protestant, always plant the seed: “Did Jesus give us a Church…..or a book?” The answer of course is Jesus gave us the Church, which gave us the bible.

    • dougpruner

      “… which gave us the Bible”… which we dare not use when discussing religion with Catholics!

      • DE-173

        Show me in the Bible where it says the Bible is the SOLE SOURCE of authority, to be interpreted by individuals, (without proper commission or training in exigesis).
        Before you quote 2 Timothy 3:16, understand that verse indicates Scripture is useful, not sufficient or individually interpretable.
        The thing I find fascinating about Protestants is that they are like fighting brothers. As soon as the Catholic kid comes into the picture, their dispute(s), now matter how divergent or unresolved are forgotten.
        Hence I have a Methodist relative by matrriage attending a Baptist Church, blissfully forgetting her life long Wesleyan formation, rather than darkening a Catholic Church with her husband.
        It seems to me Protestants need the resolve deep, abiding and ever changing and emerging doctrinal disputes among themselves, so we know which of the 30,000 and counting is the right one,

        • dougpruner

          Here’s 2Tim 3:16,17 itself, from the NJB: “All scripture is inspired
          by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be upright. This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work.”
          Contrary to what you say, “inspired by God”, “fully equipped”, “any good work”.
          I have found this to be true in decades of study, and it has kept me from falling into error. In my earlier reply to the OP I show that RCC teaching is ‘death is life’, while the Bible’s is ‘death is death’. There is no middle ground or ‘interpretation’ possible: one teaching must be right and the other must be wrong.
          Here is where the mainstream religions- not just the nominally Christian- got their teaching:
          (Eve): “But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, ‘You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death.’ ”
          (Satan) “No! You will not die!”
          Where are Adam and Eve now, alive or dead?
          And I protest, I’m not a Protestant.

          • How are you sure that you have not fallen into error? How are you sure that what you feel to be true is the Holy Spirit upon you, and not your own well-educated conclusions?

            • dougpruner

              Shannon, I looked over some of your other comments, and I appreciate your reasonableness and calm language. (Unusual here!)
              My test for scriptural authenticity is not “magical” or “infallible”. I’m a literate person- like the others here- else how could they write? 🙂
              When I come across a religious idea I compare it with relevant scriptures to see if it matches; if not I throw away the idea and keep the Bible. Same with encountering a puzzling scripture. I use whatever research materials I have (including Baltimore and CathEn at newadvent.org, as I’ve mentioned) until I find an explanation. Then I back-check. If everything matches, I’m done. If not, ‘lather, rinse, repeat.’ All of this is rarely necessary because the Book has, as Jesus stated many times, ‘knowledge of himself and his Father’. (John 17:3) He came to teach us about God from his unique vantage point. (John 1:18) John 20:30,31 teaches us, without recourse to things “not in this book”, that Jesus is the Son of God. As you might gather from my other posts, I do not ‘go beyond what is written’ to say that he is also Almighty God Yahweh.
              In short, I let the Bible teach the Bible.
              Fare ye well.

          • DE-173

            Oh Dougie.. so sorry, I didn’t catch on to the fact that you are on an yet another pseudonym, but your “Nestorian” “Assyrian Church of the East” prose finally sunk in.

            Guess you’ll have to take a few months off, and coin a new name.

          • ken varga

            Doug, The Scriptures referred to were Old Testament Scriptures as The New Testament did not exist at the time when 2Tim was written. 2Tim was not officially considered Scripture until the 4th century when The Catholic Church declared it was part of the Canon.

        • Actually, the Prot churches that are most like Rome are quite unified – in error, while those who most strongly to Scripture as the authoritative wholly inspired word of God are far more unified in conservative values and many key beliefs than the fruit of Rome, though both are losing ground.

          Despite its tribalism, historically it was fundamental evangelicals who strongly contended for basic core Truths we both concur on against cults who deny them, as well as against liberal revisionism, which is very manifest in Roman Catholicism, as well as against her accretions of errors of tradition .

          Moreover, the unity of Rome is largely on paper and restricted, and what RCs can disagree on is extensive, as is the opinions she implicitly allows, and Catholicism exists in schism and sects.

        • Dominick

          DE-173,
          Not only does sola scriptura not appear anywhere in the Bible, but it completely contradicts the rather clear picture of an individual’s relationship to God, which emerges in the Bible over hundreds of pages. The scenes described in those hundreds of pages span centuries, if not millennia, and basically paint a picture where the faith is passed down by tradition, sins are forgiven by the intercession of holier men and especially priests, the Lord speaks to the masses through designated authorities and in a hierarchical top-down manner, and where pious works are crucial.
          I do sometimes get frustrated with Catholic apologists, though. At least int he commbox medium, I have yet to read an expose of the venerable traditions that preceded the 2000 years of Catholic tradition (admittedly, this is probably just me not taking much time to do so).
          The Old Testament is probably 2/3 of the Bible and offers endless matter for the apologist; Genesis to Malachi, it reads like Catholicism 101.

      • jacobhalo

        St Paul said to the Thessalonians, Stand firm either by oral or letters of ours. See the word oral?

        • Objectivetruth

          The New Testament is Catholic oral tradition written down.

        • dougpruner

          2 Tim 3:16,17. See the word scripture? That means- I think- writing. The evidence of history is that writing inspired by God has benefits. Isaiah 48:17,18: “Thus says Yahweh, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am Yahweh your God and teach you for your own good, I lead you in the way you ought to go. If only you had listened to my commandments! Your prosperity would have been like a river and your saving justice like the waves of the sea.”
          The evidence of history is that the “traditions of men”, which some label “magisterium”, are harmful. The Pharisees forgot mercy in their zeal for competitive sacrifice. Your book of so-called Wisdom encourages bulimia and greed. Pope Urban and Peter the Hermit preached the Crusade, and we’re living the consequences today. The Pope parades in all his acquired magnificence on Easter Sunday, while “the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.”

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Mr. Pruner,
            The Catholic Church teaches that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition contain the Deposit of Faith. Both are required, you can’t dismiss one, or the other. Just as Saint Paul says in 2 Thess. 2:15.
            At the end of Saint John’s Gospel he says that all the Christ taught and did could fill up so many books the whole world could not contain them. So, everything wasn’t written down by the Apostles.
            Also, there were no books of the New Testament to read for the first 10 to 20 years after Christ’s Ascension. It was all spoken preaching by those authorized by Christ, i.e., the bishops & priests. The Good News of Christ Jesus was guarded by the Church He founded on the Rock, Kephas, against those who would corrupt it.
            How do you know which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit & belong in the Bible, anyway?
            God Bless!
            [Edit: p.s. The Pharisees added to God’s Law “heavy burdens” in order to make God send the Messiah. Burdens, I might add, that they didn’t observe, as Christ tells us. And, the Crusades were just wars of self-defense against the barbarous Moslem invaders. The Pope doesn’t own much, in imitation of Christ.]

            • dougpruner

              My extensive reading in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Baltimore Catechism and other Catholic sources convince me that Magisterium dismisses scripture every time there is a conflict. Never the other way around.
              You show what Magisterium believes. Here’s what Peter believed: “He is the living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen by God and precious to him; set yourselves close to him so that you, too, may be living stones making a spiritual house as a holy priesthood to offer the spiritual sacrifices made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. As scripture [Isa 28:16] says: Now I am laying a stone in Zion, a chosen, precious cornerstone and no one who relies on this will be brought to disgrace. To you believers it brings honour. But for unbelievers, it is rather a stone which the builders rejected that became a cornerstone, a stumbling stone, a rock to trip people up. They stumble over it because they do not believe in the Word; it was the fate in store for them.”
              Written; all of it about Jesus; none about himself except as one of the other “living stones”, like his readers.

              • Nick_from_Detroit

                You didn’t answer my question, Mr. Pruner.
                How do you know which books belong in the Bible, and which don’t? Why isn’t the Book of Enoch considered inspired? The Epistle of Jude quotes from it.
                At any rate, yes, Christ is the cornerstone rejected by the builders. Paul also says that He was the Rock that followed Moses & the Israelites through the wilderness (1Cor.10:4). (This isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament, by the way. It was part of…sacred tradition!)
                None of this changes the fact that Christ changed Simon bar Jonah’s name to Kephas, i.e., Rock, in Mt. 16. Peter was the rock on whom He would build His Church. Not many people argue about this anymore. It’s obvious from the grammar that Christ uses. God Bless!

                • Objectivetruth

                  “How do you know which books belong in the Bible, and which don’t?”

                  He can’t answer your question, and he knows it, without answering “The Catholic Church.”

                  • DE-173

                    The obvious question is that if the ancient council that assembled the canon made ANY errors, why should you believe they were right AT ALL.

                    • So the logic is that Truth requires assured veracity for its transmission and preservation, and a Roman office of men was/is it, and that agreeing with a judgment by an entity means one must concur with all its like judgments?

                    • AugustineThomas

                      You call it Roman, but it was all of the apostles, many of whom were Jewish and not Roman and very soon, the priests and bishops were from all over the world. The Church truly is catholic (read universal).
                      Protestant churches are all based on one’s favorite social club. They are not protected by the Holy Spirit, which is why they rise up and then die while the One True Church continues on, from the time when Christ founded it.
                      Protestant churches were all founded by heretics. The Church is founded by Christ.

                    • You call it Roman, but it was all of the apostles, many of whom were Jewish and not Roman

                      Therefore you say it is wrong to call it Roman?

                      Protestant churches are all based on one’s favorite social club.

                      That actually describes Rome best. See here .

                  • Nick_from_Detroit

                    Objectivetruth,
                    I’ve yet to get an answer to this question from “Bible-believing” Christians. They usually don’t know the history. God Bless!

                    • DE-173

                      Most seem to think Christian history ended in 33AD and then resumed October 31, 1517.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Agreed. Most ignore the history of the canon of scripture, afraid of what they’ll find. I think there are some Protestants who actually believe Christ actually handed out King James versions of the bible.

                    • Actually, the reasoning behind the “Catholic church gave you the Bible; she alone is assuredly right in interpreting it” polemical assertion, manifests that it is they who do not know history. Read my responses above. ,

                    • Catholic pilgrim

                      “A mind is a horrible thing to waste”, as they truly say. History is also a horrible thing to neglect. Protestants ignore Church History (& the continuity of orthodoxy) like the plague, which is why I give them GK Chesterton books as Christmas or birthday gifts (to shake them up a bit). Sadly, many Catholic parishes neglect teaching any Church history (to both adults & children) let alone the Catholic Catechism.

                    • Nick_from_Detroit

                      Amen, Catholic Pilgrim. Saint Francis, pray for us! God Bless!

                  • See above, and be objective.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Stop being a heretic, and come home to the Catholic Church.

                • How do you know which books belong in the Bible, and which don’t? Why isn’t the Book of Enoch considered inspired? The Epistle of Jude quotes from it.

                  So your premise is that an infallible magisterium is essential to discern which men and writings are of God.

                  Thus no one could have been sure Moses and Exodus were of God before Rome presumed she was necessary for this.

                  The answer to your question is made manifest in the light of the absurdity of your logic, as both men and writings of God were established as being so long before a church of imperial Rome took form.

                  The establishment of both was essentially due to the degree of Heavenly qualities and attestation, and which are to be confirmed by the powers that be, but they are what they are even if rejected.

                  And in fact God often provided and preserved Truth and faith by raising up men from without the leadership to reprove it, and thus the church began and thus it has continued as the body of Christ. Which is the only fully true church of 100% believers. The visible manifestations of that invariably have been a mixture of soundness and error.

                  Note that the issue here is not that a magisterium versus no magisterium, as Westminster itself clearly affirms the need and validity of the magisterial office, but the issue of that of perpetual assured veracity of office, which is neither warranted not promised in Scripture, despite RC extrapolation.

                  • Nick_from_Detroit

                    PBJ,
                    The historical record disagrees, I’m afraid.
                    The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as inspired, and rejected the Prophets and Writings. The Pharisees, on the other hand, accepted all three. While the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. This was at the time Christ founded His Church on Kephas, the Rock.
                    Now, the Berean Jews were Greek Jews. They would have searched the LXX when Saint Paul told them to search the Scriptures (cf. Acts 17).
                    So, to answer your objection, yes, you need some kind of infallible power to determine which books are Sacred Scripture. You can’t use the books of the Bible to determine which books belong, and which do not. They are not self-attesting. Someone has to decide.
                    Which is why Christ said about the Holy Spirit that “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” The Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from teaching error. The Early Church Fathers quoted repeatedly from the Deuterocanonical books.

                    You are aware that the Canon of Sacred Scripture was formed in order to list the books that could be read at the Liturgy of the Word, during Mass, aren’t you? Because too many bogus writings were being used, e.g., Gospel of Peter, Thomas, etc.
                    So, my question still stands. Why isn’t the book of Enoch, or Gospel of Peter considered Scripture?

                    • the historical record disagrees, I’m afraid.
                      The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as inspired, and rejected the Prophets and Writings. The Pharisees, on the other hand, accepted all three. While the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint.

                      There is no disagreement at all, as my i was certainly aware that there the canon was not universally the same Jews, but not only did the Lord only affirm the office of the Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and which tripartite canon is indicated in Lk. 24:44, but what i said remains, that both men and writings of God were established as being so long before a church of imperial Rome took form. And which took until after the death of Luther to provide an indisputable complete canon.

                      This was at the time Christ founded His Church on Kephas, the Rock.

                      That is a mere assertion that does not conflate with the evidence. We can add the ongoing Aramiac vs. Greek debate, but in the light of the rest of Scripture and in contrast to Peter being the Rock, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or “stone” (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

                      Rome’s current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (424) which understanding many of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.

                      And the V1 vow is “nor will I ever receive and interpret them [the Scriptures] except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm

                      Now, the Berean Jews were Greek Jews. They would have searched the LXX when Saint Paul told them to search the Scriptures

                      But as already stated, there is zero proof that the LXX (Septuagint) contained the apocryphal books at that time, as for which there is no historical evidence. And Philo of Alexandria (1st c
                      A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was
                      commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in
                      later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do
                      all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.

                      British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria’s writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha. (Roger
                      T. Beckwith, “The Canon of the Old Testament” in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

                      Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the omprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.(Roger
                      Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old
                      Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382,

                      So, to answer your objection, yes, you need some kind of infallible power to determine which books are Sacred Scripture

                      Wrong again, it remains that both men and writings of God were established as being so long before a church of imperial Rome took form, and which discernment enables a canon.

                      Again, if a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for discernment and assurance of Truth, then how could souls be assured that any one or writing was of God before Rome? Both were established in the light of their heavenly qualities and attestation.


                      Which is why Christ said about the Holy Spirit that “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” The Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from teaching error.

                      That is one small step for a RC, but one giant leap of logic for mankind. God had always been progressively revealing more Truth before there was a church of Rome, and the means of which was never restricted to the pronouncements of the magisterium. Nor was Scripture itself a project of it.

                      God revealed Himself thru creation and individuals and Israel as a nation, and materially thru the transcendent wholly inspired written, and most supremely in Christ, and which the church is supposed to express. But never was a perpetual infallible magisterium necessary or promised, but God enables discernment of Truth the same way He did in starting the church with the common people recognizing itinerant preachers as being of God, in the light of their Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

                      Insomuch as the church continually manifests this then is can claim to be of the living God, which is in contrast to mere self-declaration and autocratically defining history and Scripture as supporting a church as infallible.

                      But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)

                      So, my question still stands. Why isn’t the book of Enoch, or Gospel of Peter considered Scripture?

                      For the same reason lit, such as the Life of Adam and Eve was not and the elect did not follow some Egpytian messiah figure before there even was a church of Rome. This has been answered above and here in this thread , but in short they lacked the manner of substantiation that est. true men and writings of God. Which the magisterium is to confirm, but these men and writings are what they are regardless, and thus the church begin in dissent from the historical magisterium.

                    • Nick_from_Detroit

                      PBJ,
                      The Pharisees were not an “office.” They were a sect, or party of Judaism. The fact that they taught from the Chair (cathedra) of Moses did not mean that they practiced what they preached. Christ didn’t affirm them in Mt.23, He admonished them. If Christ ratified the Lw, Prophets, and Psalms in Lk.24, doesn’t that exclude the New Testament books? Who approved them?
                      I asked you about the book of Enoch, you responded with Exodus. I explain that the Jewish canon was NOT agreed upon when Christ founded His Church on Peter, you reply that you were aware, but, that Christ agreed with the Pharisees’ canon, a mere assertion on your part.
                      Also, Saint Peter established the Church in Rome in the mid-to-late A.D. 40s. This is alluded to by Paul in Romans 15:20 (c.A.D. 58), and attested to by several of the Early Church Fathers. So, the Jewish canon was “not settled long before a of imperial Rome took form.”

                      The Catholic Church doesn’t dispute that Christ is continually referred to as Rock throughout the Sacred Scriptures. But, in Mt.16, Christ changes Peter’s name from Simon bar Jonah to Kephas, i.e., Rock, and says that He will build His Church upon Peter. There is only one word for rock in Aramaic, kepha. Paragraph 424 doesn’t negate the Church’s (and the Fathers’) nearly 2,000-year-old teaching that Peter was the rock on whom He built His Church.

                      There is plenty of evidence that the LXX contained the deuterocanonicals, which I laid out in another reply. Scholars agree that latest of the deuterocanonicals (e.g., 1&2 Mac.) existed by the early Second Century to late First Century, B.C . To argue otherwise is ludicrous. The source of your copy & paste is wrong. I’ll just link:
                      http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm

                      You keep repeating yourself, but, that doesn’t make what you write true. Souls couldn’t “be assured” until Christ founded His Church, protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. As the dispute on the Jewish canon between the Sad., Phar., and Greek Jews proves.

                      The Apostles won converts by their preaching and wondrous deeds, i.e., miracles. Not from any written Scriptures of the New Testament, the first of which didn’t appear until 10 – 20 years after Christ’s Crucifixion.

                      And, we come full circle, in your circular reasoning. Enoch, the Gospel of Peter & Thomas aren’t considered Scripture because it’s obvious that they’re not. Based on your infallible decree. Sorry, that’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works. God Bless!

              • John200

                Dear dougpruner (is that your real name? No need to tell me, the ‘net allows anonymity),

                I admire your manful efforts, but I want to point out that you are up against a gigantic intellectual edifice. Your extensive reading is opposed to 2000+ years of continuous reading, discussion, and disputation among the best minds of their time.

                It is extremely unlikely that you will make a conclusion not anticipated by your predecessors. Vanishingly small probability, as the mathematicians tell us.

                To put the point of contention gently, the Magisterium does not dismiss scripture every time there is a conflict. It never dismisses scripture.

                • the Magisterium does not dismiss scripture every time there is a conflict. It never dismisses scripture.

                  Nor do the Mormons and the like, but under the model for authority shared by Rome and such cults, Divine revelation as well as history only is and means what they autocratically say it is.

                  For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

                  Thus the response by Manning,

                  It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine…

                  I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves… The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865), pp. 227,28

                  And like Keating: “The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

                • dougpruner

                  John 200: I have shown that it does ‘dismiss scripture’. Please read my posts and reply to them, not to your wishful thinking.
                  Yes, it’s my real name. What’s yours, John 201?

                  • John200

                    Since you are reduced to taunts, Doug, I’ll give my conclusion:

                    You have shown no such thing. See comments above and below. They provide ample food for thought.

                    Stick around CrisisMag, spend some time in the archives, and learn what you are calumniating. Soon you won’t have to depend on your extensive reading, which is insufficient. Surely you see that by now. See comments above and below.

                    Second point: The internet teaches prudence in revealing one’s identity. Depending on your vocation and location, it is possible that you know my name. But my prudential decision is to keep it to myself.

                    Continue fighting as long as you must. Your interlocutors are treating you remarkably well. Catholics do this in charity. Do not mistake meekness for weakness. You are not facing weaklings. And you can stop the chin-first attacks at any time.

                    That is when the progress starts.

              • Objectivetruth

                “My extensive reading in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Baltimore Catechism and other Catholic sources convince me that Magisterium dismisses scripture every time there is a conflict.”

                Lieing is a sin, Dougie boy.

                Really Doug, you’re now embarrassing yourself. You’re a second grader on this website going up against Catholic PhD’s.

                • You’re a second grader on this website going up against Catholic PhD’s.

                  Indeed, how could an unlettered peon ever be correct (though his statement is not fully correct, and pertains more to traditions, and also to misuse of Scripture)?

                  Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:48-49)

                  • Catholic pilgrim

                    I’ll stick with the Christ-ordained Apostolic Authority found in the Patriarch of Rome (aka pope) than the “authority” of your local Protestant pastor Billy Bob, Mr. peace, thank you very much. I trust the holy words of our Lord Christ Jesus in St. Matthew’s Gospel (“Thou art Peter…keys…”) than your anonymous Internet ramblings, too. Rome (previously the Capital of the Empire that crucified our Lord & persecuted His Church) was victoriously chosen by the Risen Christ to be the center of Christianity. Rome where St. Peter the Apostle (a Jewish foreigner) was crucified & where the great St. Paul the Apostle (Jew/Roman citizen) was beheaded became the center of Christianity (the city with the most church buildings too)… how true were the words of the ancient Tertullian: “The blood of the Martyrs will become the seed of the Church.” The Roman Empire collapsed while Christ’s Church rose from the Empire’s persecutions & took the Empire’s city of Rome as Her own seat. Mr. Peace, with all due respect, I’ll take the City of Rome (where great Apostles have stood, taught & administered the mysteries of God & where the great Martyrs of the Christian Catholic faith have died) for authority in my life over your nice, suburban city of Crestwood Hill with your nice, cool pastor Billy Bobby’s Corner Non-denominational denominational church where everybody is an Americun living in the relative safety in the greatest country evuh. Rome is the city where the orthodox Christian faith has been tested by fires throughout the centuries & yet every time the Church of Rome has stood tall & brave. She is worthy of Her Christ-given Apostolic Authority like no one’s business.

                    • ‘ll stick with the Christ-ordained Apostolic Authority found in the Patriarch of Rome (aka pope) than the “authority” of your local Protestant pastor Billy Bob, Mr. peace, thank you very much. I trust the holy words of our Lord Christ Jesus in St. Matthew’s Gospel (“Thou art Peter…keys…”) than your anonymous Internet ramblings, too.

                      This simply more of the same irrelevant rambling, and i have more substantial posts to respond to.

                    • dougpruner

                      Pilgrim [said John Wayne] … or an unlettered fisherman, perhaps?
                      BTW some of you folks need to read 1 Pet 3:15,16. Are you replying “with courtesy and respect”?

                • dougpruner

                  Obj., do you mean like these? “They were astonished at the fearlessness shown by Peter and John,
                  considering that they were uneducated laymen; and they recognised them
                  as associates of Jesus”
                  Acts 4:13

              • sez

                The Catholic Church never dismisses Scripture. In fact, there is nothing in Catholic teaching, properly understood, that conflicts with anything in Scripture, properly understood.

                Your problem is your own interpretations conflict with those of the Church that Jesus established. IOWs: you lack the proper understanding of either Scripture or Catholic teaching, or both. But your misunderstandings do not trump the 2000-year teaching of the one, true Church – the longest-surviving institution on the planet – clearly protected by the Holy Spirit. Neither do the misunderstandings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Joe Smith, William Miller, Charles Taze Russell, Spong, Olsteen, pastor Billy at the corner church, et al.

                Sorry, but you guys are all self-appointed little “pope”s, with no real connection to the Apostles or Church Fathers. And just who gave you authority? Nobody who had any actual authority to give.

                Sola scriptura: feeding pride and breeding dissent for nearly 500 years.
                Please re-read John 17, and ask yourself how there can ever be unity without authority. And to whom did Jesus give authority?

                • dougpruner

                  Sez, “properly understood” means, to Catholics, ‘by the magisterium’.

                  I wrote,

                  “John 17:3- two separate people.
                  Rev 3:12- Jesus himself has a God, it seems, even in his present exalted and glorified position.
                  1 Cor 15:28- and he will always be subservient to that God.”
                  Citations, and my understanding of them. Show me please where the plain statement was ‘misinterpreted’.

                  • sez

                    Have you never heard of the doctrine of the Trinity? The Catholic Church has been teaching that since circa AD 70: it’s in the very first catechism, called the Didache. You can read all about it here:
                    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity

              • AugustineThomas

                Christ himself used ALL of the Apocrypha, but you Protestants are more knowledgeable about scripture than Christ?!?
                (The real explanation is that the books the original Protestants removed were taken out of Protestant bibles because those books made it indisputably clear that the Church is real and Protestant heresies are just that: heresies.)

              • Catholic pilgrim

                My extensive reading of the Protestant Encyclopedia, the Protestant pamphlets, and other Protestant sources convinces me that Protestantism dismisses scripture every time there is a conflict. Never the other way around. My extensive reading of comments dougpruner also leads me to the same conclusion (that he constantly dismisses scripture at his convenience), & yet this Mr. dougpruner wants us to accept him as the source of interpretative authority instead of the Christ-established authority of the Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture of the Holy Catholic Church (which is the Holy Bride of Christ Jesus).

          • DE-173

            It also says Scripture is USEFUL. Not sufficient or final.

          • AugustineThomas

            The traditions the Church preserves are those of God. You have invented your own traditions, which are a few of the literally hundreds of thousands of different traditions of men that Protestants place above God’s command for unity.

          • Objectivetruth

            “The evidence of history is that the “traditions of men”, which some label “magisterium”, are harmful”

            You obviously have no idea what “Tradition” really means in the context of the Catholic Church, do you?

            Doug….quit while your behind, you’re obviously running out of falsities and lies about the Catholic Church from your Chick Publications leaflet.

            And you never did (and obviously, can’t) answer my question of where you get your authority of infallible interpretation of scripture from. How Catholicism has had it all wrong for 2000 years until oi dougpruner came along to set us all straight.

            Your arrogance is not uncommon, but getting repetitious and boorish.

          • msmischief

            Except that the very verse you cite gives you away. It says that written scripture is useful. It does not say that nothing else is useful.

          • Catholic pilgrim

            “the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” That’s right, Mr. dougpruner. Now, why don’t you go away and sell your house & all your possessions & go sleep in park benches with the homeless for the rest of your life, and then you can come back & criticize our Pope in Easter Sunday all you want & tell us all about it. Remember, our Lord Jesus also said: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” Classic Protestant: apply one verse for others & ignore it for yourself. Nice. (And convenient for you too.)

      • Objectivetruth

        Explain? Protestants can regurgitate what they memorized from scripture, but proper interpretation is the sole responsibility of the Catholic Church. 30,000 plus Protestant denominations and communities are prone to different levels of erroneous interpretations, which is dangerous.

        • dougpruner

          “proper interpretation is the sole responsibility of the Catholic Church” You are required to believe that, to call yourself a Catholic; I am not.

          • Objectivetruth

            Non Catholics do not posses the fullness of the Truth of Jesus Christ.

            Where do you get your authority from to interpret scripture correctly, without error?

            • A very good question, one that was asked long ago. For indeed, why should anyone follow itinerant preachers in dissent from those who are the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation?

              And instead who presume to establish their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation?

              What should a faithful RC tell them?

              • Catholic pilgrim

                What the heck is an “RC”, Mr. peace? Don’t insult us. We are Catholics, just that. Or Catholic Christians. Don’t call us “RC” or whatever silly concoctions Protestants come up with. The Catholic Church (which is the Holy Bride of Christ Jesus) is composed of the Latin/Roman-rite church which is the largest as well as Eastern Catholic churches in full Communion with the Patriarch of Rome (aka pope), such as the Maronite Catholics, Melkite Catholics, or the Byzantine Catholics. You’ve got Google, look us up, educate yourself. Ever ancient, ever new is the Holy Catholic Church, Christ’s Bride & Mystical Body. Respect Her, don’t diminish Her (our Lord Christ Jesus the Bridegroom would not be happy with those who treat His Bride, the New Israel, like that)- educate yourself with Church history, Sacred Scripture, & the Catholic Catechism.

                • What the heck is an “RC”, Mr. peace? Don’t insult us. We are Catholics, just that. Or Catholic Christians

                  Like “Prot,” RC both saves my arthritic stiff fingers from typing which can hardly type half a sentence without hitting a wrong key (i must lift my hand up to hit each letter), and distinguishes btwn the Latin/Roman-rite church and EOs, Orthodox Catholic, which some call Catholic.

                  The rest of your post is irrelevant, with assertions that simply do not make the claims to the one true church even close to being tenable. Sorry.

                  • Catholic pilgrim

                    Eastern Catholics are NOT Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Catholics are Catholics who are in full communion with the Patriarch of Rome but who are not Roman/Latin-rite. If you’re going to attempt at refuting (& even attacking) the Holy Church of Christ, at least learn something about it before attempting to do so. Ignorance is not a virtue, my friend.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      PBJ should quit while he’s behind, he’s really embarrassing himself by his lack of knowledge.

                    • DE-173

                      Yes, because he’s more peanut butter and jelly theology, then anything to do with the Good Lord.

                    • Eastern Catholics are NOT Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Catholics are Catholics who are in full communion with the Patriarch of Rome but who are not Roman/Latin-rite. If you’re going to attempt at refuting (& even attacking) the Holy Church of Christ, at least learn something about it before attempting to do so. Ignorance is not a virtue, my friend.

                      I said EOs, not Ecs, and that the latter consider themselves Orthodox Catholics. Nor is either the One True Church®, which is the body of Christ, and not a wafer. Neither ignorance or denial is a virtue.

                  • AugustineThomas

                    Protestant is an accurate historical descriptor. All of your churches were originally founded based on protesting the One True Church.
                    “Roman Catholic Church” is a name made up by Anglicans who were bitter that their heretical church was founded on the lust of Henry VIII.
                    All Black Lies against the Church developed from Protestant bitterness at the fact that they never made the Church better, they simply created heresies that have led hundreds of millions, now billions of souls astray.

                  • DE-173

                    And yet you can lavish painful finger lifts on this verbose insult:

                    “The rest of your post is irrelevant, with assertions that simply do not make the claims to the one true church even close to being tenable. Sorry.”

                    What is it with trolls that makes it so easy to catch them in their lies?

            • dougpruner

              “Authority” is a misleading word. Read my reply to DE-173, above.

          • DE-173

            No, you’re required to believe that any individual is capable without commission, education, discourse or debate, arrive at the proper exigesis.

            I once heard a caller to an Evangelical radio station. The caller recited a litany of disconcerting events at her present Church (and her grievances, as I recall were on the order of walking in on the lunacies of a John Shelby Spong sermon) and the host listened and agreed. At the end of the discourse, he offered her the advice to leave her church and find “a good bible-believing Church”, apparently oblivious to the idea that’s where she thought she was-and that he gave her no criteria to evaluate a new community.

            And so you are on your own, measuring any individual’s exegetical pronouncements or any creed against what? Your viscera?

            • So you mean that in Scripture we find that the magisterium is assuredly infallible and essential to correctly interpret Truth, so that it is impossible for those who dissent from it to be correct?

              And that the problem of errant personal interpretation cannot be multiplied corporately when the magisterium is wrong, as it never can be?

              • AugustineThomas

                Yes, believe it or not, there is only one truth. God is not a relativist.

              • DE-173

                What dissent do you want to follow?
                There 30,000+ plus denominations, growing every time some charismatic young fellow sets up a “church” and all widely variant in their doctrines in creeds.
                They are all in dissent, unified on one thing: Opposition to the real Church.
                So which dissenter do you think is right?

            • dougpruner

              It’s “exegesis”. Sorry.
              I read a text, compare it with (say) what a religious has said about it, and make a choice if there’s a difference. Example: I’m told not to eat meat on certain days, to acquire merit. Then I read 1 Tim 4:1, “The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from devils, seduced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are branded as though with a red-hot iron: they forbid marriage and prohibit foods which God created to be accepted with thanksgiving by all who believe and who know the truth. Everything God has created is good, and no food is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving: the word of God and prayer make it holy.” 1 Tim 4:1, Catholic Online NJB
              Just as Paul prophesied in Acts 20, some did “desert the faith” and adopt rituals from other religions. Cf. Rom 14:13 ff. 1 Cor 8:8. Col 2:16.
              Or, someone will tell me I need to pray to “ever-virgin” Mary as a mediatrix. I read1 Tim 2:5, “For there is one God, and one
              mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
              Or, I should pray to her because she is the “Queen of heaven”. Then I read Jer 7:18 and 44:17 ff. in which the Queen of Heaven is the title of a false goddess, woshipped by Israelites who had ‘deserted the faith.’
              Catholic teachings; Catholic Bible; no connection. Your complaint is with the Pope, not with me.

          • AugustineThomas

            Christ preached unity, not division among tens of thousands of completely different Protestant interpretations of his word.
            Show me in scripture where Christ refers to churches divided against each other, warring with each other instead of converting the nations. We can show you plenty of verses in which he preaches complete unity, not some crazy idea of unity with tens of thousands of Protestant sects warring with each other, but unity in ONE Church.

            • Objectivetruth

              When Christ charged the apostles “to preach all nations”, he didn’t tell three of them to preach the Eucharist is truly his body and blood, another three apostles to preach the Eucharist is only spiritual, and “oh yeah…..you last four preach what whatever you want the Eucharist to be, maybe a symbol or something.”

              • Indeed, he did not teach them a form of endo-cannibaalism, that consuming the flesh of a loved one would impart spiritual properties. Nowhere in Scripture is spiritual life obtained by literally eating anything physical, and the figurative view of Jn. 6 is the only one that is consistent with John and the rest of Scripture. As can be shown.

                • Nostromo

                  The Eucharist as central is regrettably a point of departure it seems.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Your posts are extremely disjointed and confusing, PbJ.

                  “and the figurative view of Jn. 6 is the only one that is consistent with John and the rest of Scripture. As can be shown.”

                  Explain to me how John 6 is “figurative.”

                  Or obviously your just one more. Protestant claiming infallible authority over scripture. Get in line….

                  • Or obviously your just one more. Protestant claiming infallible authority over scripture. Get in line..

                    Let me deal with this first, as you are just one more RC parroting the refuted polemic that
                    disagreeing with “infallible” Rome means that one is claiming
                    infallible authority over scripture himself, which is absurd.

                    My disagreeing with Rome or making any argument is not
                    claiming a personal charism of infallibility as per Rome, as unlike her
                    any claim to veracity by me is dependent upon the weight of evidence.

                    As this cannot be the case with Rome in infallibility – lest she actually have to prove her case, or even presume arguments supporting her infallible decrees were themselves assuredly infallible – instead the veracity of her claims, even in infallibly declaring that she is infallible, rests upon the premise of assured veracity.

                    Your posts are extremely disjointed and confusing, PbJ.

                    Without details then that is confusing

                    Explain to me how John 6 is “figurative.”

                    First, while space is limited here, if Jn. 6:53 – which like other “verily verily” statements as Jn. 3:3, is an absolute imperative – is literal, then it would be absolutely necessary for any soul in need of salvation to physically consume the body of Christ, but which is nowhere taught.

                    Instead, as in John, believing the gospel of Christ, as the Son sent by the Father who died and rose for our salvation, is how souls obtained life. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

                    Second, the Lord taught that “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” (John 6:57) And the way the Son lived by the Father was not by consuming His flesh, but by living “by every word” of His mouth,(Mt. 4:4) quoting Scripture to combat the devil, and thus doing the Father’s will by His “meat. “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” (John 4:34)

                    Third, Jn. 6 is consistent with the other teachings in John in which the Lord refers to something physical but which corresponds to something spiritual, as John characteristically contrasts the two realms.

                    Thus the Jews imagined that He was referring to the stone temple being destroyed in Jn. 2, and which misunderstanding he left them in.

                    And in Jn. 3 Nicodemus presumed the Lord was referring to physical birth, and the explanation of “born of the Spirit” did not define what it meant.”

                    Likewise in Jn. 4, water represents eternal life, and the women presumes it is physical, with only a loose connection being made btwn that and believing. As with other examples, it is only in the light of more Scripture that we really see this.

                    Jn. 6 is more extensive allegory which follows that same pattern. The contest is that of believing on Christ, (Jn. 6:29) but as the souls the Lord had fed now want more of the same, they bring up Moses who fed them with physical bread. The Lord thus refers to eating Him and those who want the physical presume that Lord is speaking physically, that somehow the Lord is going to give them His flesh to eat.

                    But after reinforcing the analogy, then the Lord both likens this consumption to how He lived by the Father, (v. 57) and then tells them He will not longer be with them, eliminating the idea they had of giving therm bread, and asserts that the flesh (which is John refers to the fleshly realm) profits nothing; the word I speak unto you are spirit and life. (v. 63)

                    And as with other such teachings, the meaning here is made manifest in the light of more Scripture, and in which spiritual life in only obtained by believing the gospel, and living by Christ is by living out His word. Yet the Lord’s supper is only manifestly described in 1Cor. (except for “feat of charity” in Jude, while breaking bread is ambiguous). And in which as said, it is the body of Christ as the church that they were failing to recognize.

                    Furthermore, the figurative use of eating and drinking in John 6 is entirely consistent with the OT and John, and to be consistent RCs should allow for some of these examples to be understood as literal.

                    Such as when David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

                    And when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

                    And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

                    And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

                    And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

                    And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

                    And or when John is commanded, “Take the scroll …
                    Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

                    In addition is the abundant use of figurative language by John for Christ and spiritual things.

                    In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

                    • In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

                    • In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of
                    literal bronze.

                    • In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by
                    mouth.

                    • In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

                    • In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

                    • In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

                    • In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

                    Finally, there simply are no NT pastors titled “priests” in the NT,. as they do not engage in a distinctive sacrificial function, or are ever even seen dispensing bread as part of their ordained function. Calling NT pastors (presbuteros) priests (hiereus) is not Scriptural, and the attempted justification of it required the use of an etymological fallacy

                    Scriptural

                    • Objectivetruth

                      So if Christ in John 6 was speaking in a “spiritual” way, why did so many disciples walk away from Him, and no longer follow Him? Days before, they had seen Jesus walk on water, feed thousands. Why would a “spiritual” discussion on eating His flesh cause such an aversion to Christ that they’d abandon Him?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      (CONTINUED):

                      “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

                      “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

                    • And among other things, some CFs made marital relations an unclean thing, with Jerome even resorting to contriving Scripture to support this heresy.

                    • Why would a “spiritual” discussion on eating His flesh cause such an aversion to Christ that they’d abandon Him?

                      That is quite simply, they had come seeking physical food, and they were told that the Lord would “ascend up where he was before,” which would eliminate that possibility, and that “it is the spirit that
                      quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
                      you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

                      As they were obviously looking for the flesh to profit them, to feed them, thus they had no more use for Christ, and had no heart to comprehend that, as elsewhere in John, it was believing on Christ as the Messiah that one obtained life by the Spirit.

                      It remains the nowhere is spiritual life obtained anywhere in Scripture by literally consuming anything physical, let alone human flesh. In the light of that reality alone the literal interpretation is disallowed, absent of special pleading.

                      And does not Paul in 1 Corinthians tells us we are bringing judgement upon ourselves, by not discerning the Body of The Lord

                      Because as explained, “discerning the body” refers to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ by showing considerate care for each other by that communal meal which is supposed to “show,” declare,” “proclaim” the Lord’s sacrificial death,
                      rather than to “shame them that have not” by not even
                      waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while
                      others were hungry. As shown and explained more here.

                      For Paul stated they were actually not eating the Lord’s supper due to treating others are if they were not bought by the
                      sinless shed blood of Christ, by going ahead to eat independently of others as it were a restaurant, and even apparently filling their
                      face (drunken) while others were hungry.

                      When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)

                      Thus the solution to prevent their condemnation for acting
                      contrary to the sacrificial love Christ showed in His death, and
                      which they were supposed to be showing.

                      “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry
                      one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

                      Or how about the Church Fathers, several of them actually taught by the apostles (Ignatius of Antioch, for example?) Are they wrong on the Eucharist, also? I’m guessing PBJ, you weren’t taught about Christ directly from the apostles, were you??:

                      Catholic CFs can indeed be wrong, as Rome herself affirms when sometimes disagreeing with them, nor TMK were any of them Christ taught directly from the apostles, save for Polycrap according to Tradition, but who does not describe the Eucharist, though RCs attempt to read a likeness of it into his prayer for martyrdom.

                      I believed in the “Real Presence” as RC, even after i become manifestly born again with its profound changes in heart life while remaining a faithful Catholic in practice for about 6 years . But that did not change me of the others like coming to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and trust Him to save you on His expense and credit, and so living for Him. Bless God.

                      One can believe quite few errors and still be a Christian, but according to the literal view of Jn. 6, it is impossible to be saved and deny the “Real Presence,” though it is not.

                    • HigherCalling
                    • Objectivetruth

                      This is excellent, HC!

                    • HigherCalling

                      There are good videos on YouTube as well. (Search Scott Hahn and Consuming the Word).

                      Combined with The Lamb’s Supper, Hahn admits his “discovery” about the truth of the Eucharist was merely his own uncovering of what the Church had always known and taught. Christianity cannot at the same time be what the Catholic Church claims it to be and what the PBJ Protestants assert it to be. Fundamentally, the two claims are so far removed that they cannot be reconciled — they are principally different religions. Converts like Newman, Chesterton, Waugh and Hahn understood that there is no philosophical or theological middle ground to be found between the two. Ultimately it comes down to a person making the choice between the Catholic Creed and Godlessness. Bl. J.H. Newman said the following in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

                      “I came to the conclusion that there was no medium or true philosophy between atheism and Catholicism, and that a perfectly consistent mind, under those circumstances in which it finds itself here below, must embrace either one or the other.”

                      It’s the oldest story in the universe: once that blatant and prideful rejection of legitimate doctrinal and moral authority is made, the theological conclusion must be (for the “perfectly consistent mind” at least), the rejection of God entirely. We are told about it with the first fallen angel, again in Eden, and we see it again at the Reformation. Protestantism is a quite perilous choice for a perfectly consistent person to make — it can only end in one of two ways.

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/06/suicide-or-catholicism.html

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Thanks. Good stuff!

                    • AugustineThomas

                      Judas betrayed Christ in large part because he wanted to benefit from Christ’s earthly power and was scandalized when Christ lost many followers because the followers were themselves scandalized because they believed Christ was teaching them to cannibalize him. They didn’t realize that it wasn’t like eating earthly flesh and blood, where the flesh and blood become a part of the one eating, but that, with God, the flesh and blood transform the human and bring the human into communion with God.

                    • Ken Varga

                      PBJ, What was done with the temple sacrifices? Some were eaten. What was done with the Passover sacrifice, the lamb? It was consumed by the people. Was there no spiritual significance to those meals?
                      Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which name means ‘ ‘house of bread’ He is The Lamb of God, the new Passover sacrifice and was born in a manger, which is a feeding trough. There is so much more, but I am tired. Goodnight PBJ and may God bless you with The fullness of Truth!

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Read, educate yourself on the Eucharist. Also, go to scripturecatholiceucharist, great info there.

                      Simply put, You couldn’t be more wrong or incorrect on the Eucharist:

                      http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

                    • Catholic pilgrim

                      2,000 years of following a shared Apostolic Tradition (Catholic Christians as well as Eastern Orthodox Christians) while under numerous Persecutions & trials (both from forces inside & outside the Church bent on Her destruction) VERSUS a Modern American Protestant claiming to know everything while holding a laptop on one hand & a Big Mac Burger on the other hand. C’mon, let’s choose the latter.
                      PBJ, please “enlighten” us with your Protestant logic why Catholics & Eastern Orthodox have had it wrong all along & you’ve got it all the answers. Catholics & Eastern Orthodox, do not despair: an anonymous modern American Internet commenter (named “Peace by Jesus”) is here to save us from our ignorance.

                      I don’t mean to offend, but arrogant Protestants got me tired.

                    • You argument is that of the fundamental fallacy that tradition and position trumps all, which is contrary to how the church began, following itinerant preachers whom those who even sat in the magisterial seat of Moses rejected.

                      Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)

                      And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? (Mark 11:27-28)

                    • Catholic pilgrim

                      The Holy Church was founded by our Lord Christ Jesus (who was a Jew who religiously worshiped in the Temple, His Father’s House, & who was also the promised & rejected Jewish Messiah) Himself, not itinerant Methodist/Pentecostal American country preachers (however lovely the picture would be). He called forth certain men as Apostles in order to fulfill the Resurrection work of the Holy Spirit started on this earth. These men (the Apostles) who were authorized by Christ built up the early Church by going around & exercising the Sacrament of Baptism. They went around performing Eucharistic services as well as preaching. Forgiving sins in the name of Jesus our Saviour. Healing people. Anointing people. Sealing people with the gift of the Holy Spirit. And YES, these first Apostles knew they were going to die eventually, so they passed on their Apostolic Divine tradition on to their Successors by laying of the hands. The Holy Sacraments (not just preaching) were everywhere on the scene. To Catholics, the Sacraments & preaching are in perfect union. For many Protestants (with their schizophrenic mind attitudes), the two are seen as exclusive & contradictory. But this has been the sacred Christ-commissioned work of the Catholic Church for over 2,000 years way before Protestantism came along to spread heresy. Mr. peace, I don’t know why you have so much trouble understanding this? Open your mind & heart, let go of your man-made stubborness.

                • Objectivetruth

                  After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.” John 6:66 ”

                  At least you’re in good company, PBJ.

                  • Actually, it is Catholics who are in their company, as they left as they came seeking the physical food.

                    • AugustineThomas

                      Protestants, like Judas Iscariot, deny the Lord’s commandment to TRULY eat of his Body and drink of his Blood.

                    • I see you are a TradRC, who denies properly baptized Prots can be saved, but which is actually consistent with the literal view of Jn. 6:53, even if modern Rome is not.

                    • Quartermaster

                      Protestants did not exist until Luther. Additionally, strictly speaking, one can not be a protestant if you are not Lutheran.

                    • Catholic pilgrim

                      Mr. peace, quit blaspheming the Holy Eucharist by calling it mere earthly food. Look up “hypostatic union” (as well as its Greek root) and educate yourself. In the Eucharist, we don’t find mere earthly food. By FAITH (which Protestants like you seem to lack) in the words of our Lord Christ Jesus (who is BOTH Fully Man AND Fully God), and through the work of the Holy Spirit, we Catholics are joined into both Christ’s Divinity & His humanity when we partake of the Eucharist. Look up “Transubstantiation”. Our worldly eyes see bread & wine, but at the Last Supper as well after the Resurrection (when disciples recognized Him in the “breaking of the bread”), those who see with the eyes of FAITH truly see our Lord’s awesome Divinity & Fullness of Humanity (unlike our corrupted sinful humanity) in the Eucharist. They see a Savior who loves them so much that He makes Himself a gift for others to receive. We Catholics don’t deserve this Blessed Sacrament, but by God’s mysterious undeserved grace, we partake of the Eucharist.
                      I’ll make it simple for you: You start off with Bread & wine. Our Heavenly Father who created us & LOVES us so much wants to reconcile us sinners to Himself but with our unworthy. In comes Christ Jesus our Saviour (who is One with the Father). The Incarnation (“eternal Word of God made FLESH”, St. John’s Gospel, you know? You probably oppose the Incarnation as well). By the work of the Holy Spirit (whom is sent forth from the Father), He turns the purely bread & wine into the awesomely mysterious Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of Christ Jesus (who is both fully God & fully Man, perfect in all his nature). We miserable, lowly mere humans partake of Him in the Eucharist & are forever joined with God through Christ Jesus (“who is the eternal Logos of GOD made FLESH”, St. John’s Gospel, remember that). Is that so hard for you? It’s a Holy Mystery, but even a child can grasp it without all your fuss.

                    • If you want responses, try forming an argument, and use paragraphs.

                    • Catholic pilgrim

                      Sure, let’s go ahead & ignore substance and truth in favor of paragraph preferences. Or maybe you don’t have any arguments left against orthodox Catholic Christianity.
                      But seriously, Mr. peace, as a Platonic-like/Puritanical Protestant anti-Catholic, what do you make of St. John’s Gospel where in the beginning it starts off with Christ Jesus being the “the eternal Word of God made FLESH”? If you’re so opposed to the Eucharist, what do you make of the ancient mystery/doctrine of the Incarnation? What is it about Jesus being God made human FLESH that bothers you so much?
                      Plato (whom Catholics admire) had an excuse of sounding somewhat Anti-Creation since he lived as an admirable Greek philosopher centuries long before Christ’s Incarnation & Resurrection & was also most likely ignorant of contemporary Hebrew/Jewish tradition & scripture (which had the rich Creational Monotheism). He did not have the Revelation of Christ (love), therefore, Plato only had reason to work with. He ended up despising the physical creation & only viewed the soul as real. Plato viewed souls as wanting to escape the prison of bodies (which is utterly against Jewish/Christian notions of Resurrection or God the good Creator in Genesis 1:31 “that is good” or Sacraments). He did not know LOVE (Jesus), so understandably, Plato did the best of understanding the universe with what he had. But you live in the time of Christian revelation, where you should know about Jesus/Love (God made Flesh), & yet you despise the Eucharist, the Incarnation, the Sacraments, & God’s physical creation. What is your beef? Are you some angry “ex-Catholic” or something? The only thing you should despise is Sin.

                      Like Gnostic heretics & Prot. Puritans, you want to insist on worshipping your mental abstractions & attacking Christian Sacraments (like the Eucharist) rather than embracing Catholicism, where the fullness of Christian faith lays.

                    • Catholic pilgrim

                      Lastly, you might enjoy reading this recent article written by an Ex-Protestant (Mark Shea) to help Anti-Catholic Protestants see why their attacks on the Holy Sacraments (especially Baptism & the Eucharist) is not only wrong but severely ignorant of Christ.

                    • Catholic pilgrim
                • jacobhalo

                  When Jesus was preaching to his disciples, he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. When some of them began to walk away, he didn’t say to them I didn’t literally mean my flesh and blood. I meant it as a symbol. No, he let them walk away. Secondly, Jesus always explained his parables and teachings to his Apostles. The apostles didn’t ask him what he meant and Jesus did not give them a further meaning to it.

                  • Which is a very poor argument, as the same can be said for the Lord’s statement that sounded like He referred to the physical temple of stone being destroyed, which was used against Him in His trial.

                    Nor was “living water” given any clear explanation other than inferring it was believing on the Lord, nor what born of the Spirit meant, other than inferring it was believing on the Lord, but which is also the case in Jn. 6.

                    And as with the other cases, it is in the light of more Scripture that this meaning is made clear, and in which, as said,nowhere is spiritual life obtained anywhere in Scripture by literally consuming anything physical, let alone human flesh.

                    Case dismissed.

                    • jacobhalo

                      You can’t dispute what I wrote.

                    • If referring to the blurb that lacks paragraphs, as i recall it was hardly worth reading, and was mere argument by assertion, with with 14 other responses waiting for me, why bother with such as yours? Deal with what i have said and i will try to get back to you.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      “Case dismissed.”

                      Pope Peace By Jesus I of the Church of the Holy Redeeming Falsities Bar and Grille (congregants: 1) has spoken ex cathedra!!

                      Now here’s the problem, PBJ. Down the street from your Protestant community Pope King of the Reformation I has started his own community of bible luvin’ believers in the old dry cleaners building next to the Chinese Restaurant. I showed Pope Reformation I all your postings on John 6 and he chuckled saying “This guy’s completely wrong, my Protestant interpretation Is the correct one!”

                      So now I’m really confused, PBJ. Protestant Pope Reformation I is interpreting John 6 completely different from you!

                      Which one of you Protestant pope’s is right, and which one is wrong? You both have completely different interpretations of scripture…..you both can’t be right, right?!

                      Or are both of you completely wrong??

                    • You Roman rant has just nullified any credibility you may have hoped to convey with your screen name.

                      Sounds a little like the variety of varying churches in Rv. 2+3, none of which were reminded about Peter and submitting to him as supreme, nor in any church epistles.

                      Go find how souls discerned John the Baptist and others as being of God without the magisterium approving them, and being a remnant of believers among the multitudes.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      And of course…..as always….you didn’t answer my question.

                • AugustineThomas

                  You’re working against yourself. Christ said “DO this in memory of me” when he showed the apostles how to give Holy Communion.
                  Eating of his body and blood is a direct reference to the Jewish sacrifice of the lamb. This sacrifice was the central aspect of Jewish life, dedicating God’s people to him.
                  The reason it is the center of Christian life is because this is the way we dedicate ourselves to Christ, which is what God the Father wants. This is the entire purpose of Christ’s teaching. It is the way we fulfill the greatest of the commandments, which is to love God with all of our hearts.
                  NOWHERE does Christ speak of one’s limited, self-contradictory interpretation of scripture as the center of Christian life. Christ acknowledged the temple and the Church is a representation of that. It’s absurd to suggest that he meant some New Age understanding of all believers who are “born again” and not an actual community.
                  Why would God create a world full of communities and then desire some non-community full of hundreds of millions of Protestants all with completely different interpretations of scripture??

                • RufusChoate

                  You know I think I will trust the testimony of the actual Saints over the inference that the Church went into error immediately after the Apostolic age and waited for a motley collection of northern European heretic to rediscover it 1500 years later while they engaged in the despoiling of Christendom for personal profit and power.

                  The odd thing is that the majority of the 16th Century Protestant heretics would probably burn you and your 21st Century ilk as Heretics before the Church bothered to pay you any mind, of course only after they robbed you of all your valuables.

                  • ou know I think I will trust the testimony of the actual Saints

                    But upon what basis is a “saint” determined?

                    And seeing as Rome’s doctrines do not have the unanimous consent of the fathers, who sometimes disagreed with each other and Rome, then what is the basis for the validity of the church?

                    Can both men and writings of God by corrected judged to be so without an infallible magisterium?

                    Upon what basis did common people rightly judge that what the historical magisterium consider to be itinerant preachers were men of God, and that they writings they invoked were of God?

                    If an infallible magisterium was essential for assured discernment of Truth than the NT church could not be valid, nor if being the historical stewards of Divine revelation and its promises meant that such is that magisterium.

                    But if the church began by itinerant preachers establishing their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the premise of assured veracity as per Rome, than the church is God is invalid.

                    northern European heretics to rediscover it 1500 years later

                    That attitude of proud elitist men dismissing itinerant preachers and those who believed them is just what the church began under.

                    The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? (John 7:46-48)

                    The odd thing is that the majority of the 16th Century Protestant heretics would probably burn you

                    Hardly, but if so where did they learn that but Rome? Do you affirm papal sanction of torture of suspects “heretics” and even witnesses, and of killing those whom it convicted, and requiring Catholic rulers to do so? Or was obedience to the pope using contemporary means of dealing with theological dissent wrong?

            • Show me in scripture where Christ refers to churches divided against each other, warring with each other instead of converting the nations.

              You mean like as seen in the wars btwn traditional RCs with the invectives against modern RCs, and variety of beliefs among those Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death?

              And which fruit and treatment testifies to what Rome really believes, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) and interprets herself, versus mere official statements.

              And which is in addition to the animosity btwn RCs and EOs below the surface among many devout.

              Meanwhile those who hold most strongly to the basic Reformation distinctive of the supremacy of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired word of God (within its literary forms) testify to far greater unity in key basic beliefs and values overall than those Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death.

              And of an essential unity of the Spirit due to a common conversion and Scripture-based relationship, and which transcends the external divisions and differences. And is manifest in the multitudes of ministries of shared worship and service.

              Not that it is like the NT church, but Rome stands in such basic contrast to that it is an invisible church in Scripture.

              • AugustineThomas

                You have no basis for your “invisible church” fantasy. It is so absurd to suggest that Protestants, who completely disagree with each other about every basic point of theology, somehow make up a unified “invisible church”.

                The Eastern Orthodox went into schism. Many Catholics have tried to destroy the Church from within. Protestants became heretics and led much of the modern world to apostasy.
                None of these wrongs make a right.

                Only those who stick to the Church which Christ founded and gave authority over to St. Peter are in the right in this regard.
                There is a reason that Protestant churches rise up and die while the Church which Christ founded continues on. Only the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit.

                God the Father gave us Christ and Christ gave us the Church. Scripture is simply the rules by which we should worship God and facilitate the Church.
                You guys worship your flawed interpretations of scripture over the Church which Christ gave us and the Church’s interpretation which is the only interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit.
                Based on your belief in Christ our Lord, you are afforded some grace, but you have not come to the fullness of truth because you cling to your flawed interpretations and are more concerned with being right than with following Christ.

                Notice how no two of you can even agree on a theology–every Protestant is an island with a one-man church on it. Many Catholics aren’t faithful to the teachings of the Church, but that doesn’t change the fact that Christ founded ONE Church. All that means is that those heretical Catholics are being disobedient, just like Protestants and schismatic Eastern Orthodox.

                • You posts are more of argument-by-assertion rants and hardly warrant response, and or are have been dealt with already by me in the many many posts i responded to so far in this very long thread, which you show little evidence of reading and less of considering.

                  You have no basis for your “invisible church” fantasy. It is so absurd to suggest that Protestants, who completely disagree with each other..

                  Then you did not read why i said, which is that the one true church can only be the body of Christ since only it consists of 100% believers, which the visible church has never remained so or without error for long. But that Rome is basically an invisible church in Scripture, as the NT church,

                  Which church,

                  1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

                  2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

                  3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord’s supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord’s supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal .

                  4. Never had any pastors titled “priests” as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

                  5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles (“Most Reverend Eminence,” “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

                  6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

                  7. Never taught that Peter was the “rock” of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or “stone” (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome’s current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers ” concur with.)

                  8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

                  9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

                  10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

                  11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC “baptism”) in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory , commencing at death.

                  12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

                  13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

                  14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an “unknown god”) is the same as theirs.

                  15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

                  16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. “our Mother who art in Heaven”) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

                  17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

                  • an almost almighty demigoddess to whom “Jesus owes His Precious Blood” to,

                  • whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

                  • who “had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,”

                  • and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and “was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,”

                  • and whose power now “is all but unlimited,”

                  • for indeed she “seems to have the same power as God,”

                  • “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,”

                  • so that “the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse.”

                  • and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,”

                  • for indeed saints have “but one advocate,” and that is Mary, who “alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,”

                  • Moreover, “there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,”

                  • and who has “authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,”

                  • including “assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,”

                  • whom the good angels “unceasingly call out to,” greeting her “countless times each day with ‘Hail, Mary,’ while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,”

                  • and who (obviously) cannot “be honored to excess,”

                  • and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose “honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation.” Sources and more

                  .

                • 1. The Pharisees were not an “office.” They were a sect, or party of Judaism…Christ didn’t affirm them in Mt.23

                  Actually, Christ affirmed that they sat in the seat of Moses, and were to be generally obeyed. But like Rome, they presumed of themselves a level of veracity above that which was written.

                  If Christ ratified the Lw, Prophets, and Psalms in Lk.24, doesn’t that exclude the New Testament books? Who approved them?

                  You keep asking the same question i keep answering. Why won’t you see what refutes you? As both men and writings of God were established as authoritative (due to their Divine qualities and attestation without an assuredly infallible magisterium (henceforth referred to as AIM), and sometimes in dissent from the official magisterium , then then an AIM was not essential.

                  These became established with the overall consent of the faithful, and those who belong to the church that affirmed the most historically disputed books are those who testify to having the least heart to read Scripture.

                  Survey shows Bible reading was most likely among those who attend a Pentecostal church (75%) and least likely among those who frequent the Catholic (23%), Episcopal (30%) and Lutheran (32%) churches. And now Catholics report the lowest proportion of strongly affiliated followers among major American religious traditions.

                  Christ agreed with the Pharisees’ canon, a mere assertion on your part.

                  The strongest evidence shows the apocryphal books were not included in the Hebrew Canon of Jesus day. The Palestinian canon from before the earliest (late century) conciliar lists Roman Catholics point to is held by many as being identical to the Protestant Old Testament, differing only in the arrangement and number of the books.

                  [Josephus] also limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that “(Jewish) history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.”

                  “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time….” – Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)

                  Also in support of the Jewish canon excluding the apocrypha we also have Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-AD 40) who never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired, though he prolifically quoted the Old Testament and recognized the threefold division.

                  While other have different opinions, in the Tosfeta (supplement to the Mishnah) it states, “…the Holy Spirit departed after the death of Haggai, Zecharaiah, and Malachi. Thus Judaism defined the limits of the canon that was and still is accepted within the Jewish community.” Once that limit was defined, there was little controversy. Some discussion was held over Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but the core and bulk of the OT was never disputed. (Tosfeta Sota 13.2, quoted by German theologian Leonhard Rost [1896-1979], Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)

                  The available historical evidence indicates that in the Jewish mind a collection of books existed from at least 400 B.C. in three groups, two of them fluid, 22 (24 by another manner of counting) in number, which were considered by the Jews from among the many other existing books as the only ones for which they would die rather than add to or take away from them, books which they considered veritably from God…The Apocrypha are not included. (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rev-henry/11_apocrypha_young.pdf)

                  Although some apocryphal books contain a few texts which correspond to New Testament ones, this is also true of some works which are found outside the apocrypha, which the Bible sometimes quotes from. (Acts 17:28; Jude 1:14) Texts from the apocrypha were occasionally quoted in early church writings, and were considered worthy reading even if not included as Scripture, but the apocrypha was not accepted in such early O.T. lists as that of Melito (AD 170) bishop of the church in Sardis, an inland city of Asia Minor, who gives a list of the Hebrew canon, minus Esther, and makes no mention of any of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books:

                  Also, Saint Peter established the Church in Rome in the mid-to-late A.D. 40s. This is alluded to by Paul in Romans 15:20 ( c.A.D. 58)…So, the Jewish canon was “not settled long before a of imperial Rome took form.”,

                  That is absurd, and a classic example of desperate RCs compelling Scripture to support Rome as its servant, not its master. In stating “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation,” (Romans 15:20) Paul is referring to preaching the gospel to the lost, imparting some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established. (Romans 1:11)

                  And rather than referring to this being a church established by pope Peter, Paul never mentions Peter, even among the 26 acquaintances he greets in cp. 16, and even though his purpose is to establish them in the faith, “to stablish you according to my gospel,” “made known to all nations for the obedience of faith”! (Rm. 16:25, 26)

                  In addition, the church of Rome stands in such contrast to the NT church as to basically render it insensible in the NT!

                  in Mt.16, Christ changes Peter’s name from Simon bar Jonah to Kephas,

                  As said, the linguistically debate between RCs and Prots is endless and ongoing, while the only one that is said to be the foundational rock and stone of the church, and repeatedly so, is Christ, Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) and that it is by faith in Him, the faith expressed by Peter, and not by looking to Peter as being an infallible head, that the believer and the church overcomes.

                  There is plenty of evidence that the LXX contained the deuterocanonicals, which I laid out in another reply. Scholars agree that latest of the deuterocanonicals (e.g., 1&2 Mac.) existed by the early Second Century to late First Century, B.C . To argue otherwise is ludicrous

                  Rather, what is most ludicrous is to equate the deuterocanonicals having been written with them being in the LXX from the beginning, or to imagine that the extant LXX manuscripts were written by Jews, or date even close to the NT, or even that they were uniform, or that even being included in some LXX manuscripts means they were held as canonical.

                  G. T. Manley notes: “[These books] do not appear to have been included at first in the LXX [third-second centuries B.C.], but they found their way gradually into later copies, being inserted in places that seemed appropriate” (1962, 39).

                  F. F. Bruce contended that there “is no evidence that these books were ever regarded as canonical by any Jews, whether inside or outside Palestine, whether they read the Bible in Hebrew or in Greek” (1950, 157). https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/111-apocrypha-inspired-of-god-the

                  Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

                  The source of your copy & paste is wrong.

                  That was easy, an RC has spoken so the matter is settled? Your source even parrots the old “council of Jamnia” theory as if it was fact, when there was not a council, and even a researcher of your own states, “The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.” Gary Michuta http://www.handsonapologetics.com/DeuteroQuestions/Was%20There%20A%20Council%20At%20Jamnia.doc

                  You keep repeating yourself, but, that doesn’t make what you write true. Souls couldn’t “be assured” until Christ founded His Church, protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

                  Absolutely in-credible. So the Holy Spirit should have said, And the woman said to Elijah, “Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth” (1 Kings 17:24) – because the church of Rome has told me so!

                  Likewise, “The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou” (Daniel 2:47) wast approved by Rome.”

                  Or, “all counted John, that he was a prophet indeed,” (Mark 11:32) for Rome ordained him.

                  “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:69) because we know Rome will tell us so.

                  You are simply reading too much of your own propaganda. Nor does Rome settle a matter as the apostles could, as she has neither the Scriptural substantiation in word or in power.

                  The Apostles won converts by their preaching and wondrous deeds, i.e., miracles. Not from any written Scriptures of the New Testament,

                  But they did not cure RC blindness, as in fact they abundantly referenced the OT, while the miracles are also part of Scriptural substantiation, as the manner of attestation given them that confirmed the word had its validating precedent in the OT, in which Moses was affirmed by God as His spokesmen, and thus the Law. And thus the Truth claims of the Lord and His apostles and church were established upon both types of Scriptural substantiation, as was the NT.

                  In contrast is Rome presuming to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus the basis for the veracity of RC teachings is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and Rome even holds that the arguments behind an infallible are not infallible, but their veracity is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

                  And, we come full circle, in your circular reasoning.

                  Rather, it was already made evident that the only circular reasoning is that of Rome’s, and thus the desperately recourse in trying to charge me with Rome’s reasoning.

                  Little more needs to be said to you, and i have 14 more responses to go to.

            • dougpruner

              Paul also: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”. I read my history, from Catholic and other sources. The Catholic Encyclopedia in particular is a record of disagreements- often with fatal outcomes- in “the early Church”. Start with Quartodecimians.

            • Michael Dooley

              I seem to remember that there are more than a few pages in history telling stories of thousands of Catholics warring against and killing other thousands of Catholics long before the first Protestant walked the earth.

          • msmischief

            On the contrary, you are explicitly told by the Bible that Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation.

            • dougpruner

              As I wrote above, “someone will tell me I need to pray to “ever-virgin” Mary as a mediatrix. I read1 Tim 2:5, “For there is one God, and one
              mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
              Not a matter of personal interpretation; “one mediator” is plain language. And it must be so, if indeed Jesus came to earth to “bear witness unto the truth” (John 18:37). There are secrets that God keeps to himself until it’s time to reveal them. There are no “mysteries” that ‘no one can understand’ or ‘that only the Pope can know’. Jesus assured us of this at John 17:3, “And eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Note that we cannot have eternal life without knowledge, and that knowledge comes from Jesus and his Father (two separate persons, BTW). John himself said, “No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” (Again, two separate people.) If we can’t get that knowledge without a “magisterium” then Jesus was joking in his ‘deathbed prayer’. Do you think so?

          • jacobhalo

            The Catholic church was founded by Jesus (God). The protestant churches were found by men. Many who were former Catholics e.g. Luther.

            • dougpruner

              Jacob, John 17:3- two separate people.
              Rev 3:12- Jesus himself has a God, it seems, even in his present exalted and glorified position.
              1 Cor 15:28- and he will always be subservient to that God.

          • jacobhalo

            Jesus told the apostles, “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. What you loose on earth will loose in heaven.” He gave the Apostles ( an unbroken line to our present day priests) the right to interpret His words.

            • dougpruner

              Spend some time, please, with the Catholic Encyclopedia. “Unbroken line” is far from the truth.

        • Your comparison is invalid as your definition of Protestant is so wide that a Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Eugene Swedenborg, l. Ron Hubbard, John Shelby Spong 747 can land in it.

          A valid comparison would be btwn the basis for unity, that of Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired word of God with its immutable moral laws, which supremacy was the most foundational distinctive of the Reformation, versus the church being the supreme authoritative source as possessing perpetual assured veracity.

          Under which one can Scriptural unity be obtained? And under which one do we see the strongest unity in core beliefs, in accordance with that basis for belief?

          • Objectivetruth

            “Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired word of God”

            Once again……how do you know the New Testament books/epistles are inspired?

            • Once again tell me how souls could know both men and writings were of God before there was a magisterium that presumed assured infallibility. Then stop asking questions that betray arrogance and ignorance of Scripture.

              • Objectivetruth

                Cute……you’re playing one of the Classic Protestant “gotcha” games, which quite frankly makes no sense. I’m guessing you’re trying to do the false Protestant two step that there was no organized Catholic Church before Nicaea? That there was no declared “magisterium” in the first three centuries and you are part of some secret Baptist sect that goes back to the “true” church? I’m right, aren’t I? That’s your game…..correct?

                Like I said before….I’m not going down your false rabbit hole.

                Read below from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on inspiration and sacred scriptures time for you to take the turn from your false, heretical beliefs:

                http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

                • Cute……you’re playing one of the Classic Protestant “gotcha” games, which quite frankly makes no sense

                  Actually is makes perfect sense. RCs are simply presuming what not Scriptural, and which premise essentially nukes the NT church.

                  That there was no declared “magisterium” in the first three centuries and you are part of some secret Baptist sect That there was no declared “magisterium” in the first three centuries and you are part of some secret Baptist sect

                  No, your conclusion does not follow the premise. The church began in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture, but the one true church is that which is made of all and only believers, past and present, and even can include some simple RCs. But its visible manifestation has never been 100% true believers and 100% correct for long, and comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized.

                  Yet even the church of the Laodiceans was called a church, even if Rome refuses to call the most conservative Prot churches by that name.

                  • msmischief

                    Paul teaches that schismatics will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.

                    That’s Scripture.

              • msmischief

                Since the magisterium started at Pentecost, why is this a problem?

                • Because that magisterium began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

                  And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

          • msmischief

            And how can you exclude those people from your definition? They claimed the Bible as well as you, unless you have some kind of authority to rule them out.

            • Actually, none of them held Scripture to be the supreme authority as the wholly inspired word of God, but even those who used Scripture effective presented another source and or themselves as the supreme authority, and or denied it as the wholly inspired word of God. Thus evangelical Christianity has historically treated them as cults.

              We can go thru them one by one if you want.

              • msmischief

                “none of them held Scripture to be the supreme authority as the wholly inspired word of God”

                So what? You’re not Pope, you don’t get to declare that a required doctrine.

                • Neither were the Bereans who examined the apostles Truth claims in the light of Scripture being supreme, and whom the Holy Spirit called “noble.” And who does not teach Rome has that supreme authority anywhere.

          • DE-173

            Wordy for a guy that needs to write “RC” instead of Catholic.

            By the way, there’s over 20 other rites in Communion with Rome, so stop excluding the Byzantines, Melkites and the rest of our flock.

            All these denominations claiming to be “sola scriptura” and in wild, wild disagreement.

    • When discussing scripture with a Catholic, always plant the seed: Did Jesus give us a Church based upon the veracity of what is written, or on the premise of the assured veracity of the stewards of Divine revelation?

      The answer of course is that Jesus established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church (Mt.
      22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12;
      15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) – not
      the premise of the stewards of Scripture being a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium,
      regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.

      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. Then opened he their understanding, that they might
      understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

      • Objectivetruth

        “Only Scripture is a manifest actual form of revelation that is wholly inspired of God, and thus is the assured word of God, by which all Truth claims are judged and established upon Scriptural substantiation.”

        How do you know the established scripture is “inspired.” And how do you know the Book of Hermes, the Discipline of the Apostles, the Didache, are not?

        Why do I feel I’m about to go down a rabbit hole here with no bottom…..

        • Do you actually read responses or just parrot refuted arguments as if they were not?

          The answer will found when you tell me how souls could know established scriptures were “inspired” of God and thus heeded Christ who referenced them before there was church of Rome that presumed it was essential to know this.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            PBJ,
            Christ never referenced the book of Judges, or Ruth, or Esther, or Ezra, or Nehemiah. Nor, did any other New Testament author. Are these books not Scripture, “inspired” of God?

            • Even if not all referenced, it remains Scripture was the standard, thus further writings that were established as Scripture would be, following the pattern of before, and the issue becomes how even the books that were referenced became established as Scripture.

              And as both men and writing of Gods were established without an assuredly infallible magisterium then that is not essential. Rome herself went over 1400 years after the last book was penned before she provided an indisputable canon.

              And as said above, Rome can decree what she wills as often as she may like, but the establishment of both men and writing of God was essentially due to their Heavenly qualities and attestation. The powers that be are to confirm that, but they are what they are even if not. Thus the church began in dissent from the magisterium.

              If an infallible magisterium is necessary for this then how could souls hold that John “was a prophet indeed,” as was the Christ He pointed to?

              Likewise how could souls assuredly know prophets before them were of God? How can you assuredly know Rome is the one true church? Because she says so? And if you can know that based upon evidence,, why cannot we know assuredly know Scripture is of God?

              Time to sleep. God night

              • Nick_from_Detroit

                PBJ,
                Wrong. The Catholic Church provided an indisputable canon at the end of the Fourth Century, A.D. While some bishops argued against some books included on the list, and others wanted rejected books included (the Eastern Orthodox consider Psalm 151 canonical), the vast majority of the Catholic Church accepted it until Lutheranism ripped out the Deuterocanonicals. Luther also wanted to get rid of James & the Apocalypse, but succumbed to pressure.
                Was that decision infallible?

                • Wrong. The Catholic Church provided an indisputable canon at the end of the Fourth Century, A.D. While some bishops argued against some books included on the list, and others wanted rejected books included (the Eastern Orthodox consider Psalm 151 canonical), the vast majority of the Catholic Church accepted it until Lutheranism ripped out the Deuterocanonicals.

                  Wrong as your roman reasoning is contradictory. You simply cannot have an indisputable canon while allowing scholarly dispute for over a millennium!

                  Luther also wanted to get rid of James & the Apocalypse, but succumbed to pressure.Was that decision infallible?

                  Actually, following a precedent of Jerome, he did not hold James as Scripture proper, and so included it in Bible in a separate section, and referenced it for support in some of his sermons.

                  As for Rev, his judgment of it as not being fit to be called Scripture mellowed, but said, “Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25.  For our part, we still share this doubt. By that,
                  however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses.

                  And no, Luther’s judgment on these were not binding, for like ancients before him, and whose opinions Luther considered, his views were in the process of development. Yet nor was Rome’s canon indisputable for over 1400 years after the last book was penned. Even the EO canon is not exactly the same.

                  But seeing as truth and faith continued and the church began with both men and writings of God having been est. as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), then such is not essential.

                  The page to see on Luther’s canon is here,, and on Luther quote please (!) search here before pasting such from RC apologetics.

                  • Nick_from_Detroit

                    PBJ,
                    The Canon of Scripture was indisputable, in so far as it closed the number of books authorized to be read during the Liturgy of the Word, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to the 73 we all know. As I’ve previously stated. This list of authorized books was completed in the late Third & early Fourth Century, A.D.

                    Except for the various heresies that cropped up over the centuries, the Catholic dioceses around the world followed this list. If some bishops refused to use some books, like the Apocalypse or Baruch, because they questioned their canonicity, that’s okay. Questioning the inspiration of some of the books and refusing to use them in the liturgy is different than using books not authorized for use. That is what was not disputed.

                    • And just where do you see an infallible liturgical list? From this: “As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” – Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon

                      What is indisputable is that there was no indisputable canon that Luther as well as some RC scholars questioned or dissented from.

                  • Nick_from_Detroit

                    Continued,
                    Luther called James’ letter “an epistle of straw.” If he hadn’t received push-back, he would have excised it from Scripture. Is that how we determine what is the inspired word of God? By popular pressure? Or, by democracy?
                    Luther wan’t to get rid of James because it contradicted his main tenet, i.e., that we are saved by faith alone (he added the word “alone” to his German translation, by the way). James says that we are NOT saved by faith alone (Jam. 2:24). He also wanted to throw out Hebrews & Jude, and his followers did for over a century. What authority did they have to do this?
                    Luther wasn’t the only one with a problem with the Apocalypse. Calvin and Zwingli didn’t consider it Scripture, either.
                    This is what happens when you build your house on sand, instead of the Rock, Kephas, that Christ built His Church on, of Whom He is the Cornerstone. God Bless!

                    • Luther called James’ letter “an epistle of straw.” If he hadn’t received push-back, he would have excised it from Scripture.

                      Where do you get this stuff? Do you ever dare read more than Catholic apologists? The “epistle of straw” is spoken in comparison with gospel preaching epistles, yet the fact is that Luther did reject James as Scripture proper, like some ancients, and never is shown as changing this stance.

                      In keeping with an early Christian tradition, Luther included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament in his translation. He appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’?

                      And like some others who also rejected some apocryphal books, Luther quoted from James in sermons.

                      Luther wan’t to get rid of James because it contradicted his main tenet, i.e., that we are saved by faith alone

                      He also had reasons shared by those before him, while the seeming contradiction of Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4:1-7ff was not his only objection:

                      “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients,1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

                      In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15.”

                      “In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

                      (he added the word “alone” to his German translation, by the way).

                      Which is another example of uncritically parroting RC polemics, referring to Rm. 3:28; as they will never tell you that, as it was also used by many Catholic writers before him there, including Aquinas. The Roman Catholic writer Joseph Fitzmyer verified Luther’s claim, and also presented quite an extensive list of those previous to Luther doing likewise. Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. And within Romanism no dogmatic interpretation of the verse existed in Luther’s time or before, thus allowing theologians the freedom to interpret or translate the verse. Dare to read substantiation from the other side.

                      And as an honest translator, Luther freely admitted the word “only” does not appear in the original Greek at Romans 3:28. He never sought to have the word added into any ancient manuscript. He states, “I know very well that in the original text this word does not occur. Nevertheless it belongs in any good German translation… Whenever we place two things in opposition and want to make clear that we acknowledge or accept the one and reject the other, we use the word ‘only.’ ‘The farmer brings no money but corn only.’

                      But the word “alone” (and the concept of “alone”) found in James 2:16 was not removed. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/07/debate-did-martin-luther-mistranslate.html

                      He also did not marginalized the necessity of works if one had saving faith, but as with many other Reformers, he excluded faith as salvific if it had no works.

                      “When James and Paul say that a man is justified by works, they argue against the false opinion of those who think that a faith suffices that is without works. Paul does not say that true faith exists without its proper works, for without these there is no true faith.” [Commentary on Romans (Michigan: Kregel, 1976), 75] http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/01/luther-on-book-of-jamesrevisted.html.

                      He also wanted to throw out Hebrews & Jude, and his followers did for over a century. What authority did they have to do this?

                      Even from a Catholic POV, since the canon was demonstrably open to debate, he had the same right other Catholics before him had in doubting them, and in developing theology. And as Rome herself is invalidated in presuming supremacy over Scripture and to declare that she possesses assured infallibility, thus she can be corrected by the weight of Scriptural substantiation, as the NT church began by so doing and establishing authority in dissent from the seat of Moses.

                      But get a little education on Luther and the canon before you display more carelessness.

                      Luther wasn’t the only one with a problem with the Apocalypse. Calvin and Zwingli didn’t consider it Scripture, either. This is what happens when y ou build your house on sand, instead of the Rock.

                      Then you also indict far greater RCs than yourself and likewise your church for allowing it till after Luther died.

                      The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation. http://www.bible-researcher.com/laodicea.html

                      Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html

                      John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole. http://www.bible-researcher.com/johnofdamascus.html

                      You won’t find the words “Triune God” in Scripture. Do you accept the Trinity?

                      So far your posts have simply resulted in more evidence against being an
                      RC, unless one wants to implicitly submit to self-proclaimed leaders.

      • Dominick

        Christ left us a Church based upon human authority in accordance with the traditions recorded in Scripture.
        I cannot think of any Catholic who does not comprehend the gravity of Scripture. There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that contradicts Scripture. While there may be doctrines that are not spelled out in succinct recipes, that does not in anyway prove them false. Which prophet was it that limited himself to reading Scripture to people?

        • There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that contradicts Scripture.

          This is simply bare argument by assertion. Of course Rome can say this, for as already said, Divine revelation and even history only is and means what Rome autocratically says it is and means.

          For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

          Thus how can it contradict here?

          See above, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/protecting-gods-word#comment-1620086833

          While there may be doctrines that are not spelled out in succinct recipes, that does not in anyway prove them false.

          True, but we are dealing with things that simply are not in Scripture and unwarranted as doctrine, or are contrary to it.

          Which prophet was it that limited himself to reading Scripture to people?

          That is not relevant, as Scripture being supreme means that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced

          And its sufficiency is not all formal, but it materially provides for such things as oral preaching, and testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    • Michael Dooley

      Gee. Let’s think
      about this. Where would I rather place my trust? In God’s perfect Word? Or in an imperfect church?

  • FrankW

    To anyone studying this subject, I recommend the book “Where We Got the Bible”, by Henry Graham. It discusses the differences in the Old Testament as well as the construction of the New Testament by the Catholic Church in the fourth and fifth centuries.

    • Martha Renner

      Michael Voris made a video called, “Where Did the Bible Come From?” and that’s a good watch. Makes some obvious points, but I don’t think Protestants notice the obvious sometimes. 😉

      • HigherCalling

        On not noticing the obvious:

        “Every great heretic had always exhibited three remarkable characteristics in combination. First, he picked out some mystical idea from the Church’s bundle or balance of mystical ideas. Second, he used that one mystical idea against all the other mystical ideas. Third (and most singular), he seems generally to have had no notion that his own favourite mystical idea was a mystical idea; at least in the sense of a mysterious or dogmatic idea. With a queer uncanny innocence, he seems always to have taken this one thing for granted. He assumed it to be unassailable, even when he was using it to assail all sorts of similar things. The most popular and obvious example is the Bible. To an impartial pagan or sceptical observer, it must always seem the strangest story in the world; that men rushing in to wreck a temple, overturning the altar and driving out the priest, found there certain sacred volumes inscribed ‘Psalms’ or ‘Gospels’, and (instead of throwing them on the fire with the rest) began to use them as infallible oracles rebuking all the other arrangements. If the sacred high altar was all wrong, why were the secondary sacred documents necessarily all right? If the priest had faked his Sacraments, why could he not have faked his Scriptures? Yet it was long before it even occurred to those who brandished this one piece of Church furniture to break up all the other Church furniture that anyone would be so profane as to examine this one fragment of the furniture itself. People were quite surprised, and in some parts of the world are still surprised, that anybody should dare to do so.”

        — GKC, The Thing: Why I Am A Catholic

  • Fred

    There was dissent during the first council of Jerusalem
    and later Nicaea nearer the time of Christ, so little surprise. Still, I find it amusing that someone 1500+
    years later has a revelation that he now knows the true intent and the early
    church had it wrong. I’m not saying
    humans are not infallible, but I’m more inclined to trust those who were closest
    to his ministry rather than someone centuries later who clearly has ulterior
    motives.

    • dougpruner

      You make a good point about the Council at Acts 15. Note, though how the discussion resulted finally in agreement on major points of doctrine. Note how the feelings and opinions of the Antiochans were honored by the leaders.
      There were other problems: Paul fought for years against the “Judaizing Christians” who wanted circumcision and other points of the Law to be brought into Christianity. Again, Paul’s view prevailed. I bring this out for those Catholics who have been taught that in-house controversies began with Luther and the proliferation of Bible translations.
      Moreover I find pre-Reformation history full of translations into other tongues than Latin: Bede for one was commended by all his peers for his work on an Anglo-Saxon translation from Latin, ca. 700 C.E.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Years ago, when prejudice was greater, some Catholic school boys wanted to caddy at the rather effete country club. If they put on the application ‘Catholic’ as religion they would not get the job so the nun slyly instructed them – put down ‘First Church of Christ’ – it certainly isn’t a lie. 30,000 and counting Protestant sects have in effect 30,000 bibles. But there is only one Bride of Christ – not a harem.

  • dougpruner

    Mr Becker writes, “The Apocrypha… as they came to be known, supported pesky Catholic doctrines that Luther and other reformers wanted to suppress—praying for the dead, for
    instance, and the intercession of the saints.”
    The case is not quite so simple. Catholics might come to the same conclusions about the Apocrypha for better reasons, just by reading Catholic material.
    For example my Jerusalem Bible has extensive introductory notes on all the books. As to Tobit, it says that the “historical” material (added, some say, to give the book ‘charm’ or something) is un-historical. The names, dates, and kingships are all made up or borrowed from other Bible books for effect, but used inaccurately. Moreover, “Raphael” says the death penalty is prescribed for those who refuse to enter into the so-called brother-in-law marriage allowed but NOT mandated in the Law of Moses. (Cf. Ruth ch. 4) Can we trust the word of an “angel” on anything, when he doesn’t know the Law as well as a human Israelite?
    First Maccabees, JB says, is used even by atheist scholars for historical research into its
    clearly-defined period. But JB says of Second Maccabees that it is useless even for that. It does indeed encourage ‘prayers for the dead’. But can the reader trust it to give accurate knowledge about unseen places like “purgatory” when the writer can’t get his secular facts straight?
    I like to use information gleaned from the Bible that we all use. Example: Pro 9:5,10: “The living are at least aware that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing whatever. No more wages for them, since their memory is forgotten… Whatever work you find to do, do it with all your might, for there is neither achievement, nor planning, nor science, nor wisdom in Sheol where you are going.” (Catholic Online NJB) This is consistent with other teachings like Gen 2:7, 17; 3:19, which show no man’s efforts can affect us for good or
    bad once we are dead.
    Isn’t this more sensible than taking one scripture out of context (shades of those pesky Jehovah’s Witnesses!!) to support a concept denied elsewhere in scripture?

    • I’ll point out the rather obvious: all human souls were once irrevocably damned to Sheol, where “no man’s efforts could affect them” save one: Jesus Christ. So of course the Hebrew scriptures treat the afterlife as utterly cut off from the living (in line with ancient Mesopotamian views on death in general) — for the dead were cut off from life until Christ harrowed Hell and restored the promise of resurrection.

      • dougpruner

        It’s difficult to follow your reasoning.
        “the Hebrew scriptures” are the ones Jesus had and taught from. In the account of the death and resurrection of his friend Lazarus he taught that death is like sleep, not a condition of activity. “The wages of sin is death”, not life somewhere else. Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin- all teach the same. As the OP says, “God’s Word”, not God’s words.
        “ancient Mesopotamian views on death in general” are irrelevant here, in a discussion of the Bible. (Please see the OP)

        The dead are cut off from life unless and until resurrected, or brought back to life. This is taught by Jesus, and by the angel sent to Daniel. See esp. 12:2,13. Ever since the lie told at Gen 3- “you will not die”- people have sought a way out of the plain Bible teaching. There is none. Adam died “and returned to the dust”, and so has every sinner since. The only hope is to be remembered by Jesus at the general resurrection. That means, as Jesus taught, “It is not anyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven.” And, as my other citations show, that means doing God’s will now. It can’t be done after death.

        • jacobhalo

          The difference that the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. As Jesus said to the Jews, “If you don’t believe that I am He, you will die in your own sins.”

          • dougpruner

            And, according to Genesis, we all die in our own sins. So, what do you think was Jesus’ point in saying this at that time to that group?

        • Rod

          dougpruner; If your point is that at death one’s “fate is sealed” then you will get no argument from Catholic doctrine, for the eternal destiny of all is not changed AFTER death. I believe but am not sure that you may believe that purgatory is a limbo state the end of which may be eternal death or eternal damnation. This of course is not correct. All souls in purgatory are heaven-bound. The Sctriptural support for the doctrine is extensive. I’ll leave you to investigate more. If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize.

          • dougpruner

            I don’t subscribe to the purgatory doctrine, and that’s because of the Bible teachings I quoted earlier. The dead are dead. The dead are not alive. The dead cannot ‘be bound for heaven’. The dead cannot benefit from prayers by the living. The dead know nothing. The dead are nonexistent. Where is Adam?

            “Sctriptural (sic) support for [purgatory] is extensive” You can make a good start in that support by showing us a scripture that contains the word. (I failed to find it even in 2 Maccabees, but I’m old; perhaps your eyes are better.)
            My scriptural support is in my other posts. Although IMO the only one needed is Gen 2:17- unless God is a liar.
            We all fear death, but wishful thinking won’t take it away. Only ‘doing the will of the Father’- while alive- will remove death, in the end. Unless Jesus is a liar. 1 Cor 15:26.

            • I’ve noticed that you haven’t addressed a key Gospel passage that demonstrates quite clearly that Christ understood there to be an afterlife of heaven or hell — the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16. Is there a reason you ignore our Lord’s own words on the matter?

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          Sorry, Mr. Pruner, Christ taught otherwise.
          He told His disciples that they wouldn’t get out of prison until the last penny was paid (Lk.12:59). Before that, He told them if He comes back to find a servant not doing His Will, he’ll receive a severe beating, as opposed to the faithful & unfaithful servants (Lk.12:35-48). Christ also talked about Lazarus & the rich man, who saw Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom (Lk.16:19-31). He also said that those who sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this world or the next (Mt.12:32).
          Ss. Peter & Paul also speak about Purgatory, cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15; Phil. 2:10; 2 Tim. 1:16-18; 1 Peter 1:6-7; 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6.
          Christ said, speaking of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, “He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” God Bless!

          • dougpruner

            Nick! My man! My homeboy! What up? Long time no see!
            In order: 1 Cor 3:10-15. Relevance?
            Php 2:10 is clearly after the resurrection of those deserving of life. Otherwise all the other OT and NT scriptures teaching ‘death means death’ are invalid. Paul says the word of God cannot be made invalid.
            2 Tim 1:16-18. Relevance?
            1 Pet 1:6,7. Relevance?
            1 Pet 3:19. Please tell me what you think is the identity of those “spirits in prison”. And what/where is that “prison”? There are many differing ideas; ask the LDS what they think about it and 1 Pet 4:6. Very much like the RCC view. ‘the dead are not dead’.
            1 Pet 4:6. Again: can’t be talking about those who have died previously. The know nothing. Eph 2:1,2 show that the scriptural view considered sinners like Paul and his readers and Peter to HAVE BEEN dead in their sins. That’s what Jesus said to the hesitant one at Lu 9: “Another to whom he said, ‘Follow me,’ replied, ‘Let me go and bury my father first.’ But he answered, ‘Leave the dead to bury their dead; your duty is to go and spread the news of the kingdom of God.’ ”
            So Christians teach the good news of God’s kingdom to such dead ones down to this day. You do, don’t you? Your God said it’s your duty.
            And BTW what do you think is “the kingdom of God”?

            • Nick_from_Detroit

              Hello, Mr. Pruner. Have we corresponded before? I’m sorry, I don’t recall.
              Now, you did not go in order. You skipped over Christ’s own words. Why is that? Was Christ wrong? Is God the God of the dead?

              1 Cor 3:10-15 is pretty straight-forward. The faithful who die in a state of grace (builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones) will survive the purging, purifying fire (purgatorium & infernorum in Latin). Those who still deserve the temporal punishment required for justice, because of their sins (builds with wood, straw, whose work is burned up) “will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved.”
              The Greek katachthonios (under the earth), in Phil. 2:10 (infernorum in the Latin Vulgate), is the underworld, Hades, Sheol, the abode of the dead. I.e., Purgatory.
              Saint Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in the past-tense, in 2 Tim 1:16-18, and then prays for him. If he has died, and no longer exists, why would Paul pray for him?
              I could go on, if you wish. Do you need explanations for the rest?

              Those in the prison are the righteous dead, like Abraham, in Sheol. Those who are spiritually dead due to sin are different than those physically dead. The reason Christ told the man not to worry about burying his father is because He was trying to tell him that He would soon be gone. Time was of the essence. Christ was about to “set His face to go to Jerusalem” (Lk.9:51).
              The Kingdom of God is the New Testament in Christ’s Blood, the Holy Eucharist, which is administered by His Bride, the Church, through His ordained ministers, and It binds the Body of Christ into one Lord, one faith, one baptism. God Bless!

              • DE-173

                Dougpruner’s prose resembles the prose of an other multi-pseudonomical character, “Nestorian” aka ” “Assyrian Church of the East”. Maybe you had a discourse under those names?

                • Nick_from_Detroit

                  DE-173,
                  Perhaps. My memory isn’t great when it comes to those I’ve jousted with, over the years, in the comboxes, I’m afraid. Oh well.
                  This moniker only goes back a few months, and argues pretty much the same errors as in these threads.
                  Thanks for the heads-up, though. God Bless!

                  • DE-173

                    No problem. We watch each other’s back.

              • dougpruner

                “Those who still deserve the temporal punishment required for justice”
                The. Wages. Of. Sin. Is. Death. Not the “words of Jesus”, but the Word of God.
                “until the last penny was paid”. An illustration, not literal, as seen from a cursory examination. First, how does someone in God’s prison earn pennies? That was one fault of the egregious debtors’ prison system, no longer considered civilized behavior. Second, “without a parable he spake not unto them.” Mt 13; the whole passage is useful.
                BTW there are two Lazaruses (Lazari?). The one ‘in Abraham’s bosom’ is illustrative (the meaning and the lesson is contained in the last line); the relative of Martha and Mary is real. Do you recall what that one said upon being resurrected from Hell or Heaven or Purgatory? He must have said, ‘Gee, thanks for the Get Out Of Hell Free card!’ or ‘Hey! I was just getting used to Heaven! Thanks a bunch!’
                Of course if he was unconscious in the grave for four days (Ec 9:5,10) then he would have had nothing to say.
                We have corresponded before, but no longer.

            • Objectivetruth

              Where do you get your (dougpruner) authority from that you are interpreting scripture correctly, and the Catholic Church is wrong? Did Christ give you personally the power to “bind and loose?”

            • Nick_from_Detroit

              Yoo-hoo? Where’d you go, Mr. Pruner?

        • The reference to Mesopotamian views on death confirms your point by placing Jewish views in a cultural context that did, indeed, see death as non-existence, or at least as a state wholly cut off from the living. The key, however, is to understand that late inter-testamental Judaism was moving away from that towards a more Hellenistic view of the immortality of the soul, which then finds voice in the theology of resurrection in Christianity. The scriptures of the Septuagint, from which the writers of the New Testament were working, include the 1st-cen. B.C. text, “Wisdom of Solomon,” which does quite clearly distinguish between a state of damnatory death for the wicked and a state of immortal life for the righteous.

          Now, if you’re not interested in understanding the cultural contexts of both ancient Judaism and the origins of Christianity, then I’m not sure why I should care about your views on the Scriptures, given that you don’t want to acknowledge their historicity. Indeed, if that’s the direction you want to go in, then I’m afraid you’ve yanked the rug out from under a central tenet of Christianity’s incarnational theology: ours is a God who works within history as well as existing beyond it. A key implication of the Incarnation is that history matters. It is precisely the irruption of absolute divinity into corporal contingency that marks the great turning point of history, and separates an ancient Near Eastern understanding of death as absolute silence from a Christian understanding of death as a waypoint to judgement and the hope of eternal life. Christ changed the nature of human mortality–“For since by man came death, so by man came the resurrection of the dead,” and so forth.

    • DE-173

      “First Maccabees, JB says, is used even by atheist scholars for historical research into its clearly-defined period.”

      The devil CAN quote Scripture to his own ends.

      “I like to use information gleaned from the Bible that we all use.”

      Which one is that? KJ 1611 or something else?

  • kelso

    Excellent. Concise and clear. Perfect for evangelizing the evangelicals who are willing to listen. I used to tell my cousin, who left the Church and is now a Pentecostal minister, that God could speak Greek even before He inspired the New Testament in Greek. When I told him that the Septuagint had the deutero-canonical books he just looked at me totally befuddled. But, he is bliss in his ignorance and is very popular in his little community. He loves to go to the ocean in NJ and do dunk baptisms. Many of these poor people were already baptized Catholics. I have to ask him sometime if he denies the validity of Catholic baptism, infants or adults. I suspect that he denies the former. But I am also sure that he would have no problem rebaptizing a validly baptized adult. So much for the Bible and “one baptism.”

  • Howard

    “I don’t understand the deuterocanonical books,” she ventured. “If the Catholic faith is supposed to be a fulfillment of the Jewish faith, why do Catholics accept those books and the Jews don’t?”

    She is making the surprisingly common mistake of thinking that Jewish beliefs of today, or even 1900 years ago, are the same as those at the time of Christ. The conversion of a large number of Jews to Christianity had a big impact on Judaism. What we today call Judaism is not simply the fruit of the Old Testament, but a reaction against Christianity; to be blunt, it is not unlike the situation of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, because they were willing to accept some of the revelation, but not all of it. The split became almost complete after the destruction of the Temple, and it was complete by the disappointment of Simon bar Kokhba.

  • Dave

    Excellent Analysis Richard. This is a classic example of how “Sola
    Scriptura” has caused division within the Catholic and Protestant
    Churches. While Luther’s issues with
    the deuterocanonical books were an issue, maybe a more detailed explanation of
    the Council of Jamnia will help. The
    Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek by 70 Rabbi’s into what is known
    as the Septuagint (Roman for 70). This
    translation included the several “apocryphal” books and as you say
    was the bible read by Our Lord and his Apostles. However, after the Romans destroyed the Temple
    in 70 AD, the Jews figured they had had enough of foreign interference in their
    scriptures and at the council of Jamnia in 90 AD; they eliminated any book of
    Hebrew Scriptures and some partial books that were not found in the original
    Hebrew or Aramaic. So, any book only found in Greek was eliminated. This is the reason for the revision of the
    Hebrew Scripture not a theological one by Luther.

  • kelso

    Fine and dandy FredX2 but you yourself call Jefferson’s collection “unvarnished”. I appreciate your point that he did not publish a “Jefferson Bible.” That is good to know, for accuracy sake. But, in the letter to John Adams he ridicules the Gospel’s historicity. He dares to question the truthfulness of the evangelists. By what criteria does he trust their accuracy of Christ’s moral teachings when he alleges they fabricated everything else? “A dunghill,” he says of the rest of the Gospels. “We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists [“simple”? but read on] select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms [i.e., equivocations] into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding [oh, but Jefferson “understands” better than the apostles], what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves [what hubris!] There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his [ditto, what conceit!], and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds, in a dunghill.” Diamonds in a dunghill! What a conceited freethinker! He did not publish a new Bible, but he promoted a new Jesus, and mocked His apostles who he alleges made up miracles in order to deify a mere man who taught a sublime moral code.

  • accelerator

    Did it ever cross the author’s mind that Luther or Calvin were sincere versus engaged in “foisting” or a “theological con game?” Mr. Becker’s tone makes him sound like an apologetic prize fighter who is such a jerk you want to knock him out simply to keep the time you have to spend in the ring as brief as possible. “Smoke and mirrors.” Yes, Protestants are flim flam artists, right? This piece is nothing more than a Catholic version of the shrill Bible Baptist apologetic Catholics so often protest. There are plenty of viable reasons Protestants do not revere the Apocrypha. For an interested Catholic who cares to hear some — to balance this histrionic argument — Tim Stafford’s CT article “Silent Night, Violent Night,” makes helpful observations. You know, although Pope Francis has puzzled me with some of his comments, if this article represents a modern attempt at what he dismisses as “proselytization,” I get him. What you printed is pretty much Triumphalism.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      Or, to sum up what you wrote, “The truth hurts.” Is that too triumphant?

      • accelerator

        1. NFD: I believe the Church, but I often find Protestants much clearer and more courageous in proclaiming truth these days. What huts is bad apologetics. Those who think this article is something else need to diversity their reading a bit, because this will convince no one but the already converted.

        2. DE-173: I have been called many things, but not “disharmonious” and “effete.” Thank you. If you do not find the article’s rhetoric shrill, I am glad we are not arguing in person.

        3. Howard: Funny, but the Church recognizes Protestant baptisms, but not those of Moonies or Mormons (as for Moslems, who knows what Vatican II means). It amazes me how conservative Catholics are often harder on Protestants than almost any other group,when they amount of essential agreement is very high. And my point about sincerity was that we can think the Reformers were wrong with out thinking they were scoundrels, or willful deceivers, as the chosen phrases imply. It makes for fun rhetoric but not good communication.especially if we are trying to talk to people who esteem them. Or is that impossible. Also, what good is a Bible you don’t read? Protestant may not believe the Apocrypha, but I bet as a group they know more of the rest of their incomplete Bibles than most Catholics know about a single book in it.

        It may burst the superiority bubble he tries to maintain, but the bottom line is the article doesn’t even go into the methodology the Church used to determine which books made the canon cut. That’s because the point isn’t to inform, but just to say, ‘The Church said it, that settles it!’ Just because something is true doesn’t mean every defense of it is a good one. My complaint was, and is, that this one’s lousy.

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          Accelerator,
          How you have come to the conclusion that Mr. Becker’s article was offensive, or triumphant, or was hurtful to apologetics, is beyond me. All he did was lay out the historical facts. Which, by the way, most Catholics still don’t know. So, it’s not only about apologetics.

          I agree that there are Protestants who proclaim some of the Truth better than some Catholics. But, there are plenty of Catholics, and converts, who are great at spreading the Gospel. E.g., Mother Angelica, Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J., Dr. Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, etc. God Bless!

        • Howard

          @accelerator: The Church also recognized Arian baptisms. So sure, I’m willing to put Luther and Calvin into EXACTLY the same category as Arius.

    • DE-173

      “There are plenty of viable reasons Protestants do not revere the Apocrypha.”

      There are plenty of Protestants that are SINCERE in their beliefs, of course but because a belief is sincerely held doesn’t make it logical, coherent or unassailable-the elements of viability.

      Just because the counterargument is disharmonious to the effete snobs who traffic in the bland and the banal doesn’t make it “shrill”.

      Luther on the other hand was a charismatic fraud. Imagine a man who posits that humanity is inherently corrupt and then becomes indignant when he observes it, but never bothers to ask whether he himself was corrupt.

    • Howard

      Sure, just like Sun Myung Moon, Mohammed, and Joseph Smith were sincere. YES, Luther and Calvin were theological con artists. These were very intelligent, learned men, and they cannot blame an upbringing in a Protestant culture. They knew very well what they were doing, and they did it for year after year in book after book.

      If your conscience is troubled that maybe, in spite of all that, they were sincere and do not deserve harassment for spending their lives leading others less intelligent and learned than themselves into spiritual danger, then at least the same daintiness is due to Mr. Becker when he tries to lead others out of danger.

  • DE-173

    Whether or not he realized it, Luther’s ex nihilo doctrine of sola scriptura is bilioatry and makes for an Islamicized Christianity,

    • AugustineThomas

      And this is probably why Luther advocated for the murder of all Jews who refused to convert to his heresy.
      Luther didn’t want to get rid of the pope, he wanted to be pope and when he realized he couldn’t, he tried to create his own new religion, just like Muhammad.

  • Angel

    1) Pertaining to the Council Jamnia, according to biblical scholars this council never took place:

    “Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.” -Wikipedia

    2) Even if it did take place, who cares because the Jewish Council rejected Jesus as the Messiah anyway.

    3) So Luther and other clowns except the words of the Council that rejected Jesus as the Messiah??? This is how you make an argument folks!

  • jacobhalo

    Protestants use something that the Catholic church gave them-the bible.

    • Objectivetruth

      The problem is are the Protestants using the bible correctly.

  • Tee-hee

    I see there are quite a few Protestants lurking about waiting to pounce. Since I am bored, here’s a little Biblical history for them to chew on: The Letters of Paul predate the first written Gospel by nearly thirty years. It is unlikely any of the evangelists knew Christ first-hand. The Gospels were written in the following order: Mark (70 AD), Matthew and Luke (80-90 AD) and John (100 AD). Paul’s Letters were written around 54 AD, and were based on the Traditions being taught to Christians since 30 AD. Each Gospel is written with a target audience. Mark only had a list with the sayings, teachings and possible miracles of Jesus without any context. He wrote his Gospel and added the context as he was commissioned to do. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and another source historians refer to as the “Q” for their Gospels, again each one writing for a different audience as each was commissioned to do. Luke even has an introduction indicating as much! And John, well, he’s just out there! Not a single Christians until the 16th century had a complete Bible, as the canons were decided over a 1500 year span.

    • Tee-hee

      LOL. Not thirty, but twenty* is what I meant to type. LOL

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      Rod,
      Please, don’t buy into the historical-critical method and the bogus “Q” hypothesis. The “Synoptic Problem” notwithstanding, the Gospels came to us as they appear in most bibles. Matthew was probably written between A.D. 40 & 50, in Hebrew or Aramaic. His audience was his Jewish brethren.
      Mark & Luke were written sometime in the mid-to-late 50s or early 60s. Mark contained the preaching of Peter, Luke that of Paul. Peter’s (Mark’s) audience was the Romans. Paul’s (Luke’s) was the Gentiles.
      John’s Gospel was written anywhere from A.D. 60 to 95. He wrote it because his disciples wanted more information about the time between the beginning of Christ’s ministry and the arrest of the Baptist, about a year-and-half.
      If you’d like to read some fascinating stuff about the “Synoptic Problem,” read this article by Karl Keating:
      http://www.catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/a-new-solution-to-the-synoptic-problem

      God Bless!

      • Tee-hee

        Yeah? Tell that to the introduction in my fully Catholic Bible, and to the Master Catechist who has authority from the Church to give this information to impressionable students.

        Also, who the heck is “Rod?”

        And it is all very fascinating. I don’t think it will hurt the faith to have a better understanding of the Bible historically. It makes it more interesting.

        Also, seriously, who the heck is “Rod?”

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          Sorry about that. Disqus messes-up on my computer sometimes, and puts the wrong name in. It has you as “Um.No.” now. If that’s incorrect, let me know.
          And, yes, there are many Catholic scholars who have bought into the “Q” nonsense. Which is sad. I’ll stick with Eusebius, who had access to the writings of Papias and Polycarp, who knew the Apostles. Not a German scholar 1,800 years after the events happened. Okay?
          If you want to better understand this Church history, please, read Karl Keating’s essay about the late Dom Bernard Orchard, OSB, “one of the twentieth century’s top biblical scholars.”
          Here’s another site that goes into much greater depth than the article does:
          http://www.churchinhistory.org/

          Enjoy, and God bless.

          • Tee-hee

            How did Polycarp, who died in the 2nd century, know the Apostles????

            And I’m both Tee-hee and Um.No. No idea who “Rod” is, though.

            • Nick_from_Detroit

              Tee-hee,
              Easy, because Saint John lived to c. A.D. 100 and Saint Polycarp was martyred c. A.D. 155, when he was 86-years-old. Plus, Saint Irenaeus says he was taught by apostles, in his Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 3, no.4:
              http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

            • Objectivetruth

              Polycarp was born in the year 69AD.

              He was a disciple for 12 years of the apostle John, who died in the year 100.

              Do the math, idiot.

              • Nick_from_Detroit

                Objectivetruth,
                We should disagree without being disagreeable. Catch more flies with honey, and all that.
                As Saint Peter taught (1 Pt.3:15-16):
                Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

                God Bless!

                • Objectivetruth

                  OK……

  • Before I go on, I would like to state clearly that I am a Catholic, and I believe that the canon of scripture the Church has protected since the Synod of Hippo is validly the written Word of God.

    However, it is false to say that “The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity.” The truth is that before the Church confirmed these books as scripture, there was much disagreement between early authorities on what books should or shouldn’t be included in the canon of scripture: (A small sample)

    St. Melito of Sardes included Wisdom, but none of the other Deuterocanonical books in his canon (Fragments in Eusebius’ History of the Church, Bk. 4, Ch. 26)

    Origen’s Commentaries on the Psalms mention “Maccabees,” but only lists it as an addendum, saying “outside of these, there is Maccabees.” (Commentary on Psalm 1)

    Canon 60 of The Council of Laodicea (4th century) included Baruch, but left out the Apocalypse.

    St. Athanasius mentions in his festal letters that there are other “non canonical” books, but does recommend they are read, including the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and even The Shepherd of Hermas (which was also included in many other canons).

    It is among the greatest blessing of Our Lord upon the Church to settle the matter of scriptural canon once and for all for those who profess the One True Faith, but we should not pretend it was never in dispute.

    • DE-173

      And what you’ve shown is that individuals operating on their own will having varying opinions.

      By the way, that an individual didn’t include a particular book or books doesn’t necessarily indicate rejection, they may not have had access to certain books, or may have had an unreliable translation.

      • In some cases, what you have said is completely legit (as with Origen, for instance), but you did see that I included the Council of Laodicea, which was not binding on the Church at large (it seems to have been a regional or local synod), yet it’s different canon shows that these are not merely the opinions of individuals, and that different canons were in use.

        Also, St. Athanasius Festal Letter (the 39th) with the excerpt cited comes from the hand of a Bishop (around A.D. 367), meaning that the letter may have reached a fairly wide audience in his episcopate (though this cannot be confirmed from anything I know).

        Please understand me- this is not meant as an attack. We must always teach the truth, and the statement made by Mr. Becker seemingly ignores these earlier canons that were in use.

    • Thanks for your thorough, thoughtful response, Shannon. You’re certainly correct that there was plenty of disagreement among church leaders regarding the authenticity and authority of various OT texts until Trent. However, until Trent (and the Reformation) there really wasn’t a need for a definitive “canon” (or list) because nobody was really challenging the Church’s liturgical use of the deuterocanon. In other words, up until Trent, the Church’s biblical canon (as a list) was as mutable as the 1st c. Jewish canon, but there were no questions as to canonicity when it came to actual ecclesiastical use. The principle of “lex orandi, lex credendi” — the law of praying is the law of believing — is especially applicable in this regard, I think. As the Catholic Encyclopedia has it, there might’ve been plenty of academic discussions amongst theologians and scripture scholars, but in terms of liturgical practice, there was never any real question regarding the deuterocanon’s legitimacy as Holy Writ.

      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

  • Maggie Sullivan

    Shouldn’t we be more concerned about protecting God’s word from our bishops who say “bravo” to homosexuality and the bishops who want to declare adultery no longer a sin.

    • DE-173

      Yes.

      • Augustus

        It’s not either / or but both / and. We should not underestimate what Catholics are capable of–at least what the laity can do. And if we can do it, so can the bishops.

  • AugustineThomas

    I was right with you until you quoted Mark Shea. Doing that really cheapens your argument. There are countless better references you could have used to make the point that Christ gave authority to St. Peter and that should be enough for us. (For one you could have pointed to the Old Testament, wherein a Davidic king would give the keys to the kingdom to a trusted adviser when the king was leaving the kingdom on a journey, thus putting the adviser in charge while the king was away.)
    Shea is a buffoon and spends his time badmouthing anyone he disagrees with and seems to be using what tiny influence he has among gullible, Novus Ordo Catholics to divide the Church for Satan.

  • TheresaEH

    Much easier to inform our non catholic friend is that all of the missing books of their plagiarized incomplete copy of the bible are present and accounted for within the dead sea scrolls. end of debate :)http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/first_copy_of_nehemiah_found_in_unpublished_dead_sea_scrolls/

  • Tomacz Tesla

    If Jesus and his disciples were using a corrupted Bible with false books for 15 centuries then there is no guidance of the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ promise of such guidance was not true, therefore Jesus lied and he is not the Son of God… You see, the matter is very important. If the Bible could be corrupted to such extent, then Luther’s “correction” is a moot point. The whole thing could be filled with errors.

    The Catholic Canon based on infallible Church Authority makes sense. There is no need for further arguments unless one is not interested in following Jesus.

    • Objectivetruth

      Excellent!

      • Tomacz Tesla

        I’m afraid I voted my own comment by mistake. How vain! I am not familiar with this system. Sorry!

  • Agapelove

    I have read the above article ” Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians” ” But I do not agree with the idea that we Worship saints or Angles or anyone else, this includes Mary the mother of God. ONLY God do we worship. We do pray to them to intercede on our behalf.

  • JP

    “Catholics worship the Man”. Protestants worship the “Book”.

    However, if one follows the Emergent Church Movement, one could say that Protestants worship “Hip”.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/november/12.36.html

    http://carsontclark.com/uncategorized/14440/top10_robbell

    If this is the new trend of Christianity, then we are so screwed. I’d take a bible thumping Fundamentalist any day over what is “emerging”.

  • Guest_august

    encourage all your Protestant friends to embrace the deuterocanonicals, which have always being part of the Septuagint Old Testament. This Septuagint was used by the early Christians and quoted repeatedly by the Apostles of Christ in the New Testament writings.
    .
    Consequently, let every Christian embrace and respect the deuterocanonicals (Tobit, Judith , 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch; and additions to Daniel, and Ester) as a sign of love for the testimony of the Apostles, and a sign of Christian Unity which our Lord Jesus prayed for, and cherishes so much.
    http://www.popeleo13.com/pope/2014/09/26/category-archive-message-boad-127-st-raphael-deuterocanonicals/

  • Ruth

    Can I ask a question? It is a serious one, and I’m asking it of serious Catholics. I am Protestant. I’m mostly Protestant, because (like most people) I was reared as one. But, I’m very serious about my faith, and I (after much study) find that the Catholic faith has many convincing arguments ON PAPER.

    And, that’s my issue. It seems as if the vast (and I do mean VAST) majority of Catholics in the West are easily as “Protestant” in their views as one can get, and very liberal Protestant as well.

    They don’t seem to submit to the Church or follow Church teachings. They don’t believe the Bible is inspired. They don’t vote, live, or think like the catechism teaches. They often don’t even seem to have the vaguest idea WHAT the catechism teaches (I’m often more informed than they), and will call themselves Catholic simply because they were born and baptized as one.

    While I find that many Protestants are also basically “lapsed” and have no idea what or why they believe what they do, but I rather expect that. How do you reconcile this obvious (and deserved) contempt for the “30,000” Protestant variations, when it seems that there are equal variations amongst Catholics, but they just seem to (somehow) stay under the Church’s umbrella, even though they don’t really believe a thing it teaches?

    • Thanks for your honest, reasonable question, Ruth. It’s a serious one, as you say, and it deserves a serious answer. That will take a bit of time, so I’d like to ask you to be patient with me. I’ll be back with a full response soon–although, no doubt, others may (and are welcome to) chime in here in the meantime.

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      Ruth,
      Great question! There have been many books written on the subject.
      Basically, it was the convergence of the post-war, societal upheavals of the 1950s & ’60s, and decades of poor catechesis throughout the mid-20th Century.
      My late mother was born in ’44 and raised Catholic. My dad (’42) wasn’t, although he did make his First Communion. Mom was taught what the Church teaches, not why She teaches what She does.
      By the time I was “going to Catechism” (we weren’t weekly Mass goers) in the ’70s, all the destruction of “The Spirit of Vatican II” was in full swing.

      If you haven’t studied this period, the Second Vatican Council was an Ecumenical council called by Saint Pope John XXIII in 1962, and ended in ’65 by Pope Paul VI.
      The reforms called for in the documents of the Council were used by some bishops & priests to push their own dissenting agendas. Some of them wanted the Church to change key teachings, like married priests, women’s ordination, sexual liberation, including the allowance of birth control, and changing the Mass to be more Protestant (no offense intended). These abuses were always defended as conforming with “The Spirit of Vatican II.”

      I missed a few years of catechism until both my parents began weekly Mass attendance when I was about 12 (c.1979). But, still the damage was done. I didn’t learn the Scriptures. I didn’t learn Tradition. I barely learned the Sacraments. I was taught the touchy-feely Christianity of the 1970s. Jesus is just alright with me…
      I was forced to attend catechism until 12th grade. But, I pretty much left the Church after high school. Not my Faith, I still believed in the Catholic Church, I just didn’t know what she taught. I stopped going to Mass and lived a typical, outwardly secular, skirt-chasing, binge-drinking lifestyle for the next ten years. I was one of those Catholics of whom you speak. I was Sacramentalized, not Evangelized, as radio host Al Kresta puts it.

      Luckily, because of the continual prayers of my parents, me, and my 2 sisters, started living our faith again, believing EVERYTHING that the Church teaches. One sister has eight children, the other has five.
      But, my story is not typical. Many Catholics of my generation live as those which you have described. They don’t know what the Church teaches, and what they do know, if they disagree, they ignore it.
      Fortunately, there are pockets of resistance. My parish is full of large families, like my sisters. My pastor is orthodox and faithful to Mass. We have Latin in our Masses. We just started a school. We are considered one of the more orthodox parishes in the Archdiocese of Detroit.
      But, the last few years have seen an influx of Catholics who don’t know their faith. Hopefully, they will learn, and change. Not the other way around.

      Sorry that was so long. I hope that I at least answered some of your questions. The simple fact is that the tidal-wave of secular humanism & cultural marxism in the 20th Century did great devastation to all of our faiths, Catholic, Protestant, & Eastern Orthodox.
      God Bless!

    • Ruth: It took me a month, but I finally assembled a reply to your serious question–sorry for the delay!

      Here’s an excerpt that’s directly relevant to your question:

      “One might ask, then, how we are still Christians when we’re stubbornly and persistently refusing God’s way? It’s in this regard that Bloy’s one-liner points to the second essential of the Faith, and it’s this: Not all Christians aspire to holiness all the time, but that doesn’t undo their fundamental Christian identity or destiny. Short of apostasy, when we Christians reject moral heroism and the pursuit of sanctity, we only make ourselves pig-like per Bloy’s characterization – grubbing around in the muck of sin and the world instead of holding out for more heavenly fare.

      “This is possible because Christian identity is only loosely associated with consistent righteous behavior – the Church is a hospital for sinners, after all, not a country club for saints. Instead of behaviors, Christian identity is more properly associated with a set of propositions, and Christians, by definition, are those who affirm that set of propositions, regardless of whether they act in line with them or not.”

      Anyway, you can find the whole essay here–let me know what you think when you have a chance to look it over: http://catholicexchange.com/manifesto-saints

  • The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity.

    The above is an outright fallacy, as the abundantly substantiated facts are that scholarly doubts and disagreements about the canon continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent.

    And before that there was no indisputable canon for Luther to dissent from, nor was he alone in his dissent.

    Why do RCs insist on parroting prevaricating polemics which has been refuted
    again and again? It simply provides more reasons not be to a RC since they must resort to such.

    it is indisputable that the version being used by Jesus and the Apostles during that time was the Septuagint—the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luther’s rejected apocryphal books.

    Wrong. If the RC did his honest research then he would know that there is zero proof that the LXX (Septuagint) contained the apocryphal books, and that the LXX mss we have presents far from a uniform canon.

    The RC presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.

    Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in
    the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin. British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria’s writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian.

    Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

    The Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.”

    Wrong. What is orally claimed to be the word of God must be established upon conformity with the assured wholly inspired word of God. And the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    …why the deuterocanon should be included in the Bible: Because the Church in union with Peter, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) granted authority by Christ to loose and bind (Matthew 16:19), says they should be.

    And so we come to the ultimate basis for RC truths claims which is the recourse RCs must end with invoking in the end of their desperate attempts to justify their propaganda and sophistry.

    Which is that Rome gave us the Bible and there it alone assuredly knows what is means. Which itself is based upon the presuppositions that,

    an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises
    of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. By which RCs have their assurance. Thus those who knowingly dissent from the latter are in rebellion to
    God.

    Upon this premise and its presuppositions RC apologetics rise and
    fall, and thus RCs must affirm them.

    • Objectivetruth

      Trying to understand your post is like trying to pilot a ship with no rudder.

      Essentially, you’re just another Protestant who has arrogantly made yourself your own authoritative “pope”, and has no clue what your talking about.

      Yawn!

      • Nothing beats repeating fallacies. See my last reply to you as you are shown to be just another RC who has arrogantly resorted to straw men and claims of obscurity out of want for a valid argument.

    • JP

      Long post just to say you don’t like Catholics. In that respects Jack Chick was more effective.

    • Sam Schmitt

      And before that there was no indisputable canon for Luther to dissent from, nor was he alone in his dissent.

      By this logic there is still no indisputable canon. And there cannot be, unless there is some authority to determine what the indisputable canon is.

      What is orally claimed to be the word of God must be established upon conformity with the assured wholly inspired word of God.

      The question still remains – what establishes the authority of the “assured wholly inspired word of God”? Claiming that this is equivalent to the written word only begs the question.

      And so we come to the ultimate basis for RC truths claims

      So you’ve laid out the Catholic claim, but I’m afraid I don’t see how you have shown it to be false.

      • By this logic there is still no indisputable canon. And there cannot be, unless there is some authority to determine what the indisputable canon is.

        Actually according to Rome there was not indisputable canon for over 1400 hundred years after the last book was penned, and it did not seem to both them, so why you as an RC?

        But here we must deal with what can be meant by “infallible” Truth, or knowing something infallibly. Scripture no where speaks of knowing something because of a human agency possesses assured infallibility as per Rome, but this did not prevent souls from having assurance of Truth.

        It was in the light of empirical evidence that the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord
        in thy mouth is truth. (1 Kings 17:24) It was not because he had ordination papers.

        God first established men of God as being so thru manifest
        supernatural attestation and virtue, such as in showing He was the living God thru Abraham, and affirmed Moses as being of the same God and faith, and who first (apparently) wrote Scripture.

        Which as written, became the transcendent supreme standard for Truth, as shown .

        And thereby the Lord gave prophetic assurance to the disciples in Lk 24 thru the Scriptures of Him and His mission:

        And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:32)

        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. (Luke 24:44)

        And 1 John, thru writing, provides for assurance that one may know he has eternal life, in the light of evidences corresponding to what is written.

        And likewise the apostles were “in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,..By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of
        righteousness on the right hand and on the left (2 Corinthians 6:4)

        Doctrinal, moral and and prophetic conformity with that which was written, as
        well the manner of supernatural attestation that first
        established Moses and the written word God, constitutes Scriptural
        substantiation, in word and in power.

        Insomuch as the church manifest that then it can claim to be of the living God.

        The question still remains – what establishes the authority of the
        “assured wholly inspired word of God”? Claiming that this is equivalent
        to the written word only begs the question.

        Again your question is written under the unScriptural idea that an infallible mag. is essential for the establishment of both men and writing of God, but in Scripture and history we see the authority of both being established without said infallible magisterium.

        Rome can decree what she wills as often as she may like, but the establishment of both men and writing of God was essentially due to their Heavenly qualities and attestation. The powers that be are to confirm that, but they are what they are even if not.

        If an infallible magisterium is necessary for this then how could souls hold that John “was a prophet indeed,” as was the Christ He pointed to? Likewise how could souls assuredly know prophets before them were of God? How can you assuredly know Rome is the one true church? Because she says so?

        So you’ve laid out the Catholic claim, but I’m afraid I don’t see how you have shown it to be false.

        How is that if the Catholic argument you affirm is is valid, that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, then you have effectively invalidated the NT church,

        The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

        And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    • Phoenix_Lion

      I have asked many of my Evangelical “Bible Only” Protestant friends (which I used to be also) to just read the seven books and then tell me if they don’t belong in the Bible. I have not had one take the challenge. I bet you wouldn’t either. See the reason is you and they are comfortable with the power you have given yourselves to make Jesus into whoever you want Him to be. You dread the idea of having to obey the Church who tells us who Jesus is, because then you lose that power.

      Here is another question that I have asked and never get a full response back except a simple quiet “yes”. If there was no Bible to read, would Jesus still have been born crucified and risen? After that “yes” I then ask “and how would you know this?” The conversation usually ends there.

      Have a great day readying those seven books.

      • Objectivetruth

        Excellent post.

        And for the first 25 years of Christianity until Paul’s epistles and the Didache, there was nothing written down about Jesus, His life and teachings. How did those first Christians learn about Christ? From the Church….the Catholic Church.

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          Objectivetruth,
          Actually, there is good reason to believe that the Gospel According to Saint Matthew was written by the early A.D. 40s. When the persecutions by the Jewish leaders ramped-up. E.g., the killing of James bar Zebedee and arrest of Peter, c.43/44.
          This would have been the time that the Apostles dispersed on their missionary journeys. It makes sense that they would have taken copies of Matthew’s Gospel with them. There is a tradition (Eusebius, Church History, V.10.3) that says the Apostle Bartholomew found a copy of Matthew in Hebrew (Aramaic) in India. God Bless!

          • Objectivetruth

            Thanks, Nick!

            • Nick_from_Detroit

              No problem. Take care.

      • I have asked many of my Evangelical “Bible Only” Protestant friends (which I used to be also) to just read the seven books and then tell me if they don’t belong in the Bible…See the reason is you and they are comfortable with the power you have
        given yourselves to make Jesus into whoever you want Him to be.

        Nonsense, as Mormons make a like challenge for their BOM. You should have told Jerome and others that and censure them for
        lack of judgment. I have read them long ago, and would now say the
        Wisdom of Solomon would stand the best chance of being considered
        Scripture, except that it is apparently wrongly attributed to Solomon
        and composed close to or within NT times.

        And the apocryphal books do not remain obscure because they were not available, as they were included in Prot Bibles at the beginning, and are easily accessed today, and as voluntary Prot Bible reading was due to hunger to for the Word, and far excels that of RCs, then these would also be more available and popular it they had the qualities and attestation of wholly inspired Scripture.

        But i do want to read the apocryphal book again, as unlike a RC, i can objectively examine evidence and seek to follow where it goes, The problem is trying to get RCs to read much of the Bible much at all.

        You dread the idea of having to obey the Church who tells us who Jesus is, because then you lose that power.

        To often an RCs must resort to psychology in lieu of an argument, but the reality is that one who wants liberality of belief will be far more at home as a RC than an fundamental evangelical, as Ted Kennedy RCs can attest, and indeed most those she counts and treats members are liberal, in contrast to evangelicals overall.

        Moreover, i prayerfully came out of Rome after being a faithful RC in practice for about 6 years after becoming manifestly born again with its profound changes in heart and life. And during the last 30 years have spent years under far stricter leadership than i ever knew in Rome, even as an altar boy, CCD teacher and lector.

        If there was no Bible to read, would Jesus still have been born crucified and risen? After that “yes” I then ask “and how would you know this?” The conversation usually ends there.

        He could have, even just after Adam sinned, yet apart from God unmistakably supernaturally manifesting His express Truths to them, there would be no manifest doctrinal basis for the atonement.

        Second, God could make that known thru eye witness accounts, but which would again be meaningless without a manifest doctrinal basis for it.

        He could provide the latter by providing unmistakable supernatural attestation for spokesmen for God, and thus to their words, as He did with Moses and the apostles, (Rm. 15:19; 2cor. 12:12) but without a record of this in an actual transcendent form then the transmission of such would exist in an amorphous form, supremely subject to undetectable distortion, unless more spokesmen were given a like level of unmistakable supernatural attestation by God which confirmed the former and perhaps added to it.

        But you must deal with what God did do, not what He could do if you want to make an argument. And rather than making the written word of God superfluous, or simply equal with the oral word, what God did do is establish men of God as being so thru unmistakable supernatural attestation, and virtue, who passed faith along, and then likewise confirmed Moses as having the same God and faith as Abraham, whose miraculous son birthed a holy nation.

        This same Moses apparently first penned God’s word, and as written, the Scriptures became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is aabundantly evidenced

        And upon substantiation of which the Lord and His church established their Truth claims in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

        And which also writings testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    • Objectivetruth

      You are warned, PBJ, to be careful of your heretical beliefs. From St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of Peter the Apostle:

      “”Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ – they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church – they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

      -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

      • You are merely elevating the error of traditions above the assured word of God, and will be judged for it. The Lord’s supper itself is rarely even manifestly described in the life of the church, and when it is then it is not recognizing the church as the body of Christ that is censored, as RCs do, focusing on getting the wafer, and hardly even showing much interest in the needs of their fellow pew occupants, aside from the perfunctory “peace by with you.”

        • Objectivetruth

          There’s…..

          Ignatius of Antioch, taught by Peter the Apostle.

          There’s….

          You, 2000 years later picking up a bible and declaring your infallibility on scriptural interpretation.

          Hmmmmm…..

          • More of the same fallacious roman reasoning and its straw man already refuted.

            • Objectivetruth

              There’s:

              St. Paul, (1 Corinthians 10): “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?”

              Then there’s you. No apostolic succession, no authority from Christ Himself to “bind and loose,” no real knowledge of the Catholic Church you are so vehemently attacking. I’ll bet if you really thought about it, PBJ, you’re really not sure why you are suppose to hate the Catholic Church, do you?

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          “You are merely elevating the error of traditions above the assured word of God, and will be judged for it.”

          No, we are not. We are following the teaching of Saint Paul, when he said, “So then, brethren, 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).

          We Catholics, as Paul taught us, put Scripture and Tradition on an equal plane. Together they contain the fullness of Truth.
          Those who reject Sacred Tradition are only getting part of the Truth of the Gospel of Christ, I’m sad to say.
          I pray that you find the full Truth, someday, by the grace of the Holy Spirit. May God bless you and your family, PBJ.

          • This was already covered. All the church went preaching the word, and SS preachers also tell souls to heed their oral words, under the condition that they are Scriptural, while there is no proof that the truth apostles preached orally was not subsequently written, or that Rome knows what traditions Paul was referring to.

            Moreover, Rome fails of both the qualifications and attestation of Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:15ff; 1Cor. 9:1; 2Co. 6:4-10; 12:12)

    • Nick_from_Detroit

      PBJ,
      There is ample proof that LXX contained the Deuterocanonicals, and that Christ and the Apostles used the LXX. Over two thirds of the Old Testament citations in the New Testament books are from the LXX. And, there are strong allusions to the Deuterocanonicals by the New Testament authors.
      In the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:35), during a synopsis of the history of Israel, mentions women who “received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.” There is no parallel in the Protestant canon. But, there is in 2 Mac. 7.
      Also, the Early Church Fathers quote frequently from the Deuterocanonicals, treating them as Scripture, which they are. God Bless!

  • Guest_august

    oh

  • jacobhalo

    Protestants say faith alone is necessary for salvation. They seem to forget the words in 2 James 14-17. “My friends, what good is it for one of you to say that you have faith if you actions do not prove it? Can faith save you? Suppose there are brothers and sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in you saying to them, ‘God bless you! Keep warm and eat well! – if you don’t give them the necessities of life? So it is with faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.”

  • hombre111

    Somehow, an historical explanation answers the question better. 1) During Jesus’ time, the question about a single, correct version of the Old Testament was not being asked. The final decision about the books that belonged to the Wisdom Literature had not been made. At the same time, there were at least three different collections of the Law and Prophets written in Hebrew: In Babylon, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. They were not identical, and nobody argued which was the true version. For the sake of the Diaspora Jews who spoke Greek, there was a translation in Greek, the Septuagint, which contained books written in Greek and not in Hebrew.

    2) The New Testament was written in Greek. When it cited the Old Testament, it turned to the Greek Septuagint. For all intents and purposes, the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early Church.

    3) Came the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 67. The Temple was gone. The surviving Jewish leaders went to Jamnia to decide how their religion was going to survive without a temple. In this life or death situation, they took several key steps and Rabbinic Judaism appeared. Their first task was purification and simplification. They threw the Christians out of the synagogue. They rejected the authority of the Septuagint, in part because it was the Scripture of the Christians. Only Hebrew could speak the Word of God. They took the three different collections of the Old Testament and turned them into a single version, the version they have today. They were careful to preserve this version. As old copies wore out, a new, handwritten edition would appear. Old copies were destroyed.
    4) For centuries, the Bible of the Church was the Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. Jerome translated this Greek. Bible into the Latin Vulgate, carefully consulting the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament that existed in his time. The Vulgate became the official Bible of the Latin Church.

    5) Fast forward to the Reformation. In its argument with Luther, the Church appealed to Tradition. Luther rejected Tradition and appealed to “Scriptura sola,” the Bible alone.
    The first order at hand was to replace the Latin Vulgate with a new translation. Luther went to the local synagogue and borrowed the Hebrew Scriptures he had found there.

    6) By this time, few people–especially in the West–remembered that the Septuagint with its books written only in Greek, had been the Old Testament of the Early Church. They did not know that the Jewish leaders at Jamnia had rejected the Septuagint because it was the Bible of Christians. They did not realize that the Hebrew Bible they found in the synagogue had been created in Jamnia out of three other sources. They did not realize that old editions of the Hebrew Bible were routinely destroyed. The Hebrew Bible Luther had dated from no earlier than the twelfth century.

    7) And so, Luther found a discrepancy between the books in the Hebrew Bible and the books in the Vulgate. The difference could only be explained by the machinations of evil Catholics who were trying to foist unbiblical doctrine on its unsuspecting faithful. Luther proclaimed the deuterocanonical books phonies. He did not realize that he was following the discernment of the rabbis in Jamnia, and not the discernment of the ancient Christians who used the Septuagint and considered its Greek books Scripture.

    • Objectivetruth

      More on the Septuagint, from ScriptureCatholic.com, which discusses it nicely:

      “Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:

      Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 – behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew – behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.

      Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 – make “His paths straight.” Hebrew – make “level in the desert a highway.”

      Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 – I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew – I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.

      Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 – in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew – the isles shall wait for his law.

      Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 – heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew – heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

      Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 – teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew – a commandment of men (not doctrines).

      Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 – out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.” Hebrew – thou has “established strength.”

      Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

      Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 – crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew – omits these phrases.

      Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 – and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew – the opening of prison to them that are bound.

      Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 – to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew – to let the oppressed go free.

      John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 – He gave them “bread” out of heaven to eat. Hebrew – gave them “food” or “grain” from heaven.

      John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 – who has believed our “report?” Hebrew – who has believed our “message?”

      John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 – lest they should see with eyes…turn for me to heal them. Hebrew – shut their eyes…and be healed.

      Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 – blood and fire and “vapor” of smoke. Hebrew – blood and fire and “pillars” or “columns” of smoke.

      Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 – I saw…tongue rejoiced…dwell in hope.. Hebrew – I have set…glory rejoiced…dwell in safety.

      Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 – the rulers “were gathered together.” Hebrew – rulers “take counsel together.”

    • Objectivetruth

      Absolutely fascinating discussion, hombre. A little bit more on the deutercanonical books from EWTN.com:

      “Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.”

  • GaudeteMan

    I can’t imagine that had the deutero-canonical books been preserved in protestant bibles that they would have somehow returned to the Catholic Church even if they seem to give credence to certain Catholic doctrines. Rejecting the truth is an act of the will not the intellect. If you can read John 6 (particularly in the Greek) , which each and every protty bible contains, and still reject the doctrine of the Real Presence you have do violence to your conscience and reject the evidence that stares you in the face.

  • Rick

    Just one piece of advice to you Peace by Jesus, from one who came into the Catholic Church 18 yrs. ago from a fundimental Baptist upbringing, if you want to really understand the Catholic faith spend a year in an RCIA class in hopefully a more tradtional leaning parish, (I have found there are as many false teachers inside the Church as there are outside these days, but seek the truth and watch out for the wolves)Think of it as a bible study class in enemy territory. That’s how I looked at it. It will give you an opportunity to see how we interprete scripture and tradition. A great book I read was Triumph by Crocker, it’s a history of the Catholic Church from Acts through John Paul II. It’s a great snap shot of the history of the Church basically pope by pope and dealing with the major issues in Church history. If you still don’t see the truth in Catholic doctrine and teaching after that year then simply knock the sand from your sandles and press on. But one thing is for sure, we will all stand before the Judgment seat of Christ and be judged and at that point we will know immediately what the truth is and whether we have done God’s will in our lives or failed miserably. We are all on a journey in this life and we all believe our journey is leading to our Lord, but there is only one God and He established one Church that contains the true interpretation of scripture and tradtion. It is our job to sift through the chaffe to find the wheat. God bless and good luck on your journey.

    Great information in this blog, it is so wonderful to see so many lay people be such great defenders of the faith.

    You shall be called Rock(Peter, Petros, Cepha,) and on this rock (petras, cepha) I will build my Church. The bones of that Rock are resting under the high altar at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, can’t get more literal than that. Unless you eat of My flesh and drink of My blood you shall not have eternal life, can’t get more literal than that. God is good. The Church is going through a very difficult period in it’s history very similar to the time of the Arian Heresy and the Renaissance but our Lord stated the Gates of Hell shall not over come it, it didn’t happen then, it will not happen now, I have faith in the Lord. Keep our Christian brothers and sisters struggling to survive and keeping the faith alive in the Middle East and Africa against incredible Islamic oppression in your prayers.

  • dougpruner

    OK, Docs, it’s time to move on.
    For every RCC doctrinal point raised here I have cited contradictory responses from your own New Jerusalem Bible. The replies have been mostly Magisterial, not scriptural. My approach has been successful, as we see by noting that the Catholic side has resorted increasingly to vituperation.
    My work here is done. 🙂

    • Objectivetruth

      We’ll miss ya, Doug! Thanks for dropping by, come back anytime. It’s always nice to have a reminder of why I’m so thankful I’m a Catholic.

  • Hugh Lunn

    Before successful engagement with “Bible Christians”, we have a helluva
    lot of work to do with Catholic bishops, clergy and their theologian
    enablers.

  • M.A. Smith

    The meaning of church is “The Called Out Ones”. Non-Catholic Christians believe that the Bible is the living word of God and speaks to us individually through the help of the Holy Spirit. It is way too much power to give any Church as the interpreter of the Bible. We all have the ability to allow God to direct us in our faith with Him. We don’t need someone else or a centralized organization to do that especially when it professes to hold our forgiveness of sin in their grasp.

    • Phoenix_Lion

      Jesus gave us a Church and did not hand out a book. If the Catholic Church was never formed Christianity would not still be around. How could it when protestant “Bible” churches can’t even stay together. 30,000 going strong but in reality dwindling away.

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    One of the principle reasons, if not the principle reasons for accepting the so called deuterocanonicals is that they were included in the Greek version, the Septuagint, which was the Bible used by the Aposltes and the whole of the early Church. The Hebrew canon, excluding the deuteroncanonicals because they were not written in Hebrew, was agreed on in a meeting of rabbis (who happened to be the successors of the Pharisees) decided on this restrictive criterion perhaps because they despised or had little appreciation for what came from the Jews of the Diaspora. In any case, Luther and his followers chose the Pharisees´s cannon over the canon common to the Church both in the East and the West for 1500 years. Also, one may add that he excluded the Letter of James as he considered it to be in contradiction with the Letter to the Romans, and thus created “a canon within the canon”.

  • Michael Dooley

    Gee, let’s think about this. Where would I choose to place my trust? In God’s perfect Word or in a fallible, all to human, Church?
    As a Lutheran, I always consult Catholic commentary on many things; but especially the Bible. Often, too put it kindly, such commentary is less than helpful. Much of the time it is excellent. Funny thing is the bulk of Catholic commentary finds itself at the end of either pole with few in between. As far as I can say, the Catholic Church may be many things; but a refuge from the myriad of interpretations it is not.

    • Objectivetruth

      So “God’s perfect word” was put together by the Catholic Church. So you don’t trust the people who put the bible together, but you trust the product (the bible, canon of scripture) they gave you?

      • Michael Dooley

        The Church “put together” the cannon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It did so IN SERVICE to God’s Word. The Church no more owns the Scriptures than a baby owns the cribe in which it lays.

        • Objectivetruth

          That makes no sense.

          “The Church “put together” the cannon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

          So the Catholic Church is no longer guided by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit only guides the Church part of the time, and other times lets the Church teach in error?

  • Howard Weathington

    Well done

  • Michael Dooley

    The Holy Spirit guides all Christians wherever they are found. The trouble is we don’t always listen in all cases. The Holy Spirit abandons no one. Although we often stumble, God is always faithful to be with us always.
    Why the Lord allows us to be unfaithful and get it wrong–teaching errors here and there is a mystery. You might as well ask why although we a new creatures in Christ He allows us to sin.

MENU