Vanity, Just a question to Catholic Freepers (Non Catholics feel free to respond as well).

3/24/2014 | JSDude1

[boatbums]

I don’t need any help on the subject. The nonsense that the Septuagint wasn’t accepted because it was translated from the Greek and those 7 books weren’t in the Hebrew Scripture, completely fell apart with the Dead Sea scrolls, containing those 7 books. Luther DID in fact exclude the books containing material he didn’t like.

Uh, gee, G Larry, you actually DO need help on the subject. You don't want to continue to believe something if it isn't true, do you? You don't want to repeat something that others KNOW is untrue, do you?

First, who rejected the Septuagint? It was a Greek translation of the books that made up the Old Testament of the Bible. It was Jerome, when he was tasked with translating the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) that relied upon all the Hebrew manuscripts he could find. Nobody told him he HAD to use the Greek version. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome, we learn:

Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. He believed that the Council of Jamnia, or mainstream rabbinical Judaism, had rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements.[15][16] He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome's Hebrew knowledge. Many modern scholars believe that the Greek Hexapla is the main source for Jerome's "iuxta Hebraeos" translation of the Old Testament.[17]

For the next 15 years, until he died, Jerome produced a number of commentaries on Scripture, often explaining his translation choices in using the original Hebrew rather than suspect translations. His patristic commentaries align closely with Jewish tradition, and he indulges in allegorical and mystical subtleties after the manner of Philo and the Alexandrian school. Unlike his contemporaries, he emphasizes the difference between the Hebrew Bible "apocrypha" and the Hebraica veritas of the protocanonical books. Evidence of this can be found in his introductions to the Solomonic writings, the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith. Most notable, however, is the statement from his introduction to the Books of Samuel:

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings.

Secondly, the Dead Sea Scrolls actually contained THOUSANDS of writings of various importance to those who hid them. Not everything found was seen as part of or equal to Scripture. There are more than seven books that made up what was called "Apocrypha" by even Jerome, why weren't they also included by the Catholic Church in the canon? The Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church don't even agree on those books and which ones are or are not included.

Finally, you are just plain WRONG to insist that Luther excluded any books from his translation of the Bible. Had you bothered to peek at the link I gave you, you would see that, if indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. You have NO "facts" on your side at all. Either accept that or continue to be ignorant on the subject and expect to be challenged, because you WILL be.

[LurkingSince'98]

Somebody is lying.

[boatbums]

Somebody is lying.

About what and whom, pray tell?

[daniel1212]

I, as a baptized Catholic who now attends an Episcopal church, get the feeling from your post that you are questioning whether Catholics are “catholic”? I get the notion that you think Catholics, in order to really get the idea of Jesus, should be reading and experiencing evangelical “productions”, if you will, to truly get the message. Am I right?

I would definitely encourage that, as on whose hungry yet discerning soul was esp. very much fed by evangelical radio in the late 70's, early 80s (better then) after i really became born again but then (and for 6 years after) still a weekly mass going RC. I largely chewed the meat and spit out the bones in both cases.

But i have my doubts the OP is doing as you ask. Instead, maybe he is an Inquisitor infiltrator seeking to flush out Catholic heretics! After all, a RC apologist just told me as regards Lk. 10:16, that if one rejects a Bap­tist preach­ing Acts 10:36 – 43 then that soul is not reject­ing Christ. Thus it would seem if one accepts that message then he has not accepted Christ. And by extension, Prot. songs etc. would not be of God. What think ye?

[Elsie]

Somebody is lying.

HMMMmmm...

Somebody is an ACCUSER with no evidence.

[Elsie]

It’s tough enough to ‘rightly divide the Word of Truth’, without having to worry about HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of words of the ‘fathers’; too!

[daniel1212]

Now my brother is Catholic and she is Protestant. She went to the classes almost against her will...but loved them. She found the Catholic church to be very refreshing, and has since ‘converted’. It turns out that she had grown up with a very incorrect idea of what it was like in a Catholic church.

Being Protestant often means being just as lost as a typical RC, which i was, despite being raised devout. Rome generally affirms Trinitarian baptized Prots as sep. brethren, as she imagines the act of baptism regenerates, even without moral cognizance, repentance and faith by baptized. And that by this the soul is formally justified due to interior holiness ("infused charity"). Thus they usually end their salvation process by becoming good enough to enter Heaven thru suffering torments in Roman purgatory (rejected even by the EOs).

Most mainline (Meth. etc.) Prots are not much different, thinking their level of goodness itself will gain them Heaven, as per above and like this Catholic on Catholic answers:

I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2

So, my recommendation is go to mass a few times. You can see for yourself what a Catholic church is like - for most people it is not at all what they thought it would be.

I did so for 6 years after manifestly becoming born again thru heartfelt tearful repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save me in His mercy and grace, as a contrite guilty + empty, destitute sinner, though raised devout, and realized the profound differences btwn institutionalized religion and evangelical faith.

I quickly realized and wondered at the foundational contrast btwn what happened to me and other RCs (and which, besides even nature seeming new, was a heightened realization of my own sin. I found little personal fellowship in Christ with others, except with a few Catholic charismatics whose meetings i went to looking for life, but which were treated as 2nd class members. The hierarchy made them join in with the nun's marxist type "social justice" program, and they went along, and wondered at the spiritual loss in their meetings.

In any case, my real food that edified and challenged my soul was evangelical radio, even after i had joined a evangelical church. It is now more of a mixed bag, but some of the best preaching i know is on Youtube, as here and here . Thank God. I need it.

[Elsie]

Why are we IGNORING the great productions coming from...

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700096820/LDS-Church-builds-movie-set-for-ambitious-film-project.html

https://www.lds.org/church/news/jerusalem-movie-set-ready-for-dedication-and-filming?lang=eng

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-goshen-movie-highlight-life-jesus-christ

[Elsie]

Can I ask, “What caused the lapsing?”?

[Elsie]

;^)

[Elsie]

Gee, Larry... how times do you have to be told that the KJV actually HAD all those things in it when first created?

WHY do you keep on presenting MISLEADING information?

[Elsie]

PLEASE. Enough of the Catholic bashing.

Yeah!

Let's bash Luther and his evil spawn for a while!

[G Larry]

There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

[G Larry]

See Post #173

[daniel1212]

yeah that’s it... the Catholics stifled the Bible. For the Greater Glory of God

Keeping it in Latin worked to keep the laity from examining the veracity of RC teaching by the Scriptures, and she did indeed hinder personal reading of them. Now for decades the helps in her own NAB taught liberal revisionism (and warned of the dreaded "fundamentalists") which impugns the authority of Scripture.

[Elsie]

While tattoos aren't viewed favorably by most Christians,

---

Leviticus 19:28
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Obviously, ALL cuttings are NOT prohibited, for circumcision is a COMMAND (GEN 17).

The question seems to be whether the 'marks' are considered to be 'for the dead' as well.

---

Of course; all this concern goes away if one reads Acts 15.

[G Larry]

“Had” is past tense and rather irrelevant.

Setting them aside and declaring them non-cannonical, is NOT “inclusion”!

[Elsie]

invite your new Catholic neighbors for some Carolina Bar-B-Que, one a Friday, during Lent.

Close, but THIS is even better!!!

---

...invite your new MORMON neighbors for some Carolina Bar-B-Que, during warm weather!!

---

D&C 89:12-13
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

[Elsie]

If I am wrong, please correct me.Folks get corrected here all the time.

They don't even have to BE wrong!

[Elsie]

Sounds like a good plan to me!