Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 02-06-07 | Mary Harwell Sayler

[Salvation]

Mary Harwell Sayler	Other Articles by Mary Harwell Sayler Printer Friendly Version
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

---

March 6, 2007

Question: What's the difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant one? Is our Old Testament the same as a Jewish Bible? If not, why?

Answer: The most noticeable differences occur in the number of books included and the order in which they have been arranged. Both the Jewish Bible and the Hebrew canon in a Protestant Bible (aka Old Testament) contain 39 books, whereas a Catholic Bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament. In addition, the Greek Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox, Church accepts a few more books as canonized scripture.

To give you a quick overview of a complicated subject, here's what happened: Several hundred years before the birth of Christ, Babylonian conquerors forced the Jews to leave Jerusalem. Away from their Temple and, often, from their priests, the exiled people forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. After a while, Jewish scholars wanted to make the Bible accessible again, so they translated Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language commonly spoken. Books of wisdom and histories about the period were added, too, eventually becoming so well known that Jesus and the earliest Christian writers were familiar with them. Like the original Hebrew scriptures, the Greek texts, which were known as the Septuagint, were not in a codex or book form as we're accustomed to now but were handwritten on leather or parchment scrolls and rolled up for ease in storage.

Eventually, the Jewish exiles were allowed to return to Jerusalem where they renovated the Temple. Then, in A.D. 70, warring peoples almost completely destroyed the sacred structure, which has never been rebuilt. Without this central place of worship, the Jews began looking to the Bible as their focal point of faith, but to assure the purity of that faith, only Hebrew scriptures were allowed into the Jewish canon. By then, however, the earliest Christians spoke and read Greek, so they continued to use the Septuagint or Greek version of the Bible for many centuries. After the Reformation though, some Christians decided to accept translations into Latin then English only from the Hebrew texts that the Jewish Bible contained, so the seven additional books in the Greek translation became known as the Apocrypha, meaning "hidden." Since the books themselves were no secret, the word seemed ironic or, perhaps, prophetic because, in 1947, an Arab boy searching for a lost goat found, instead, the Dead Sea scrolls, hidden in a hillside cave.

Interestingly, the leather scrolls had been carefully wrapped in linen cloth, coated in pitch, and placed in airtight pottery jars about ten inches across and two feet high where, well-preserved, they remained for many centuries. Later, other caves in the same area yielded similar finds with hundreds of manuscripts no longer hidden. Indeed, the oldest copies of the Bible now known to exist are the Dead Sea scrolls of the Septuagint.

Because of this authentic find from antiquity, many publishers in the twentieth century added back the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel. So now, when an edition of the Bible says "with Apocrypha" on the cover, the extra books from the Septuagint will usually be placed between the Old and New Testaments or at the end of the Bible. Catholic Bibles already contained those books, however, so you'll find them interwoven with other Old Testament books of history and wisdom writings. 

For the New Testament, it's a different story — and short. All of the books were written in Greek or Aramaic from the start. Although some debate occurred about which Gospels or Epistles should be included, all Christians eventually accepted all of the same 27 books in the same order. So, as long as you choose an edition that does not add explanatory notes opposed to a Catholic perspective, any reputable translation of the New Testament is fine.

 

© Copyright 2007 Catholic Exchange

[markomalley]

ALL BUT RC/ORTHO CAUCUS THREAD

Maybe you could just work on getting them banned from Free Republic altogether (unless they behave and keep their religion to themselves)

[.30Carbine]

Would you consider reposting it here?

Thank you so much for your fellowship in Jesus, dear Alamo-Girl. I've run out of time this morning! I had so much fun reading everyone's comments here and elsewhere that I ran out of time to post my own! Please forgive me. If you would like to copy and post more of what I wrote yesterday, please feel free to do so. Jesus is so alive among us!

[fortheDeclaration]

Ofcourse they are, but you (the scholars) are going to tell us which are and which aren't based on....nothing Live in delusions if you so choose. Would a humble Moses call himself the humblest man on earth? If your theory is right, then he did in Num 12:3 — otherwise someone else wrote verse 3!

Why wouldn't Moses call himself that if God told him to write it!

He wrote about his own murdering a man, didn't he?

You think that those moved by the Holy Spirit got to pick out what they wanted to write?

Also, we can tell from the context what sections may not have been written by Moses, but would have been written by another inspired author such as Joshua.

You just pick and choose what you like in scripture and then reject what you don't-ye shall be gods Really? Then why don't you explain to me why does the Book of Jude, verses 14-15, (NT) quote from the Book of Enoch, I Enoch 1:9, (OT Apocrypha only in the Ethiopian Church) as if it were Scripture?

And once again, what proof do you have that it is a quote from the Book of Enoch?

Or perhaps in Jude 9 a refreence to the non-canonical Assumption of Moses?

No, in Jude 9 God told the Apostle Jude what to write, it is not a quotation from any work.

Once again, an assumption on your part.

Or, perhaps, why Hebrews 11:37 quotes from the non-canonical The Martyrdom of Isaih?

No, God the Holy Spirit told the Apostle Paul what to write.

Does it say it is referring to the martyrdom of Isaiah?

Again, that is an assumption on your part.

How can uninspired books be quoted as inspired? Oh, wait, of course you wouldn't know that since your Bible doesn't contain cross references the writers of the NT used from now noncanonical books! It was good enough for the inspired writer of Jude but it's not good enough for the Christian Bible!

Non-canonical books are quoted in the NT and we know what they are because they are stated to be quotes like Paul quoting a heathen poet in Acts 17:28.

God doesn't want us to be confused on what He has given as His pure words and those words of mere men.

I don't want to waste my time giving you all the hints and answers. I think you need to do your own homework.

I think you need to do some homework since you are just repeating the same old excuses for not believing the Bible.

Since you cannot figure out how God did something, He must have done it the way you think He did it.

Based on evidence?

No, mere conjecture.

So, what you have shown on these posts is that you have no evidence against the TR and no evidence for the LXX.

Moreover, we have seen that your own theologians had a much higher view of scripture then you clearly do as did at least one Greek Church Father, Chrysostom.

As I said, you are your own 'god' under no authority but that of your own opinions.

[fortheDeclaration]

Good article on verbal inspiration.

All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration

Pastor Ho Soo Kam

http://biblebelievers.com/kam/kam_001.html

[BelegStrongbow]

"3. Anglican - Believe baptism is an effectual means of salvation"

I'd be curious where you get this because it isn't even true for TEC, which is probably the least orthodox arm of Anglicanism. It is universally held by Anglicans that at least Baptism and the repeated reception of the Eucharist are required of all to have the opportunity of salvation.

You might gain some insight into Anglican belief and practice (lex orandi, lex credendi) if you found a 1928 BCP and read through it. Notice that there are official forms for baptism, confirmation, matrimony, holy orders, communion of the sick and for burial and the Eucharist there. Note that the Eucharist is the first of the sacramental forms to be incorporated as one reads through the text, after the Offices of daily devotions (Morning and Evening Prayer).

It would seem to me that such a Book implies that those worshippers using it are instructed throughout their lives to organize their faithful and worshipping lives around these rites and that they are paramount for worshipping in common. In such a circumstance, baptism becomes the entryway for the pilgimage to salvation, not the terminus.

God bless you richly.

[trisham]

bookmark

[kosta50]

Why wouldn't Moses call himself that if God told him to write it!

Because obviously you don't know what humility is.

No, God the Holy Spirit told the Apostle Paul what to write

"God told me so" is the universal 'escape clause' that ends all discussions, isn't it? Since this is an priori acceptance on your part, nothing else has to be 'proven.' End of discussion.

If you believed in unicorns it would just as 'valid.'

Once again, an assumption on your part.

Pot calling kettle black. A priori acceptance of anything is a major assumption.

I think you need to do some homework since you are just repeating the same old excuses for not believing the Bible

I think I have done my homework above and beyond, without any agenda. I don't place blind trust in what human hands wrote on pieces of parchment or papyrus containing a dozen or so words, the oldest of which is dated more than one century after Christ, the rest at least 250 years after Him; the majority dated from seven to twelve centuries later.

TR is flawed. It, as the rest of the NT, contains additions, deletions and questionable verses. Every elementary reader of Bible history knows that. KJV is equally flawed because it is based on TR.

In order for one to believe that anything in the NT as well as the OT is genuine one must begin and end with an assumption. To me an assumption is not a proof; to you it seems it's all that's needed for a 'proof.'

I think we have reached the end of our discussion. If I know Protestant mindset, the 'last word' will be forthcoming. I don't care. When someone uses "God told me/him/her/them so" as an 'argument' the discussion is over. For good.

[fortheDeclaration]

Why wouldn't Moses call himself that if God told him to write it! Because obviously you don't know what humility is.

And if God is telling Moses to write it, it is God's opinion, not Moses.

How would anyone but God know that Moses that was the most meek man on the earth?

No, God the Holy Spirit told the Apostle Paul what to write "God told me so" is the universal 'escape clause' that ends all discussions, isn't it? Since this is an priori acceptance on your part, nothing else has to be 'proven.' End of discussion.

And do you have evidence to the contrary?

The Book says that God told men what to write (2Pe.1:21)

If you believed in unicorns it would just as 'valid.'

And what makes you think that Unicorns never existed?

Once again, an assumption on your part. Pot calling kettle black. A priori acceptance of anything is a major assumption.

I accept the Bible as being true since I believe what is in it, like the Resurrection.

You only want to accept as true what you want to be true and then have the 'freedom' to reject the rest.

I think you need to do some homework since you are just repeating the same old excuses for not believing the Bible I think I have done my homework above and beyond, without any agenda. I don't place blind trust in what human hands wrote on pieces of parchment or papyrus containing a dozen or so words, the oldest of which is dated more than one century after Christ, the rest at least 250 years after Him; the majority dated from seven to twelve centuries later.

We have more manuscript evidence of the Bible than any other ancient document.

If you reject the Bible, you would have to reject the reliablity of every ancient author and book.

TR is flawed. It, as the rest of the NT, contains additions, deletions and questionable verses. Every elementary reader of Bible history knows that. KJV is equally flawed because it is based on TR.

Really?

You haven't provided evidence for one flawed reading.

It would nice if you could actually prove something instead of just stating logical fallacies (every elementary reader knows....)

In order for one to believe that anything in the NT as well as the OT is genuine one must begin and end with an assumption. To me an assumption is not a proof; to you it seems it's all that's needed for a 'proof.'

No, you must begin with faith and faith is the evidence of things not seen.

You claim to believe what the Bible says about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ so why isn't that an assumption?

I think we have reached the end of our discussion. If I know Protestant mindset, the 'last word' will be forthcoming. I don't care. When someone uses "God told me/him/her/them so" as an 'argument' the discussion is over. For good.

Well, God told you in His Bible about Christ or you wouldn't have known anything about Him.

God told you in His Bible that His words were inspired (1Tim.3:16).

God told you in His Bible, that He moved men to write down what He wanted written (2Pe.1:21).

God told you in His Bible that every word was pure (Pr.30:6).

I can't help it if you reject what God has told you

[Quix]

Great meditations. Thanks tons, dear Sister in Christ.

Truly, dear Quix, when I meditate on all of these - there is not one iota of my personality I would consider worth keeping in the new heaven and earth. I'd be content as a pillar as promised to those of the church of Philadelphia who overcome. But it is up to Christ. We'll see.

And, that is the proper humble attitude of the creaTURE. But virtually everything I observe in Scripture and in anecdotal accounts convinces me that the attitude of the CreaTOR is quite different regarding our personalities.

I could SORT OF fathom our present personalities being school exercises for the training of our eternal personalities.

I cannot fathom from the testimony of Scripture and the testimony of anecdotal accounts that God has gone to such extremes to create such varied personalities; to delight in them; to FELLOWSHIP with them; to MAKE HIS HABITATION !!!!IN!!!! THEM; . . . only after a blip of time in eternity to obliterate them. Doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't sound like DADDY, to me.

Few snow flakes are identical--sort of identical out of virtually countless numbers. Ditto grains of sand. No trees are identical. Identical twin humans are not really identical. No two flowers are identical. . . . . ad infinitim . . .

Yet all this extreme beautiful--"IT-IS-GOOD"-- diversity is to be homoginized and obliterated, destroyed as though it were NOT GOOD??? Doesn't make sense, to me. DoesN'T sound like DADDY, to me.

Proper humility of the creaTURE before and in relationship with the CreaTOR is one thing. Obliteration is quite something else.

What was one of the surprising things to Roland Buck--even with his profound humility?

I heard a voice say: "Come with me into the Throne Room where the secrets of the universe are kept!" I didn't have time to answer; space means nothing to God! It was like a snap of the fingers - boom - and I was right there! Only then did I recognize that the voice I had heard speaking to me was the voice of the Almighty God!

I was nervous, and God told me to relax. He said, "You can't prove anything to me, because I already know you. I began to relax even though it was so awesome I had difficulty comprehending what was happening.

He came right to the point and said, "I want to give you (and this is HIS expression) an 'overlay' of truth." In a split second of eternity, we went from Genesis to Revelation, looking first at God's plan for his people. Throughout all of the Bible, God discussed his character, stating, I will do nothing in conflict with my nature or my character. My plan for you is good and it will be accomplished."

He referred me to Jeremiah 29:11, "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." In giving me these thoughts, God wanted me to see how he really felt about man; that he had man in mind before he made the earth; and he made the earth so man would have a place on which to live. When he looks at man, he does not look at the evil which has taken place, but he looks at the very heart of man.

. . .

He allowed me to see the record books, and also his blueprints for many lives. One book was that of the apostle Paul. It revealed that he would be used to bring the Gospel to kings, rulers, and men of authority. For this reason, God gave him a bigger brain capacity than normal, and because he was more brilliant, he caused him to study under the greatest teachers of his day, finally being tutored by Gamaliel, the most outstanding teacher of that time. God had chosen Paul to write the Scripture, the Epistles, His plan for the church and His body, so he prepared him for this task.

. . .

One of the most exciting things to me was the peek that God gave me into Abraham's and Sarah's records. As I glanced through them, I saw things with which I was totally unfamiliar. I saw records of Abraham's and Sarah's hospitality to strangers. They had a real feeling for those who were less fortunate than they. They watered the camels of their guests, gave them a place to stay, and shared their food with them. God honored this, and it was written down, but I had never previously noticed this when I read the book of Genesis!

One thing I could not find was the places where Abraham stumbled. When Abraham lied to the king of Egypt, saying that his wife was his sister, it was not recorded there! The time his faith was weak and he laughed because of unbelief in God's promise that a man of his age could be a father, was not recorded there.

"God, where is the other book?" "I have no other book for the believers." "Where did you write about the failures of Abraham which I have seen recorded in your own words in the Bible?"

"I have no other book. I DO NOT RECORD FAILURE IN HEAVEN!" (See Hebrews 10:17-18).

. . .

There isn't any way I can tell you all the things that were imprinted on my mind during this time of unadulterated glory. It is utterly impossible! I do, however, want to share some of the things which made the greatest impression upon me.

One of the discoveries which was so beautiful to me in heaven, was the total absence of the piety people often want to apply to their lives when they think of God! There was none there! Everything was on a light, happy, relaxed basis, with real brightness! I didn't feel like I had to walk on eggs because I was totally at ease! I didn't have to think twice of what I was going to say for fear I would displease someone for there was a sense of total openness. It was a beautiful, but awesome experience that I will never forget!

God emphasized to me that we should quit worrying about HIS responsibilities. He actually let me view people who are trying to serve him by seeing how much they can get their minds in tune with him, by trying to think just exactly right, or trying to say the right word at the right time! God emphasized to me, "That is my business. You worship me, walk with me, put your hand in mine, get your heart in tune with me and I will give you the privilege of moving with me.

"Let me take care of my own business! What I have promised is my business, and I will take care of it. I have not failed in all of this time. Not even one of my words has failed in all of my good promises."

. . .

God also reminded me that the earth is a wonderful place, because the whole earth is filled with his glory! He let me see an increasing number of people turning to him. Not people backing away, not a surrendering of the church, not a church heading underground, but a church triumphant!

. . .

I became totally relaxed and at ease with God. You don't have to "put your best foot forward," because he even knows what your worst foot looks like! There is no use putting on an act or trying to make an impression - just be yourself! I found it would be impossible to be any other way in heaven!

When your time comes to leave this earth, don't worry about it, because heaven is not a drag! If things get bad here, don't worry about that either. God wants us to make the most of our lives while we are on his beautiful earth, to live for him, and be happy! God is not nearly as concerned as we are about a lot of things that people have put their little red flags on. What he asks is that we walk with him and love him. He wants us to look at what he is doing, because the grace of God and his glory fills the whole earth!

God also allowed me to see loved ones who had died. Then he let me see believers who were passing from this life. I saw their families in heaven being alerted by the angels that a loved one was coming home and for them to ready themselves to welcome them. Paul referred to these people as having "heavenly" or "celestial" bodies. This amplified and clarified for me another eternal dimension. They were identifiable, and appeared exactly the way they looked here, minus the cares, the hurts and other problems. They were constantly experiencing tremendous joy, excitement and happiness, for heaven is a place of continual discovery about the beauty of God!

. . .

The Lord has a wonderful sense of humor, and there is a lot of laughter and joy in heaven. I could see the back of my head, and I remarked, "Lord, I certainly did not know the back of my head was getting that white!"

I don't find a hint--not a microgram's worth of personality obliteration in any of the above. Instead, I find DADDY DIALOGUE WITH PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY ENHANCEMENT.

At some point, it seems to me, . . . how to say this gently . . . trying to insist [since trying is all we MIGHT be able to manage--imho, HE won't tolerate it] . . . trying to insist on obliteration before DADDY is at least a bit of an affront to HIS CHARACTER, NATRUE, WILL AND GOALS.

It would be somewhat like a dad who has a 16 year old son. And the son has been faithful mostly. Sometimes the son has been awful but the last several years, the son has been faithful and utterly submissive and loving toward the dad. And Dad wants to host an absolutely fantastic birthday party for the son. He wants the son's friends of every degree and type to attend. And the dad wants to honor his son and gift him in several ways. And the dad wants to watch the son having fun with his friends and to share in the fun with his son and friends.

So, the dad hosts the great meal and the son sits next to him staring cow eyed and fixated on dad the whole time. Doesn't eat. Dad is perplexed but putting the best face on it moves along to the gifts.

All the gifts--the son expresses thanks but sort of ACTS like they are rubbish and continues to stare cow-eyed at dad.

So Dad thinks--well, I have some wonderful games that will involve a lot of humor and rich sharing amongst us with his friends, that will brighten him up.

And the son is just a lump on the sidelines staring cow-eyed at the dad.

At some point, that would not be devotion, that would be rebellion.

Thankfully, there will be no such scenario in Heaven. We'll automatically flow WITH GOD'S PRIORITIES including BEING OURSELVES IN HIS PRESENCE. DELIGHTING IN HIS PRESENCE AND HIM DELIGHTING IN SHARING HIMSELF WITH US AND FELLOWSHIPPING WITH US--AS WE WERE CREATED FOR.

Dearest Precious Sister Angel-Gal . . . it somewhat . . . pains me to be so vivid above. But I'm constrained in my spirit to do so. I have no peace about anything less.

I suspect that I've been 'blacker than thou' many times over. I have much more cause for abject contrition and humility than you do.

BUT at some point DADDY says--please get off your knees; I want to dance with you. Please quit fasting, I have a banquet for you.

In a sense, I think there will be no piety in Heaven--least not the effortful, conscious kind. imho

[Quix]

Cute.

w/no clue about my heart, goals and priorities

[Mad Dawg]

The saloon doors swing open. Conversation stops, the piano player slows, falters, and ceases as Mad Dawg walks in the sudden silence, quietly as a cat, across the saloon floor to the bar, gestures to the bar tender for a drink, and turns to face the cowed onlookers, as, hands hovering over the ivory handles of his matching revolvers, he prepares to unleash a devastating theological rejoinder.

But unfortunately he is so drugged and sleepy he can't remember what the rejoinder was going to be.

Music starts up, conversation and laughter resume. Mad Dawg stalks out of the saloon, saddles up, and rides out of town. Nobody notices.

I don't think God creates us wholesale. I think angel differs from angel not always in degree of glory but in kind of glory, Raphael and Michael being different from each other and both different from Gabriel.

I think the Alamo-girl that grows before God as she lives in faith, seeks to resolve the conflicts and incongruities of her loife and circumstances with her perception and experience of God's Love, as her own "humors" and history and quirks make each temptation and accomplishment unique and different from any challenge any other child of God has ever met or ever will meet, as she chooses, failed to choose, repents and turns again to the Lord and finds and takes to herself His mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, Alamo-Girl joins with God in His creation, redemption,, and sanctification expressed as it never was before and never will be again. Alamo-Girl's new song will be unlike kosta's, Quix's, or the baying and yipping of certain Dawgs.

I used to think all I wanted, all I could or should hope for was to be a dribble of water, itself disappearing into the soil, its presence not seen but deduced by the fertility and green let behind. I don't know where it came from, I suspect being a parent has something to do with it, but I now find each and nearly every individual quirk or trait charming and endearing. I wonder if it makes sense that God would lose all these different testimonies to Him and His Love and examples of the same as each of us is saved, even if only through fire.

I think we each add our own note to the celestial music, and our own refraction to the Divine Light.

And Now My eyes will not stay open.

[kosta50]

May God bless you to, AG.

I agree except that I hope there will still be games or friendly competitions in heaven

But that means we will concentrate on something other than God, i.e. self; and that's when sin begins.

[kosta50]

I don't think God creates us wholesale. I think angel differs from angel not always in degree of glory but in kind of glory, Raphael and Michael being different from each other and both different from Gabriel

But the question is are they in any way aware of their different roles? Do they 'take pride' in them? You see, angels are messengers of God, wholy transparent, not vain in any way. Those who 'took pride' fell along with satan. Dying unto yourself and letting only God shine through you is becoming invisible, transparent, angelic, never drawing attention to yourself, as to who you are. Individual differences retain their role and function for God's purpose only.

[kosta50]

I strongly disagree. I don't even think that's very Biblical

And Roland Buck is?

GOD CREATED US WITH INDIVIDUAL NEEDS

No, the only thing the Bible tells us is that man was created in the Image and Likeness of God. There is only one image and only one likeness of the eternal and unchanging God. Anything that detracts from that image and likness is un-godly. The fall occurred when man started to mind himselflikeness of God, not enhancing our personal differences.

[kosta50]

Likewise the pseudepigraphral books attributed to Enoch recount his heavenly visits - but the overwhelming focus is on the Father and "The Elect One" (Jesus Christ.)

By the way, the Book of Jude 1:14-15 (NT) quotes from the the Book of Enoch (I Enoch 1:9) as Scripture, although only the Ethiopian Bible considers is inspired.

Truly, dear Quix, when I meditate on all of these - there is not one iota of my personality I would consider worth keeping in the new heaven and earth.

If that ain't the truth. Our personalities are of this world and the Evangelist tells us 'love not the world.'

[Mad Dawg]

I think "take pride" is, unfortunately an equivocal locution.

When I was being cut on (Hey, am I self-referential or what?) they let me wakeup enough to watch them close the incision on my left foot. I said to myself and to God, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made." Believe me, I am NOT proud of my feet! But even my poor flat wide pancakes are "wonderful".

On rare occasions I "do something right", say, preach a non-sick-making sermon. It would be just as foolish of me to deny that it was a good sermon and to be grateful for it and analyze what made it good, what could have made it better, etc. as it would to credit myself for it, to say MY rhetorical right hand, My vast and deep spearchool wisdom, made this sermon.

I'm serious about saying "All is gift," as serious as a heart-attack. I look at my goofiness, and how sometimes it has, say, defused what was becoming an ugly confrontation, or my persistence, and how it means that in my late fifties I've acquired skills I'd alway kind of thought it would be nice to have but never thought I'd actually have ... and I think they're neat!

I sure as shooting can't take any credit for them. That would be flat absurd, and besides God reliably stomps that kind of stuff out of me very promptly.

But I do Him no honor and show no gratitude if I do not appreciate the goodness of what He has given me.

The small trailing arbutus hidden in the shady woods sings, "Glory to God, I am fearfully and wonderfully made!'" One of the gifts I look for is to be increasingly "detached" from the deceitful sense of ownership so that I can prasie God for every gift I see, in myself or in a "rival". I bless God that, though when I preached I was accounted by many to be not so bad, I have finally met a stable of Dominicans who if it ever came to a preaching smack-down would leave me no more than a spot of grease on the floor. "This is the Lord's doing, and it is sho' 'nuff something marvellous in my eyes."

And now I am really going to collapse. Back in a couple of hours.

[kosta50]

In Kolo's last post on this, he mentioned dogmas, and I thought he meant as distinguished from doctrines

I don't really see any difference between them. The EOC has very few specific dogmas: the dogma of Theotokos (Mother of God) is one that comes to mind. The Creed, altogether is dogmatic. If you don't believe the Creed, you are not Orthodox. One word added or left out, and you are not Orthodox (i.e. filioque issue with the RCC).

You can't be Orthodox and not accept the dogmas. But you can't be orthodox and not accept, or at least defer to the doctrines (teachings) of the Church. The two are interrelated and inseparable. Dogmas cannot contradict teachings (doctrines) and vice versa. Both have to be backed by consensus not only of the clergy but of the laity as well.

Doctrine can be expanded but it cannot contradict dogmas. Dogmas cannot be expanded. Dogma would be saying FK is human. Doctrine would be your biography, who you are what you have done, etc. Thus, the Holy Trinity cannot be added to or reduced. Christ's two natures and two wills, unconfused, in one Person cannot be changed, added, modified. They are all-inclusive truth believed by the Church. Doctrines attempt to make dogmas 'comprehensible' but they cannot be any different then dogma.

[wmfights]

"I beleive Constantine offered to cover the travel expenses of all the invited bishops."

I understand that your sect has decided that these ecumenical councils make an absolute determination on what are and are not your doctrines. The point I'm getting at is these councils were formed and it was decided who should attend them also on the basis of political considerations. It is the same with the "church fathers" you hold so high. Under closer scrutiny you will find they had their share of flaws and were writing from a bias due to the political situation of the time, or competing religious views.

IOW, the only way to determine the correctness of their words, or proposed doctrines, is against God's word.

[trisham]

The saloon doors swing open. Conversation stops, the piano player slows, falters, and ceases as Mad Dawg walks in the sudden silence, quietly as a cat, across the saloon floor to the bar, gestures to the bar tender for a drink, and turns to face the cowed onlookers, as, hands hovering over the ivory handles of his matching revolvers, he prepares to unleash a devastating theological rejoinder.

***************

LOL! Mad Dawg, the Zane Grey of Free Republic!

[kawaii]

Considering as Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to the church I can only imagine someone who is from an un-Christian Sect or who beleives Christ lied could suggest that when represenatives from the entirety of the church come together with thousands of priests and laity to consider important matters to the church that the Holy Spirit would not be right their keeping them on the strait and narrow.