Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

Crisis Magazine ^ | October 3, 2014 | RICHARD BECKER

[verga]

Read a secular history source not the prot palaver you try to pass off.

[Yashcheritsiy]

She could perhaps teach a kindergarten class, maybe.

[RBStealth]

>Please show me where Christ or apostles quote from apocryphal sources. http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books Deuterocanonical is a term coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Catholic Church, but which are not present in the Hebrew Bible, and which had been omitted by some early canon lists, especially in the East.[1][2][3] Their acceptance among early Christians was widespread, though not universal, and the Bible of the early Church always included, with varying degrees of recognition, books now called deuterocanonical.[4] Some say that their canonicity seems not to have been doubted in the Church until it was challenged by Jews after AD 100,[5] sometimes postulating a hypothetical Council of Jamnia. Regional councils in the West published official canons that included these books as early as the 4th and 5th centuries.[2][6] The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint (LXX)—which includes the deuterocanonical books, as well as apocrypha —both of which are called collectively ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα anagignoskomena (things that are read or "profitable reading").[9] Several appear to have been written originally in Hebrew, but the original text has long been lost. Archaeological finds, however, discovered some original texts among the Dead Sea scrolls. The Septuagint was widely accepted and used by Greek-speaking Jews in the 1st century, even in the region of Roman Judea, and therefore naturally became the text most widely used by early Christians, who were predominantly Greek speaking. In the New Testament, Hebrews 11:35 refers to an event that was recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books 2 Maccabees.[10] Other New Testament authors also quote period literature which was familiar to the audience but that was not included in the Old Testament or the deuterocanonical books. For instance, Paul cites Greek writers and philosophers, and the author of Hebrews references oral tradition which spoke of an Old Testament prophet who was sawn in half in Hebrews 11:37, two verses after the 2nd Maccabees reference. The Jewish historian Josephus speaks of there being 22 books in the canon of the Hebrew Bible,[11] a Jewish tradition reported also by the Christian bishop Athanasius. However, included in Athanasius's list of 22 Old Testament books are Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. At the same time, he mentioned that certain other books, including five deuterocanonical books but also the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, while not being part of the canon, "were appointed by the Fathers to be read". He excluded what he called "apocryphal writings" entirely.[12]

[ifinnegan]

None of the examples were Pagan practices.

Go to a Buddhist or Taoist Temple or Hindu to learn something about pagan practices.

Prayer and offerings for the dead and to the dead, intercession sought from the dead or from benevolent spirits other than God.

Kuanyin serves exactly as a Mary deity and the rites are quite similar as one obvious example.

Its pretty fascinating.

It’s understandable given the historical dynamics and not condemnatory of all of Catholicism.

[verga]

Go to a Buddhist or Taoist Temple or Hindu to learn something about pagan practices.

Seriously, that is your best shot. Look up the Druids, Greek and Roman Gods, the Balts, the Egyptians.

[ifinnegan]

It’s not a shot.

You seem to think this is a competition.

I went to a wedding of dear friends a while ago. They are catholic, from Vietnam. It was a wonderful wedding at the local Mission.

Back home, after the wedding, they made their prayers and thanks to the Mary statuette with incense.

It was striking in how it exactly mirrored Buddhist practices in action and flavor, but with Mary substituted for Kuanyin.

Catholicism has retained much more of the ceremonial and ritualistic that came from the pagan world.

Nothing necessarily wrong with that, and the dynamics of history explains it.

The thing we need to all look out for is if pagan theological beliefs become intermingled with our faith or theological understandings.

[ronnietherocket3]

Not one reference to TaNaKh in the first link. Certainly the Talmud is referenced but like other religions which do not ground their tradition in scriptures errors abound.

The charge was the practice was Pagan, but the practice exists in Judaism. I am thus confused as to how it is pagan. One of the longest running disputes in Judaism is the question of whether Jews should consider Christianity Paganized Judaism or Judaified paganism.

The Sadducees rooted all their beliefs in what they considered Scripture and they were wrong. Protestants frequently sound like Christianized Sadducees.

[ronnietherocket3]

“It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus - around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period - prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, p. 45, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

So Purgatory was a belief present in Judaism by around 70 BC and shows up in the Catholic Church and you want to make the claim it entered the Church after the time of the Apostles? By the way, it shows up in the only branch of Judaism that survived the destruction of the temple.

[verga]

Here is straight up hand on the Bible absolute unbridled truth. Catholics do not believe that Mary is God, or even god, we do not believe that she is divine in any way, manner, shape or form.

So here is a question for you: Do Catholics believe that Mary is God (or god), do we worship her as divine?

You have been told the truth now les see if you are capable of understanding it and responding correctly.

[SampleMan]

If valid it would cover praying for deceased people, but not to them.

Why? Catholics don't pray to ask passed souls in the belief that those souls have special powers to answer prayers, but rather for the same reason they confer with souls still present in the body, when asking for them to pray for them. Why? Because some passed souls, such as a persecuted Saint or your mother, might understand your situation better than the person next to you at Mass. I think some Catholics take this to extreme and even past extreme. If and when they pray to a passed soul in the same way they pray to God, then they are in error.

[Salvation]

** I think some Catholics take this to extreme and even past extreme. If and when they pray to a passed soul in the same way they pray to God, then they are in error. **

Incorrect.

[goodwithagun]

Off topic: I started RCIA recently and I’d like to get a Catholic Bible app. Any suggestions? By the way, it feels good to be coming home.

[SampleMan]

We are not to contact the departed or attempt to communicate with them. If you think otherwise show where the apostles taught it.

Exactly which departed Christians would they have been communicating with? And given that they were still receiving devine guidance, perhaps redundant.

I take the point however, and in fact, do not seek the prayers of passed souls myself. But then I don't ask for prayers at all as a general rule. Bad on me.

Conjurring up the dead should not be attempted; however, speaking in the hope that they hear you is not the same thing. The differentiation is something that Catholics should probably spend more time discussing.

[CynicalBear]

>>Exactly which departed Christians would they have been communicating with? <<

Whether or not I believe that souls of those who have departed this life are living or not has nothing to do with the ability or effacacy of communicating with them. Communicating with departed souls is strictly prohibited in scripture.

[ifinnegan]

I never said Catholics think Mary is God.

[ifinnegan]

I appreciate your comments. They are well stated and argued.

I think the issue is whether or not it is within Christian theological understanding that the living can communicate with the dead and vice versa.

[verga]

I never said Catholics think Mary is God.

I never said you did, but you have been on this site long enough to see other non/anti-Catholics say that.

I have never seen you engage in fraternal correction either.

So I stated an absolute truth to you: Catholics do not believe that Mary is divine in any way, shape, or form nor do we worship her as divine. I then asked you a simple question that can be answered with either a yes or a no.

So do Catholics think that Mary is divine and do we worship her as a divine being.

Simple yes or no.

[vladimir998]

“Therefore, as you rightly state, they are not inspired scripture.”

I never said they were not inspired. I believe them to be inspired.

[annalex]

Christ gave us popes and bishops as pastors.

the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28)

Read the Holy Scripture every once in a while and you, too, will become Catholic and know God.

[annalex]

the Council of Trent ADDED those books

No it didn't; the Council of Carthage already lists them, early 5c.