The vanishing bible

As I said above, I want to read them all. Where might I find the others you mention, or what are they called? Thanks.

It appears the Catholic Church has somehow hidden the Latin Vulgate they called their official Catholic Bible for over 1100 years, and the only thing you can find are the digitally edited versions that only show you how they want you to see it, not how it was.

I challenged several well versed Catholics to find me a digital photo copy of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and no one could produce one.

I spent months searching every website avaliable, and the libraries, and even e-mailed several places overseas such as the London Library, and no one knows where one can be found.

Just as I was about to throw in the towell, I happened to remember a Catholic using the Gutenberg Bible in one of his arguments, so I began looking into it and found it to be an exact replica of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was in use in 1450AD when Gutenberg used it as a model for the first mechanically produced Bible.

Unless you can read 15 century Latin, you won’t be able to read the pages, but the index is in English, so you’ll be able to see what books were in it, and what books were likewise in Jerome’s Bible.

HERE

You’ll see two columns, the left one under “Comparing the text” go down to the second window and click the arrow on its right side, and you’ll get a drop down of all the books that were in the Gutenberg Latin Vulgate.

The first will be “Jerome’s epistle to Paulines”
The second will say “Jerome’s Progolue to the Pemteuch”
Then it will go to Genesis
Exodus, and etc.
If you count each of these titles, and match the title to the number I give you, each of them are apocryphal books, all eighteen of them.
#19 is called The Prayer to Manasseth
#22 is lll Ezra
#23 is lV Ezra
#24 Tobit
#25 Judith
#27 Additions to Esther
#35 Wisdom of Solomon
#37 Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
#38 Prayer to Jesus Sirach
#39 Prayer of Solomon
#43 Prayer of Jeremiah
#44 Baruch
… Three Additions to Daniel
#47 Prayer of three Children
#48 Susanna
#48 Bel and the Dragon
#60 l Machabees
#61 ll Machabees

That a total of 18 The Catholic church kept 12 of them, (7 books and 5 additions,) and threw out the remaining 6, but the Greek Orthodox kept all 18.

If you take any one of these titles and Google them by using their title name, then adding Apocrypha on the end, and you should be able to read all of them.
If that doesn’t work we’ll find you a site that should have them all

I hope this helps.

JH :)

"Okay. So how do you get that guidance?"

For starters, you read the Bible. The whole Bible. From cover to cover. Over and over. And while you read it, you pray. You pray to the very God that provided the Bible for YOU to read. You pray directly to Him. Over and over. He will show you how to understand His Word. Have faith in His plan and your own God given intelligence. He hasn't provided His children with guidance that only a few can understand. It is very sad that you think you must have human interpretation to understand God's Word. What an incredible limit you've placed on your relationship with God.

With regard to John 6:53... Interpreting Scripture requires far more than examining a single verse offered without any other context. If I asked you to interpret a single sentence from the U.S. Constitution or Declaration of Independence, without offering the context of the entire document, your interpretation would most likely be incorrect. Similarly, if you are asking someone to interpret a single Scriptural verse, without providing the context in which it was written you most likely will get childlike answers, or confused, poorly supported doctrine. Therefore, rather than searching for the "right" interpretation of John 6:53, I suggest you first read the Bible. Then study the New Testament. Then examine the book of John, and you too will discover John 6:53 requires very little interpretation at all. You will know that when Jesus says "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." he is not talking about some cannibalistic ceremony. You will know that the Jews Jesus was addressing were asking exactly the same questions you are. You will read His entire answer to them, rather than a single sentence of His answer. And you will wonder why in the world someone raised in a Christian Church could not realize that Scripture is to be read in its whole context. Not as cut and pasted snipets with accompanying doctrinal clarifications from Catholic texts. Have faith in God and the intelligence he gave you. You will be amazed at what He is capable of revealing to you...without the "help" of the Church.

The Jewish Christians still kept the Laws of Moses, circumcision, the Levitical dietary laws of clean and unclean meats, the Jewish feast days, the Sabbath, the Temple etc, while the Gentiles were only asked to...

Acts 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

However, if you read onto Acts 15:21, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The Apostles presumed that the Gentile believers would learn Torah in the synogogue every Sabbath and they would take Torah upon themselves as the Holy Spirit lead them as opposed to being coerced into it by the power hungry judaisers Paul had to contend with.

You misunderstand! I don't want to argue with you about the doctrine of the Eucharist! We have different interpretations, and on that point, you and I are probably unmovable!

My point is, if private interpretation is always legitimate, then how come there are differences on such a pivotal issue? Now you must admit that there are Doctors of Scripture in the Catholic Church. They read the Bible over and over, cover to cover, study, and pray, and meditate, doing all the things a proper Christian is supposed to do with the Bible. And yet their interpretation of the Bible is so radically different from the Protestant one!

Now, you might say "well, they were reading the Bible with the eyes of the Catholic Church," and you would be right. But what about the Protestants who convert to Catholicism? Their faith may even have a vaguely anti-Catholic ring to it, and their relationship is with the Bible first. They read it cover to cover, study and pray and meditate, and come to a completely different conclusion than the one they have been taught all their lives.

Some Catholics leave their faith because they read the Bible, cover to cover, study, pray and meditate, and reject the Church's interpretation of John in favor of their own private interpretation which favors a less literal meaning.

I don't want you to explain to me why one is right and one is wrong. I want you to explain to me why, if private interpretation is all you need to understand the Bible, why two people who study the Bible privately come to such vastly different conclusions about such an incredibly important, central issue.

However, if you read onto Acts 15:21, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The Apostles presumed that the Gentile believers would learn Torah in the synogogue every Sabbath and they would take Torah upon themselves as the Holy Spirit lead them as opposed to being coerced into it by the power hungry judaisers Paul had to contend with.

That's very interesting, I notice that those who for one reason or another believe in keeping the Laws of Moses, read this the same way you do.

When I read it, I hear James telling the other Christian Jews that......

We can't expect the Gentiles who have never known God to keep the Laws as we do, since we have had them taught to us our whole life, and our fathers, and their fathers before them.

Then James and the others gave the Gentile believers the Noahide laws, that God had given to Noah and his sons in Gen 9, when He gave them every living thing as meat for them to eat.

Acts 15:28-29 mentions none of the Laws given to Moses, but just those given to Noah.

JH :)

I don't want you to explain to me why one is right and one is wrong. I want you to explain to me why, if private interpretation is all you need to understand the Bible, why two people who study the Bible privately come to such vastly different conclusions about such an incredibly important, central issue.

I apologize for jumping in here, but what doctrine do Catholics teach that will cause a non-Catholic to miss out on salvation for not keeping them the same way you do?

The Noachide laws are NOT in Torah. They are mostly of Talmudic origin and came long after Noah died. The Noachide laws, of which only a few are presented in the text in Acts were only considered the starting off point for newly baptised believers. They were never considered the end of the line as far as Torah observance among the Gentile believers is concerned. This corresponds with what James said in Acts 15:21, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

James and the Council presume the new Gentile believers would learn Torah in the Synogogues, not Noachide laws. They were expected to learn and practice Torah at their own pace, not at the pace set out by the judaisers, who expected 100% Torah compliance upon baptism.

"I don't want to argue with you about the doctrine of the Eucharist!"

Did you even read my post to you? I mean that seriously. Could you please show me ANYWHERE in my post where I argued anything about interpreting the Eucharist.

If your point here is trying argue that private interpretation is not always legitimate, you are arguing with yourself. If you had simply read my post to you, you would have read what I believe is required for an individual to gain the ability to interprete the Scripture. I stated it several times.

With that in mind, let me assure you I do not believe it is correct to say private interpretation is always accurate. It CLEARLY is not. Especially when it is offered on single Scriptural verses removed from context. Why are there differences between Catholic Church interpretations of God's Word and Protestant Church interpretations of God's Word? On the MAJOR, FUNDAMENTAL issues relating to Christianity, there is actually very strong agreement. Just take a look at the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed. Both are absolutely fundamental cores of all the major Christian Churches. There is no disagreement there. So how did differences in ideology arise? Wellll, you'll have to go back several hundred years to examine why Churches who share the same foundation have very divergent opinions on SOME key elements of ideology. As you look back you will note that much of the support for Catholic Doctrine comes from books added to the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible 400 years ago, that don't exist in the Bible used by Protestants (or Jews) or even the Catholic Church before the 16th Century. But the debate on that topic is centuries old, and will not be resolved here.

If you'd like me to explain to you how two people can come to "vastly different conclusions about such an incredibly important, central issue" perhaps you could reveal what issue you are talking about.

The Noachide laws are NOT in Torah. They are mostly of Talmudic origin and came long after Noah died. The Noachide laws, of which only a few are presented in the text in Acts were only considered the starting off point for newly baptised believers. They were never considered the end of the line as far as Torah observance among the Gentile believers is concerned. This corresponds with what James said in Acts 15:21, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

I have in front of me, Stone's Edition of the Chumash, the Art Scroll Series, and in Genesis 9:9-17 in the written Torah, it's almost verbatim with my KJV, so I'm not sure what your saying here.

There is nothing in the New Testament that suggest those Noahide laws were just the starting off point to keeping the whole law.

Some 6 years after the council meeting, Paul was telling his Gentile converts that they need not be concerned with the clean and unclean meat issue.

1 Cor 10:25-27 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.,/b>

He also said in Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

For someone who was gradually going to start bringing the Gentiles under the Laws of Moses, he certainly hadn't started yet.

And yes, I know all about koinos-koinoo and akathartos, comon and unclean, of Acts 10. :)

JH :)

John 6:53. The Lord commands us to eat His Flesh and Blood, or we "won't have life in us."

The Catholic Church does not teach that that means Protestants, who do not have access to the Eucharist, are going to Hell. And that doesn't mean that Catholics who do receive the Eucharist are going to Heaven, either.

But the Lord is saying :verily, verily you'd better do this. I suppose, if my Protestant father tells Jesus, "There was a misunderstanding, I did what I thought you always wanted" then that will be good enough. But clearly, its rather important that we know what it is He wants us to do.

With regard to John 6:53[...] Similarly, if you are asking someone to interpret a single Scriptural verse, without providing the context in which it was written you most likely will get childlike answers [...] You will know that when Jesus says "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." he is not talking about some cannibalistic ceremony.

Here is where you argued against the Catholic interpretation of the Eucharistic verses of John. You say: read the Bible in context, and it'll be obvious to you its not to be taken literally. I say: that's your interpretation. That's your reading of the Bible 'in context'.

Believe it or not, there have been very smart, prayerful people in the world who have read the Bible, who know and understand that the Bible must be read 'in context,' who still come up with a different opinion. What about Protestant converts? Did they suddenly stop reading the Bible 'in context' when they began to become sympathetic to Catholic ideas? I promise, some of the best, but not all, of the scripture scholars are Protestants.

I have in front of me, Stone's Edition of the Chumash, the Art Scroll Series, and in Genesis 9:9-17 in the written Torah, it's almost verbatim with my KJV, so I'm not sure what your saying here.

Noachide Laws courtesy of Aish.com

The Jewish idea is that the Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. The Torah (as explained in the Talmud - Sanhedrin 58b) presents seven mitzvot for non-Jews to observe. These seven laws are the pillars of human civilization, and are named the "Seven Laws of Noah," since all humans are descended from Noah. They are:

Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not worship false gods.
Do not be sexually immoral.
Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed.
Do not curse God.
Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.

Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these laws earns a proper place in heaven. So you see, the Torah is for all humanity, no conversion necessary.

As well, when King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he specifically asked God to heed the prayer of non-Jews who come to the Temple (1-Kings 8:41-43). The Temple was the universal center of spirituality, which the prophet Isaiah referred to as a "house for all nations." The service in the Holy Temple during the week of Sukkot featured a total of 70 bull offerings, corresponding to each of the 70 nations of the world. In fact, the Talmud says if the Romans would have realized how much they were benefiting from the Temple, they never would have destroyed it!

Today, there are many active groups of non-Jews called "B'nai Noach" who faithfully observe the Seven Laws of Noah.

There is an excellent book on the topic, called:
"The Path of the Righteous Gentile"
by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky.

However, let's also review the text you mention Gen. 9:8-17, which states (NAS), " 8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 "Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 "I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth."

12 God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bowin the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 "It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17 And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."

Where is G-d's call upon Noah to not to eat animal parts, to set up courts of justice, etc. from this text? These things are alluded to in other texts but only in the Talmud are they spelt out.

I find it interesting that someone who claims to believe in Yeshua would rather follow the traditions of men (Talmud) rather than the Word of G-d as revealed in Torah.

Some 6 years after the council meeting, Paul was telling his Gentile converts that they need not be concerned with the clean and unclean meat issue.

1 Cor 10:25-27 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

He also said in Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Typical Christian anti-nomian mis-representations of Paul's words. Sad, but true.

The first text (2 Corinthians 10:23-25)is taking out of context because it's a reference to the issue of purchasing animals from markets which might have obtained them from pagan temples. This is not an issue of ham v. lamb at all. This is made clear in verse 28-29, which states, 28 But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? "

Notice that Paul never says in any of his discourses on food that if someone sets a ham before you, you should eat it.

Quoting Biblical texts out of their contexts weakens your argument.

As for the text in Romans, if you look at the context, you see that Paul is contending with those in the community who are claiming that the only proper menu for a Christian is a vegetarian menu. Even these days, there are many 7th Day Adventists who fall into this trap, for example.

Read Romans 1:1-3 which states, "1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him."

Did they suddenly stop reading the Bible 'in context' when they began to become sympathetic to Catholic ideas?

I can't say why a Protestant becomes "sympathetic to Catholic ideas".

It's been my experience on FR and other situations where I am speaking with other Christians (usually Protestants) that they never read the Bible in context in the first place so why would they start doing so when considering the merits of the Catholic faith?

"You say: read the Bible in context, and it'll be obvious to you its not to be taken literally."

That is such a gross misrepresentation of what I said that I can only imagine you are being purposely inaccurate. In your initial post to me concerning this verse (post #74) you said the following..."A very young, perfectly simple child would not think twice about taking these words literally." A very young simple child who hears "I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" could only envision a cannibilistic ceremony. Given that sentence, and only that sentence, what possible alternative is there? But I no more think Catholics are indulging in cannibilism when they take the Eucherist than I believe Protestants are when they take Communion. What you are repeatedly missing is my repeated statements that nothing can be accurately interpreted from the Bible if it is taken out of context, which is EXACTLY what you are doing when you ask for an "interpretation" of a single verse of Scripture. How can you not understand that? Have you ever read the rest of John 6? Do you have ANY idea what Jesus is discussing in this chapter, or are does your interest in His Words end after reading a single verse? I implore you...read the WHOLE chapter. Put Christ's words in the context in which he gives them. You will see that Christ repeatedly refers to himself as the bread of life. Despite taking the Bible literally, I do not believe Christ believes He is a loaf of bread. But it is in that context in which He goes on to explain to His Jewish audience that His flesh is true food, and His blood is true drink. I personally don't care that the Catholic Church believes the bread and wine they consume during the Eucherist becomes Christ's actual flesh and blood. That is not why Christ introduced the Lord's Supper. I'm curious as to why no one has ever had their stomach contents surgically removed for DNA testing afterward, but beyond that, I don't care. I don't care, because I have never seen any Biblical evidence to support the notion that bread and wine becomes Christ's body after they are consumed. If you can offer it, I'd be happy to read it. But John 6:53 isn't it. But more importantly, that isn't what Christ taught us. No where will you find him explaining that upon consuming the bread and wine, they would become His flesh. Read 1 Corinthians 11. Paul gives a good description of the Lord's Supper. He discusses the importance of taking it...not any transformation of its elements.

Protestant converts to Catholicism have their own reasons for their decision. I have no idea what they are. For some reason, I doubt it has much to do with the Eucherist. I do know that anyone who fails to read the whole Bible, but relies solely on the teaching of others (even experts) will never gain an understanding of God's Word beyond what mortal humans explain to him. If that is enough for you, you have made your choice.

But the Lord is saying :verily, verily you'd better do this. I suppose, if my Protestant father tells Jesus, "There was a misunderstanding, I did what I thought you always wanted" then that will be good enough. But clearly, its rather important that we know what it is He wants us to do.

Being in a Catholic box as you are, you have been trained to only look at the "eat my flesh and drink my blood" part of John 6, but being non-denominational, I kept reading and I noticed that many of the disciples left at that point.

V-60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

They were kosher eating Jews, who were not permitted to eat human flesh, or drink blood of any kind, and they lacked faith in Jesus that he would show them a way.

The remaining disciples didn’t understand it either, but they had faith he wouldn’t require them to do anything that was cannibalistic, or against the Law of Moses.

By Jesus telling all the disciples that they would have no life in them unless they ate his flesh and drank his blood, he thinned out his followers to just those who had complete faith in him.

Something similar to this had happened back in Genesis 22:2, when God commanded Abraham to murder his only son, and Abraham knew this would be a sin, but he also trusted God more then his fear of disobeying Him, so God had to step in and provide Abraham with another sacrifice, a ram.

For the disciples who remained, this was a test of their faith, would they have actually eaten his flesh, and drank his blood had he offered it to them literally?

Would Abraham have actually killed his son?

We’ll never know, because in both cases when God asked man to obey Him by sinning, He also provided them with a way out.

Jesus explained it to the disciples in verse 63.

Jn 6:63-64 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Notice Jesus now finished explaining to the disciples how this would be possible. He said, “ the words I speak to you they are spirit, and they are life.”

What words?
Eat my flesh and drink my blood.
What did he say these words were?
Spirit. (not literal)

What do his words do?
They give life. (His words, not his flesh)

Is this spirit that gives life mentioned anywhere else?

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

When the day finally came, and Jesus broke the bread and drank from the cup, did he have to prepare the disciples for what they were about to do, eat his flesh, and drink his blood? No, this never entered their minds, because they understood that it was the spirit of the symbol, not the flesh of the act.

When Paul dealt with the Corinthians on the matter of The Lords Supper, he said nothing to prepare them for literally eating Christ flesh and blood.

A lot of the Pagan Gentiles drank blood before they became believers, and were condemned for it by the apostles, and in Acts 15, James told them….That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,

Now wouldn’t that have been nice if Paul had then said, forget what we told you about drinking blood, because to keep the Lords Supper it’s commanded you eat human flesh and drink human blood. :)

JH :)

Where is G-d's call upon Noah to not to eat animal parts, to set up courts of justice, etc. from this text? These things are alluded to in other texts but only in the Talmud are they spelt out.

They’re right here in the good old KJV

Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.V-6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed:

I find it interesting that someone who claims to believe in Yeshua would rather follow the traditions of men (Talmud) rather than the Word of G-d as revealed in Torah.

I’m under the New Covenant that Christ died to give the world, which Covenant are you under? Are you intending to work your way to Gods kingdom? I’m not sure where your coming from in some of your statements.

My Bible is the KJV, it’s not perfect, but it’s been dissected from every angle, and has stood the test of time, so if you intend to debate translations, don’t expect me to join you.

JH :)

The first text (2 Corinthians 10:23-25)is taking out of context because it's a reference to the issue of purchasing animals from markets which might have obtained them from pagan temples.

Correct

This is not an issue of ham v. lamb at all. This is made clear in verse 28-29, which states, 28 But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? "

Your wrong, the issue is someone buying meats in a shambles, which was the common meat market for all types of meat.

A Jew could not buy meats in a shambles, because it would already be unclean from simply being in the same building with un-kosher meats.

Pauls instructions were twofold. He tried not to offend the Law keeping Jews by making direct statements that it was alright for Gentiles to eat what had always been considered unclean meats to the Jews, but he did it in such a way the Gentiles understood they were allowed to eat anything common.

God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10:15, that just as the Gentile was no longer unclean, neither were animals

V-15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Peter couldn’t accept this simple statement of God, and he may never have been able to, but it was God’s word to the Gentiles that the Levitical Dietary laws were lifted.

There had never been anything wrong with eating unclean animals in the first place, since God had given Noah all living things for meat, it was only wrong for the Hebrews because God told them it was unclean to them, but no one else.

God had declared certain animals to be unclean, just as the Gentiles were unclean and common, and He lifted that law just as easily as He had made it in Leviticus 11.

Notice that Paul never says in any of his discourses on food that if someone sets a ham before you, you should eat it.

Unless your saying that there was no unclean meat allowed in the shambles, then you are dead wrong. Did the Pagan idol worshippers only sacrifice kosher meats. NOT!

Quoting Biblical texts out of their contexts weakens your argument.

And your refusing to read what Paul was telling the Gentiles, leaves you with no argument what so ever.

As for the text in Romans, if you look at the context, you see that Paul is contending with those in the community who are claiming that the only proper menu for a Christian is a vegetarian menu. Even these days, there are many 7th Day Adventists who fall into this trap, for example.

Since you apparently aren’t under the New Covenant, you seem to be blinded to truths that tell much larger stories.

Paul is dealing with the conscience of men, the voice of Gods Holy Spirit that leads men to follow the commandments of the Holy Spirit who uses different commands for different people.

For one reason or another, this person who only ate vegetables had been led to do so by his conscience, and Paul said to not offend him by blatantly rubbing it in his face that you were more adult, and could eat anything you cared to.

V-2 One person has faith that he may eat all things,

All things would certainly include all meats, just as God told Noah….

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

I am a believing Gentile, and God has released us from all these Levitical mill stones that some seem to enjoy hanging about their necks. :)

JH :)

Stubborn: No need to excerpt this article...(and it is a good one too!)....

Jim Robinson's Master List Of Articles To Be Excerpted

The Vanishing Bible

As noted earlier, Richard Sklba recently expressed concern to his brother bishops that over-exposure to the evangelists can give Catholics an "evangelical" slant. No unseemly evangelism intrudes on Sklba's own book on the early prophets, Words of Warning, Dreams of Hope, wherein, e.g., the dates are tagged B.C.E. ("before the common era") rather than B.C. ("before Christ"). B.C.E dates, you see, are 70% more accurate.

I was reminded in this connection of an excellent article by Prof. James Hitchcock, in which he explains how it happened that the considerable Catholic hunger for Sacred Scripture was exploited so as to undercut the very reasons that gave birth to it. An excerpt:

"Well-meaning, not highly educated Catholics who eagerly joined bible-study groups after the Council not uncommonly found their inherited faith shaken, as they were invited -- by group leaders and by written materials -- to scrutinize Catholic teachings and practices sceptically and to measure them against the New Testament in classical Protestant fashion, a scrutiny which usually seemed to work to the Church's disadvantage. Although this was not their original intention, many people became liberal Catholics through the medium of Bible study. (Thus liberal Catholics are quick to ask, for example, "Where does the New Testament condemn homosexuality?" or "Where does it say that women cannot be ordained priests?")

Such attitudes would be defensible if they rested on an unwavering confidence in Scripture as the revealed Word of God. However, Catholic Bible study after the Council also moved towards a liberal Protestant scepticism towards the Scripture itself, so that in a way it became irrelevant what the Bible might or might not say about a particular question, since it is naive and obscurantist to assume that the Scripture in some direct way constitutes the Word of God.

In effect liberals first used the Bible to "deconstruct" the teachings of the Church, then in turn "deconstructed" the Bible itself. The result -- intended by some, stumbled into by others -- was to eliminate all objective source of religious authority, leaving the individual as the ultimate judge of authentic belief."

The entire article -- it's not long -- repays a careful reading. It's an open question whether a new initiative to encourage Bible-reading would ultimately strengthen faith, or would be hijacked by the familiar summer-workshop-apparat and used to advance its own agenda. As Hitchcock points out, the institutional precedents are not reassuring:

"In the final and most astonishing irony, modern biblical scholarship is unable to explain why the Bible should be studied at all, except as an important historical document, or why it should be accorded any unusual respect. Only the Church can justify this, but it has been precisely the rule of modern scholarship to exclude the Church from any meaningful capacity to interpret Scripture. Thus, if it continues on its present well-worn path, even moderate biblical scholarship will continue to contribute to the undermining of the Bible’s influence over human hearts and minds, not exactly what was intended when Catholics of thirty years ago were urged to make themselves more biblical."

"The seven books reference Purgatory, praying to Saints, Our Lady, etc. etc. In short, the reason the seven books were removed were because these books contain many things that Protestants do not believe in - so they got rid of them."

Hardly. The books are OT-time period Jewish wisdom books and historical accounts. There IS an account of praying for the dead, but all the rest is not there.

Have you read them?