Posted on 11/19/2004 8:21:22 AM PST by Stubborn
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?")
(Excerpt) Read more at cwnews.com ...
So the Jews also removed them because they didn't believe in Purgatory or praying to saints also, is that what your saying?
If the Jews had used these apocrypha books to develop their doctrine prior to the Christians running with them, then they must have dropped them from their doctrine also, because there is no record of them ever believing in such things.
The apocrypha had nothing to do with the development of the Jewish faith, because they were never more then fictional fables, and fairy tails to them.
Also the Jews had never needed a canon prior to the sudden interest of the Christians, because all Jews knew the sacred books, and heard them read every Sabbath day in the Temple and Synagogues, and they were the only ball-game in town.
The Church embracing those books had nothing to do with the Jews not accepting then, and if Christ had never been born, they still wouldn't be part of the Hebrew canon today, because the writers were not inspired by God and none of them claim to be.
JH :)
When your born and raised in MUCK, fresh air smells strange.. :)
JH :)
*Jesus saves. A collection of books, the Bible, doesn't.
The church has always had the Old Testament, and within 10 or 15 years after the crucifixion of Christ, the sacred books of the New Testament began to be written and published in each local church.
We would have had the Bible today without the aid of the Catholic Church, because God intended it to be used to take His message to the world, and instead of you acting like you wrote it yourselves, you should feel blessed that God allowed you to have a part in it.
Tell me something, the Latin Vulgate Old Testament that was the official Bible of the Catholic Church for over 1100 years, was it taken from Jerome's translation of the Hebrew text, or was it taken from the Greek Septuagint?
JH :)
"...the Church assembled the Bible, the Church can't be wrong where doctrine is concerned, and thats that."
A revealing common theme. Exactly who is "the Church"?
It was you who referenced muck, so I figured you must be the expert on it. :)
Do you have a Catholic background? I don't mean necessarily devout, just Catholic?
JH :)
I can answer that one.
"The Church" refers to the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church set up by Jesus. Nearly 2000 years strong.
I agree, the Bible doesn't save, but it teaches us after we believe and turn our lives around.
JH :)
They were relegated to the dustheap or to history by the Jews first. Protestants were/are just following Jewish precedent.
Yes. It all makes perfect sense. God intended many Faiths, each teaching different Doctrines about Him and what is necessary for Salvation.
When Jesus said:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
He was likely just fooling around, right?
Yes, it teaches you one thing and me another. Oh bother. Now what do we do? I know! I'll go to the Church that Jesus gave me to help settle these disputes! Thank God!!
That's not quite true. The local councils (Hippo and Rome, I believe) around AD 400 which finalized the NT canon also included the deuterocanonical books. (Some Protestant apologists have an obscure argument which alleges that they didn't define exactly the same canon as Trent, but that's a matter for hair-pulling dispute, IMO. It's beyond dispute that their OT canon was closer to Trent's than not.)
Trent was the first time the canon was defined by an ecumenical council, and thus probably the first time it was defined infallibly.
OK. Is that "one" Holy, catholic and apostolic Church the "one" that determines "authorized interpretations" of the Bible, and has created doctrine without error?
You can never go wrong with the 4 marks of the true Church
Yeah, but this was done in medieval times. Christ used the Septuagint, which contained these parts of Daniel and Esther.
Jews don't use the word "purgatory" (which is Latin), but they definitely believe in a process of purification after death, which is why they pray for the dead (ever heard of Jews "sitting shiva" for someone?). In fact, all evidence indicates that they prayed for the dead in Jesus' time, also. In fact, both Jews and all Christians except Protestants pray for the dead. So why are you guys the odd men out?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.