What is the Catholic position on the Bible? - Moved From General Theology

[Knowledge3]

What is the Catholic position on the Bible?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

From my Catholic membership class...


"The Bible is the Word of God and no greater assurance of credibility could be given."

"The Bible is inspired by God. What exactly does this mean? It means that God is the Author. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error."




IMHO, Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on the theology of Scripture. Where we disagree is on the process of norming interpretations of that Scripture. In all my MANY discussions with my FULL, UNseparated Catholic brothers and sisters, I've never disagreed on what Scripture says. We've only disagreed on whether the interpretation of the RCC is infallible and unaccountable in it's own individual interpretation of that Scripture we all agree on. BUT, we agree on the theology of Scripture itself and it's good to remind all of that and celebrate that.



Great thread! Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah



.

[Knowledge3]

This thread hasn't even started yet.

What, specifically, were your disagreements with the Catholics concerning the Bible and the readings of Holy Scripture?

[Knowledge3]

Do Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants have different understandings of Faith? If so, what are they?

[Knowledge3]

I have a honest conviction that most Christians do not discuss the essence of faith.

[MikeMcK]

What is the Catholic position on the Bible?

Well, let's put it this way...

Anytime I ask a Roman Catholic to back up one of their church's teachings with scripture, they give me the CCC.

[eoe]

The Scriptures are the crown jewel of Tradition.

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

What is the Catholic position on the Bible?

It is a doctrine of The Church that the Holy Scriptures are the inerrant and God brethed. The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church's teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God and God is Truth...than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error.


The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church but the canonical Scriptures." (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 397: Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. (canon 47 A.D. 397).

May the grace and peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.

Your brother in Christ.

[Knowledge3]

The Scriptures are the crown jewel of Tradition.

According to orthodoxy, what does faith mean in the Christian walk?

[Knowledge3]

Well, let's put it this way...

Anytime I ask a Roman Catholic to back up one of their church's teachings with scripture, they give me the CCC.

When we, as individuals, read or search the scriptures for learning about God.

Isn't it possible that we can develop different interpretations?

[eoe]

According to orthodoxy, what does faith mean in the Christian walk?

I do not know of an official answer so forgive me if I err but I would say that faith is a profound and lifestyle altering system of belief. It is far more than a simple acceptance of fact.
I can believe that a tree is growing in india. That belief does not alter my behavior. I will continue to live just as I was before. That is not faith. It is simple acceptance of fact.

[Isidore_AK]

Well, let's put it this way...

Anytime I ask a Roman Catholic to back up one of their church's teachings with scripture, they give me the CCC.
And its proper to do so. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a good explanation of our beliefs, and references both Scripture and Tradition in its pages.

...otherwise I'd have to refer to the Bible in the whole, since I'm particularly opposed to the concept of prooftexting by a verse here and a verse there...

[MikeMcK]

And its proper to do so. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a good explanation of our beliefs, and references both Scripture and Tradition in its pages.

So then, you believe that the CCC is equal to the Bible in authority?

...otherwise I'd have to refer to the Bible in the whole, since I'm particularly opposed to the concept of prooftexting by a verse here and a verse there...

I'll be sure to remember that next time a Roman Catholic tries to explain to us why Peter is the first pope.

[MikeMcK]

When we, as individuals, read or search the scriptures for learning about God.

Isn't it possible that we can develop different interpretations?

I can't imagine what "interpretation" would lead us to the conclusion that the CCC is on a par with the word of God.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is a doctrine of The Church that the Holy Scriptures are the inerrant and God brethed. The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church's teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God and God is Truth...than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error.



:thumbsup:


Just want to rejoice that my brother in Christ and I are on EXACTLY the same page here...



Pax


- Josiah


.

[Knowledge3]

I do not know of an official answer so forgive me if I err but I would say that faith is a profound and lifestyle altering system of belief. It is far more than a simple acceptance of fact.
I can believe that a tree is growing in india. That belief does not alter my behavior. I will continue to live just as I was before. That is not faith. It is simple acceptance of fact.

If a good philosopher asks you "What is the meaning of faith" what will you tell him?

[fragmentsofdreams]

Thread moved from General Theology to Denomination Specific Theology.

[Teshi]

So then, you believe that the CCC is equal to the Bible in authority?

The CCC references the Bible. So if someone refers you to the CCC, you'll get scripture and the explaination of how that scripture is applied according to Church teaching. So if a Catholic refers you to the Catechism, they're killing two birds with one stone - both showing you the explanation of their belief, and of its scriptural backing.

[Teshi]

What is the Catholic position on the Bible?

Pro. Catholics are pro-Bible. :P

[MikeMcK]

The CCC references the Bible. So if someone refers you to the CCC, you'll get scripture and the explaination of how that scripture is applied according to Church teaching. So if a Catholic refers you to the Catechism, they're killing two birds with one stone - both showing you the explanation of their belief, and of its scriptural backing.

Actually, many points in the CCC are not backed up with scripture, but are only there to impart Roman Catholic dogma.

Even if what you're saying were true, this still doesn't make the CCC scripture.

Pro. Catholics are pro-Bible.

Then why do so many of their teachings contradict the Bible?

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

:thumbsup:


Just want to rejoice that my brother in Christ and I are on EXACTLY the same page here...



Pax


- Josiah


.


We probably on about 90% of the issues. God Bless.

Pax Vobiscum.

[leothelioness]

:thumbsup:


Just want to rejoice that my brother in Christ and I are on EXACTLY the same page here...



Pax


- Josiah


.

Same here! ;)

[Knowledge3]

Pro. Catholics are pro-Bible. :P

If a good philosopher asks you "What does faith mean to you?" what will you tell him?

[Knowledge3]

For me the Bible is a collection of writings formed by men who were inspired by NT Holy Spirit.

And the OT is different writings written down as a revelation.

Along with all of the other Gnostic texts and Pastristic writings of Christianity.

I feel that I am missing some of the writings and revelations that were somehow lost,kept secret, or taken out of the Bible.

[Knowledge3]

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/fragend/confused-smiley-013.gif

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/fragend/confused-smiley-013.gif


Here is what I posted.

It is a doctrine of The Church that the Holy Scriptures are the inerrant and God brethed. The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church's teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God and God is Truth...than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error.


The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church but the canonical Scriptures." (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 397: Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. (canon 47 A.D. 397).

May the grace and peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.

Your brother in Christ.



What is it that you do not understand? It was written by Catholics for Catholics under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless.

[leothelioness]

It was written by Catholics for Catholics under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless.


So Jewish Christians and Protestants have no place reading the Bible since it was not written for them?

[Teshi]

I don't think that was his point. I think the point was more along these lines: Saying that Catholics disregard the Bible is like telling Montaigne that he sucks at writing essays.

[Ann M]

So Jewish Christians and Protestants have no place reading the Bible since it was not written for them?
Umm no.

What you're saying is that you shouldn't read any historical writings of the Civil War because it's not relevant to you.

What Ignatius is saying is that historical writings of the Civil war were written as relevant to the people and time.

[MikeMcK]

So Jewish Christians and Protestants have no place reading the Bible since it was not written for them?

Well, that would make sense in light of the Roman Catholic dogma of ex ecclesia nulla salas.

Because of his behavior in another thread, I've had to put IofA on ignore, so I have no idea what he has to say, lest another poster quotes him.

However, I would be curious to know which Biblical authors he believes were Roman Catholic and, if the Bible was written only to Roman Catholics, why the OT and so much of the NT addresses Jews.

[MikeMcK]

What Ignatius is saying is that historical writings of the Civil war were written as relevant to the people and time.

The "people" in question were mostly Jews, not Roman Catholics.

To say that the Bible was written by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics only goes to underscore the average Roman Catholic's ignorance of the scriptures.

[Ann M]

The "people" in question were mostly Jews, not Roman Catholics.

To say that the Bible was written by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics only goes to underscore the average Roman Catholic's ignorance of the scriptures.
Actually the people in question, in the NT, were Christians. And unless you can show irrevocable proof that what we call the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, and the Church that was in existence in 100AD to 300AD, then any arguments you may put forward about the beliefs of the Christians of the time are null and void.

And the point made is that the Bible was written for the Christians of the time - not the multi-denominational Christians of our times.

[MikeMcK]

Actually the people in question, in the NT, were Christians. And unless you can show irrevocable proof that what we call the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, and the Church that was in existence in 100AD to 300AD, then any arguments you may put forward about the beliefs of the Christians of the time are null and void.

Well, that's convenient. You make the claim and, instead of demonstrating it, expect me to disprove.

How does one prove a negative?

And the point made is that the Bible was written for the Christians of the time - not the multi-denominational Christians of our times.

No, the point made was that the Bible was written by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics.

Again, if this lunacy is true, then why are the authors Jewish? Why does it so frequently address Jews? Why do we see each and every one of the Baptist Distinctives taught in the NT?

What part of the OT can I look at and find Roman Catholicism.

[Renton405]

Sigh* why is this turning into another catholic bashing thread??

Protestants, get this into your heads; if we all interperated the bible alone by our own interperatation we would all have different versions of understanding of scripture. We would all have a different version of jesus, and we would all have a different version of what the apostles were saying

This is why the CCC exists. One cant read the bible once and say "Oh I fgot the whole story now, I understand it".. Remember jesus said you must be given liquid before you are given food..

There are so many mysterys in scripture. A verse can give a meaning as well as a mystery.. This is why people still dont understand the bible fully today.. it takes an enourmous amount of study .. The CCC is one of the results of such a study..

The catholic church has the wonderful hertiage of people who actually were students of the actual apostles, of people who actually heard the voices and teaching of the apostles right before them. The interperatation by these men are golden because they were with them, and im sure the apostles confided in their students..It is these people as well as the apostles we must go back to as far as interperatation. Not a pastor or a reformationist..

There is nothing distinctive about the Baptists and the NT. The catholic church is the only church that has retained most of its history.

[Ann M]

Well, that's convenient. You make the claim and, instead of demonstrating it, expect me to disprove.

How does one prove a negative?

:sigh: fine, have it your way. You obviously have proof that the early Christians belonged to a Church other than what is recognised now as the Catholic Church. I apologize for reading my history, doing any study and being capable of thought.



No, the point made was that the Bible was written by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics.

The Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church, from the writings available at the time, by Christian authors, and also including the Old Testament of Jewish texts.


Again, if this lunacy is true, then why are the authors Jewish?

The authors of the Old Testament are Jewish because it was written before the birth of Christ. It has not be re-written since, but has been butchered by those who don't accept it's whole.

Why does it so frequently address Jews?

If it's the OT, then it addresses Jews because the Faith of the time was Jewish. If it's the NT, then it addresses, in the main, the Christians of the time, and the Jews who are converting. And logic (I think I have some) says that you address a situation in the terms that are familiar, so talking in Jewish terms to show the similarities/differences only makes sense.

Why do we see each and every one of the Baptist Distinctives taught in the NT?

Yes I've read "Trails of Blood"


What part of the OT can I look at and find Roman Catholicism.

In the same part that I can find the Baptists, Methodists & Lutherans.

[MikeMcK]

You obviously have proof that the early Christians belonged to a Church other than what is recognised now as the Catholic Church. I apologize for reading my history, doing any study and being capable of thought.

That’s the problem. You only know history inasmuch as you know Roman Catholic propaganda. You haven’t done any study, or else you’d be able to answer my question, and I don’t believe that you’re willing to risk having a thought that the Roman Catholic church hasn't told you to think.

The Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church, from the writings available at the time, by Christian authors, and also including the Old Testament of Jewish texts.

The authors were primarily Jews and not one of them was Roman Catholic.

The authors of the Old Testament are Jewish because it was written before the birth of Christ.

They were Jewish? Does this mean that you’re now backing away from the ridiculous claim that they were Roman Catholics?

If it's the OT, then it addresses Jews because the Faith of the time was Jewish. If it's the NT, then it addresses, in the main, the Christians of the time, and the Jews who are converting. And logic (I think I have some) says that you address a situation in the terms that are familiar, so talking in Jewish terms to show the similarities/differences only makes sense.

So then, were they Roman Catholic, or were they Jews?

Yes I've read "Trails of Blood"

I don’t know what "Trails of Blood" is, but that wasn’t the question.

The question was, "Why do we see each and every one of the Baptist Distinctives taught and practiced in the NT church?"

In the same part that I can find the Baptists, Methodists & Lutherans.

I see. So then, is this your way of telling us that you’re now backing away from your claim that the Bible was written by Roman Catholics, for Roman Catholics?

[Ann M]

Firstly congratulations on reminding me that hate for the Catholic Church is alive and well.

That’s the problem. You only know history inasmuch as you know Roman Catholic propaganda. You haven’t done any study, or else you’d be able to answer my question, and I don’t believe that you’re willing to risk having a thought that the Roman Catholic church hasn't told you to think.

Nice assumption, I'll give you that. Raised Catholic, spent time in the Church of the Nazarene, and Baptist. I have thoughts, and at the moment, were you're concerned they all have to do with charity and love.



The authors were primarily Jews and not one of them was Roman Catholic.


You do, of course, know the use of the term 'Roman' Catholic is actually derogotrory? I believe it dates from the separation of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and the term Romanist was used as an insult.

But back to the topic. In the OT the writers were Jewish. There was no Christianity then, of course, so this is only logical thought. In the NT, the writers were Christian - members of the catholic Church. They were people who had accepted Christ and were following his teachings. To say that they were Jewish is like saying that the Catholic Church established the Lutheran Church. One grew out of the other, grew away from the other, but in that growing they changed and became known as another.



They were Jewish? Does this mean that you’re now backing away from the ridiculous claim that they were Roman Catholics?

Anti-Catholic bigotry in full force :sigh: Okay, you hate my Church. Congratulations, you are one of many. For many people it is acknowledged that the Catholic Church traces it history back to the time of Christ, and that all other denominations have grown away from the Church or were established using the Faith and Works of the Church (insert Bible and other Religious ideas here).

If you wish to ignore the term "assemble" feel free to do so.


So then, were they Roman Catholic, or were they Jews?

Learn a new word = Christian. Try using it.



I don’t know what "Trails of Blood" is, but that wasn’t the question.

Book written that claims to trace the Baptist movement back to the time of Christ, as a recognised Church.

The question was, "Why do we see each and every one of the Baptist Distinctives taught and practiced in the NT church?"

:sigh: Because every religious movement relating to Christ can attribute it's beliefs to the Bible and substantiate it with the Bible. You said " Baptist Distinctives" I gave you "Trails of Blood" = Baptist Church.
[/quote]


I see. So then, is this your way of telling us that you’re now backing away from your claim that the Bible was written by Roman Catholics, for Roman Catholics?

The Bible was assembled By the Early Christians from writings including those of the Apostles, The Gospel writers etc, and also including the Jewish OT. I'm not backing away from any claim i've made, I'm clarifying my claim, against what you perceive that i've claim.

[MikeMcK]

were you're concerned they all have to do with charity and love.

Oh, sure. I can tell.

You do of course the use of the term 'Roman' Catholic is actually derogotrory? I believe it dates from the separation of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and the term Romanist was used as an insult.

Then Roman Catholic churches should stop putting it on the signs in front of their buildings.

But back to the topic. In the OT the writers were Jewish.

What made you change your mind?

There was no Christianity then, of course, so this is only logical thought.

Which is why it was so ridiculous that you would claim that the Bible was "written for Roman Catholics, by Roman Catholics".

In the NT, the writers were Christian - members of the catholic Church.

No. They were not a part of the Roman Catholic church.

They were people who had accepted Christ and were following his teachings. To say that they were Jewish is like saying that the Catholic Church established the Lutheran Church.

Then why do they refer to themselves as Jews?

Anti-Catholic bigotry in full force

How is it anto-Catholic bigotry to say that the authors of the Bible were not Roman Catholic?

Okay, you hate my Church. Congratulations, you are one of many.

And you hate mine.

If you wish to ignore the term "assemble" feel free to do so.

If you had said "assemble", then you might have a point. However, you didn't not. You said "written".

Learn a new word = Christian. Try using it.

You don't have to be snotty.

Book written that claims to trace the Baptist movement back to the time of Christ, as a recognised Church.

I've never heard of it, so I can't comment on it, but it is true that each one of the Baptist Distinctives are found to be dating back to the time of Christ, as an organized church.


Because every religious movement relating to Christ can attribute it's beliefs to the Bible and substantiate it with the Bible.

Then your point is moot.

I'm not backing away from any claim i've made, I'm clarifying my claim, against what you perceive that i've claim.

OK. So then, you stand by your claim that the Bible was written "for Roman Catholics, by Roman Catholics".

[leothelioness]

What you're saying is that you shouldn't read any historical writings of the Civil War because it's not relevant to you.

What does the Civil War have to do with any of this??? :confused: :scratch:

What Ignatius is saying is that historical writings of the Civil war were written as relevant to the people and time.

And what exactly is this supposed to mean? That the Scriptures are no longer relevant because we are living 2,000 years after the fact? :scratch: I'm confused. :o

[Ann M]

STOP!!!!! TIME OUT!!!!!

Lets all just stop for a minute and consider what's going one here.

Ignatiaus made a statement - in a post which included previous quotes of his own that you, Mike, cannot read because you have him on ignore. The previous posts were to do with the statement:-

"It is a doctrine of The Church that the Holy Scriptures are the inerrant and God brethed. The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church's teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God and God is Truth...than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error."

and also included THE DECREE OF DAMASUS....... The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon.... and The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

The statement was :-

What is it that you do not understand? It was written by Catholics for Catholics under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

To which Leo the Lioness posted:-

So Jewish Christians and Protestants have no place reading the Bible since it was not written for them?

And I replied:-

Umm no.

What you're saying is that you shouldn't read any historical writings of the Civil War because it's not relevant to you.

What Ignatius is saying is that historical writings of the Civil war were written as relevant to the people and time.


Then you Mike, jumped down my throat in full battle armour.

What I was doing, was making a valid comparison about a comment that was made.

Firstly, let me point out, that I believe Ignatius erred in the use of 'written', instead of 'assembled' when referring ot the Bible AS A WHOLE. However, if he were just to refer to the NT then the use of the word 'written' is appropriate.

Secondly, the comment of the lioness is faulty, for it makes the assumption that this Book is written for the future, when, inessence, the Bible was written for the early Christians, but is still very relevant for us today.

The mistake we are intent on making is in the ownership of the Scriptures. The Bible was assembled by the Church of the time from the many and varied writings that were circulating that were purporting to be Christ's word. It wasn't assembled overnight, they weren't chosen by lottery. Each book added was carefully considered by the Church, before a decision was made about weather or not to include it.

Now Ignatius and I believe that the Early Christians belonged to the catholic Church. That is our position, based on our beliefs. So in saying that, the Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church from the NT writings of the Early Christians/Catholics, along with the established Jewish OT.

Now Mike, firstly let me apologise for my earlier sniping, but your anti-Catholic sentiment is high, and sometimes my nerves do get frayed. And yes, believe it or not, I was thinking charity and love, but I just couldn't hold onto that thought whilst finishing that post.

Secondly, Your consistent push of "Roman Catholic" is annoying. Whether you believe it or not, it is possible for a Catholic to refer to Early Christians, not just Catholics. Christianity is made up of many denominations, the first of which - I believe - was the Catholic Church - meaning the Universal Church. You appear to want to exclude Catholics from Christianity, and for that I feel sorry.

Leothe Lioness, the comment I made on the Civil War was a relative comment. If you picked up a book today, first written around the time of the Civil war, would you assume that you shouldn't read it because you aren't of the mindset of those times?

[Ann M]

And what exactly is this supposed to mean? That the Scriptures are no longer relevant because we are living 2,000 years after the fact? :scratch: I'm confused. :o

Yes & No.

Yes, There are parts of the Scriptures that are not relevant to today. In fact, any OT scripture reference to making offerings at the Temple would come under this. But by including them we have an understanding of what differences their are between BC and AD.

And No, Scripture is not Irrelevant, but it needs to be understood in the context of the time and in today's context at the same time.

Scripture tells us how, whilst telling us why.

But when the Bible was written, it was written for the Jew converting to Christianity, and not to Methodism, Catholicism, Lautheranism, Baptistism etc etc

Just as a tome on the Civil War would be dealing with the situation between North and South, and not on the racial inequities of the USA.

[MikeMcK]

Now Mike, firstly let me apologise for my earlier sniping

I'm used to it.

but your anti-Catholic...

No, anti-Roman Catholicism. There's a world of difference.

You appear to want to exclude Catholics from Christianity, and for that I feel sorry.

You mean like ex ecclesia nulla salas? "Invincible ignorance". Ring a bell?

[Ann M]

I'm used to it.



No, anti-Roman Catholicism. There's a world of difference.



You mean like ex ecclesia nulla salas? "Invincible ignorance". Ring a bell?
I don't differentiate between Catholic and Roman Catholic :)

And no, Invincable ignorance doesn't ring a bell. But from what I understand from a quick read over at tells me I need to check into this :)

:hug:

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I don't think that was his point. I think the point was more along these lines: Saying that Catholics disregard the Bible is like telling Montaigne that he sucks at writing essays.


Thank you my sister. That was precisely my point.

May the Lord richly bless you and watch over you.

Your brother in Christ.