Posted on 01/29/2014 4:53:38 PM PST by NKP_Vet
This little book about the Bible grew out of lectures which the writer delivered on the subject to mixed audiences. The lectures were afterwards expanded, and appeared in a series of articles in the Catholic press 1908-9, and are now with slight alterations reprinted. Their origin will sufficiently account for the colloquial style employed throughout. There is, therefore, no pretense either of profound scholarship or of eloquent language; all that is attempted is a popular and, as far as possible, accurate exposition along familiar lines of the Catholic claim historically in regard to the Bible. It is candidly controversial without, however, let us hope, being uncharitable or unfair. Friends had more than once suggested the reissue of the articles; and it appeared to the writer that at last the proper moment for it had come when the Protestant world is jubilating over the Tercentenary of the Authorized Version. Amidst the flood of literature on the subject of the Bible, it seemed but right that some statement, however plain and simple, should be set forth from the Catholic side, with the object of bringing home to the average mind the debt that Britain, in common with the rest of Christendom, owes to the Catholic Church in this connection. Probably the motive of the present publication will be best understood by a perusal of the following letter from the writer which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, 18th of March, 1911:
(Excerpt) Read more at tanbooks.com ...
“Pinto’s ideas are bizarre, stupid, implausible - exactly the sort of nonsense ignorant anti-Catholic, mouth-breathing, inbred, Protestant morons love.”
My comment was spot on. It was perfectly honest so it doesn’t count as evidence of “The religion forum, unfortunately, is the ******least honest******* and most vitriolic part of FreeRepublic.” If you call making a perfectly honest and accurate comment vitriol, you’re wrong.
“This codex contains Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus, who differentiated between the regular canon and those books, exactly as I said before. It’s also missing Baruch.”
No. The Table of Contents of the Codex Amiatinus says there are 70 books of the Bible. Two letter of Peter are counted as one. Lamentations is in with Jeremiah. This table of contents is found on folio 4r of the ms. The actual contents of Codex Amiatinus are different - which shows the Table of Contents is AN IDEALIZED LIST, a perfect Bible in the view of the compilers and scribes.
“Catholics lie. They’ve been caught before. If you don’t like that, too bad.”
Post. Your. Evidence.
“It doesn’t take a “real scholar” to uncover the evil that the Catholic Church has engaged in the past FRiend.”
It certainly doesn’t take a scholar to make things up against the Catholic Church. All it takes is a anti-Catholic Protestant bigot.
“No. The Table of Contents of the Codex Amiatinus says there are 70 books of the Bible. Two letter of Peter are counted as one. Lamentations is in with Jeremiah... The actual contents of Codex Amiatinus are different - which shows the Table of Contents is AN IDEALIZED LIST, a perfect Bible in the view of the compilers and scribes.”
This response tells me that you do not really have any clue what you are talking about, but just want to have the opportunity to say “no” anyway. It’s rather an embarrassing post. As a matter of fact, you cannot say “no” to a post that says that Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus is included (a fact which obliterates you already) and that Baruch is missing from the contents. You even admit this inadvertently since you, lacking experience, don’t understand that Jeremiah and Baruch are traditionally mentioned side by side. You then go on to say that this listing that lacks Baruch, therefore, is the “idealized” Bible. IOW, the idealized Bible is that which contains Jerome’s introduction and lacks one of the books considered divine scripture by the RCC. A double victory, with Jerome being like a little cake to me and Baruch a cherry.
I have; 30,000 times.
The evils perpetrated by Catholic leaders throughout its history are documented facts, FRiend. Don't take my word for it though. I encourage you and anyone interested in the horrific slaughter of thousands by the Catholic church to research it for yourself. To deny the inquisition it akin to denying the Holocaust. And it wasn't just the "Bible believers" (later to become protestants) who were put to death, but people of other faiths as well.
Start your research here with a Catholic Online Encyclopedia.
Allow me to leave you some scripture detailing just one of Yeshua's encounters with the manmade religious authorities of his day:
The Authority of the Son (John 5 NIV)
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things [he had healed the invalid at the pool] on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
Appreciate your research, but the above referring to Luther's view is incorrect.
“Appreciate your research, but the above referring to Luther’s view is incorrect.”
I’m aware the Lutherans dislike the word, but I don’t think it’s wrong to continue to use it:
“The fundamental disagreement over the Lord’s Supper focuses on four distinct views. These views include: first, the view of transubstantiation articulated by the Roman Catholic communion; second, the doctrine of consubstantiation articulated by the Lutheran community (We must note, however, that the word consubstantiation, though it is used widely in theological circles to describe the Lutheran view, is not a term that the Lutherans tend to embrace, and so we should honor their attempt to disavow this particular word.); third, the Reformed and Anglican affirmation of the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper; and fourth, the memorial-sign view of the sacrament espoused by Ulrich Zwingli and by the majority of those in the Baptist communities.”
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/battle-table/
I suppose you could continue to use it, but Lutherans object to it not because it is 'disliked', but because it is false representation.
Consubstantiation: that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner
From your reference: 'the doctrine of consubstantiation articulated by the Lutheran community (We must note, however, that the word consubstantiation, though it is used widely in theological circles to describe the Lutheran view, is not a term that the Lutherans tend to embrace, and so we should honor their attempt to disavow this particular word.)"
In your efforts to present good info then please identify 3rd substance formed.
So you are now admitting that the manuscript in question possesses all of the deuterocanonicals but one? Thanks for proving my point.
“The evils perpetrated by Catholic leaders throughout its history are documented facts, FRiend.”
Leaders? Yes, some. Members? Yes, some. The Catholic Church? No. I don’t blame the Church for what some of its members did.
“Don’t take my word for it though. I encourage you and anyone interested in the horrific slaughter of thousands by the Catholic church to research it for yourself.”
In this lifetime I have done more historical research than you ever will. I have a PhD in History with an emphasis in Church History.
“To deny the inquisition it akin to denying the Holocaust.”
I don’t deny the inquisitorial tribunals existed. What I deny are phony claims about them or understandings grounded in Protestant bigotry.
“And it wasn’t just the “Bible believers” (later to become protestants) who were put to death, but people of other faiths as well.”
But why let truth interfere with your fantasy?
“So you are now admitting that the manuscript in question possesses all of the deuterocanonicals but one? Thanks for proving my point.”
How is it possible to give an “admission” now for something that I said straight away in my very first post?
“This codex contains Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus, who differentiated between the regular canon and those books, exactly as I said before. It’s also missing Baruch.”
Did you only just now realize what I am writing?
“In this lifetime I have done more historical research than you ever will. I have a PhD in History with an emphasis in Church History.”
LOL, Go demand a refund.
Thanks be to God.
From what i have seen such early souls were committed chaste pious men, and while being in error on some things as they developed their theology, and lacking the degree of accumulated study and light thru others that we take too much for granted, yet they were God-fearing men of faith, often in suffering, as his faith was tried.
And who, as with Puritans and historical fundamentalists, would be aghast at our superficiality and moral laxity today. (While i am aghast as the spin Jerome puts on Scripture trying to justify his unbalanced view of virginity vs marriage, in which he was not alone.)
Kid of like as in the Time Changers vid (trailer), though they lay too much blame of the social gospel listing of the well-meaning professor.
x
Complain all you want, but you’ll kick the bucket and be forgotten, never even having noticed really, while the Catholic Church will go on serving Christ until the end of time and with the same canon.
“Complain all you want, but you’ll kick the bucket and be forgotten, never even having noticed really, while the Catholic Church will go on serving Christ until the end of time and with the same canon.”
Complain all you want, but your arrogance, delusions and blind faith will never stop both history and your own church from conspiring against you. For example, not even your own religion even believes in the content of their apocrypha.
From the Vatican website introduction to Judith:
“Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail. The story was written as a pious reflection on the meaning of the yearly Passover observance. It draws its inspiration from the Exodus narrative (especially Exodus 14:31) and from the texts of Isaiah and the Psalms portraying the special intervention of God for the preservation of Jerusalem. The theme of God’s hand as the agent of this providential activity, reflected of old in the hand of Moses and now in the hand of Judith, is again exemplified at a later time in Jewish synagogue art. God’s hand reaching down from heaven appears as part of the scene at Dura-Europos (before A.D. 256) in paintings of the Exodus, of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22), and of Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones (Eze 37).”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PCP.HTM
And another, also official Catholic source:
“Judith is a dramatic fictional narrative...” “Because Judith is fiction replete with historical and geographical inaccuracies, it is difficult to date its composition.” (New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Nihil Obstat: Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., Imprimatur: Reverend William J. Kane, Vicar General, Diocese of Washington)
You’re free to defend your indefensible fables, but your Church which you put so much blind trust in will not even lift a finger to aid you anymore.
“From the Vatican website introduction to Judith”
First, no, it is from the NAB - which is not from the Vatican. The NAB is a Bible published by the USCCB. The Vatican posts the Bibles used by national conferences. There is no evidence that the Vatican has even examined the text, translation, or even the notes or introductions of the NAB.
Second, what of it? Christ used parables. Do you believe Christ’s story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is NECESSARILY a story that actually happened? It could be, somehow, through the power of God, but is it? It could just be a parable. Judith could simply be a parable. And?
“And another, also official Catholic source:”
It is NOT an official Catholic source.
Now what you’ll do - if you stay true to form - you’ll post (and post and post) about how it is an official Catholic source when it isn’t.
“First, no, it is from the NAB - which is not from the Vatican.”
It’s on the Vatican website. If I go to Vatican.va, and I want to read the Bible, I click on “resources,” then “Bible,” then Introduction on Judith, and I get told that Judith isn’t true.
“Now what you’ll do - if you stay true to form - you’ll post (and post and post) about how it is an official Catholic source when it isn’t.”
Did that already. The source included its information about its Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
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.