ANSWERING "IRREFUTABLE QUESTIONS" from bible.con

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics can't answer

Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can't answer
(from an intensely anti-Catholic nondenom site, bible.con

Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it?


"Rome" had to prove the inspiration of EVERY BOOK. Inspiration occurs at the time the books were written. Canonization occurs when the inspired books (to be read out loud in church) are made binding on all Christians as Scripture. "Rome" could not have rejected what has not yet proven to be inspired. The question is a non-sequitur fallacy.

Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected.
An assertion without naming the books. The books that were later rejected were previously used in some churches, but they were never canonized and did not involve the whole church. They were rejected because they failed the strict criteria for proving inspiration. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Barnabus etc. were debated to be included in the canon, but proven by the authority of the Church to be uninspired. This occured about 100 years before the closing of the canon in 397 A.D. The Church has never rejected a book after it has been canonized. The question is dishonest.

If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

If the author is quided by the Holy Spirit, why does he display so much ignorance and false history? The Catholic Church does not claim to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit, she claims certain teachings on faith and morals are infallible, because the Holy Spirit is infallible.

Popes, councils, and bishops are not infallible. Just as the Council of Jersalem in Acts 15 was infallible, so is the teachings of the Church are infallible. All councils thruought history are modeled after the structure of the Council of Jerusalem.There is nothing in Scripture that says the Church would never have another controvery, and there is nothing in Scripture that says no more future councils would be needed, or we would all be Arians.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any teaching to be infallible without the Holy Spirit. Heaven cannot bind an error.

If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?

The Orthodox agree with the first 5 councils of the Church. Some say seven. The church had a geographical division, east and west. At the time the Council of Carthage closed the canon, the Orthodox Church as we know it, did not exist. Eastern churches eventually became Orthodox, but they were excommunicated
5 X. Using the term "Orthodox" without any historical context or dates or time frame, and assuming both churches had parallel development, is an error found all over the site. There is no evidence the Book of Revelation was even quoted until the mid 3rd century. The author hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

more later


 

Attachments

  • bible alone.jpg
    bible alone.jpg
    47.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

Different versions of canons existed after 397 AD, but they were never adopted. The biblical codex finalized in 397 AD is the exact same canon used by Catholics today. A 66 book canon did not exist before the 14th century.

If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Because the dominating dictator image of "Rome" is a fantasy. The Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage did not have the authority to make their findings binding on the universal Church. They sent their findings to "the Transmarine Church" for final ratification by the Pope. That is how they worded it in the councils rulings. "Transmarine" means across the Mediteranean Sea from North Africa. It means Rome. Anyone can read this by examining the Carthage/Hippo documents.

The Canon was fixed in the 4th Century when Pope St. Damasus blessed the findings of the Council of Rome in 382. This was reaffirmed in his letter on the Canon to the Bishops in Asia Minor in 405. In 418, the canons of the 16 North African Councils were declared official Church teaching by the Pope. In 787, Nicea II reaffirmed the authority of these councils. In 1483, Pope Eugenius wrote the Letter to the Jacobites as the closing act of the Council of Florence and there he affirmed the Canon of Hippo. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Albertus Magnus and all of the major fathers of the Middle Ages affirmed the Canon of Hippo. All 73 books.

Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
It proves that Rome and the North African Councils are the same Church. Pope Damasus decreed the books of the Bible in ROME at the Council of Rome in 382 which was AFFIRMED at Hippo which was AFFIRMED at Carthage and later sent to Rome for final ratification. The canon of Scripture took 4 centures and as many councils in a long, complicated process. bible.con promotes ignorance, false histories and an unnecessary hostility against Catholicism.

Admitting where the Bible came from would mean acknowledging the authority of the Church, and the facts of history is anethema, and that is why re-writing it is so important to this brand of anti-Catholics.

Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

More profound ignorance of the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church did not exist in 397. The SCHISM did not occur until the 10th century. The Pope has no jurisdiction oveer the Orthodox Church.

If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

That is a lie. Anyone can read the canons of the Council of Trent where it affirms the same books as the Council of Florence which affirms the same books as Hippo and Carthage which is available on line to anyone who dare seek the truth. Trent closed the debate, it did not re-invent the Bible.

"Rome" got it right the first time, there is no "Protestant canon" anywhere prior to the 14th century.

Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
The Greek Orthodox have a different Bible because they have a different history and their own authority apart from "Rome". They thumbed their nose at the Pope, just like the Protestants who threw out 7 books, and he complains about a different canon???Catholics don't make a big fuss over Greek Orthodox canon variations, and we don't make a fuss over a 66 book canon, unless ours is challenged.
 
Last edited:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Why I am not Eastern Orthodox (facts bible.con is oblivious to)

(1) Their leading Bishoprics, Constantinople and (now) Moscow, have no Apostolic Roots. (Where as the Roman Church was founded by the "two most glorious Apostles," Saints Peter and Paul.)

(2) They cannot agree upon a Canon of Scripture - nor does there appear to be a means of infallibly defining one. (e.g. The EO at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 affirmed the same Canon as Catholics, though I've seen other EO sources denying some of those books.)

(3) They have manifestly defected from basic Christian principles, caving into worldly pressure, for example they allow Divorce and Contraception.

(4) They cannot agree as to whether Catholics have valid holy orders or other valid sacraments - some EO say 'yes', others say 'no'. Some re-baptize Catholics, others do not. And, again, there appears no way of 'officially' settling the issue.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was universally binding - moreover, those EO who deny the authority of the Council of Jerusalem (often because it sounds too "Latin") wont go as far as to condemn it as manifest heresy and an abomination (which it logically should be *if* it teaches heresy and other abominable things).

(6) They cannot agree as to whether "Latin" figures such as Augustine are "saints," or "venerable," or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any 'official' EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, they generally don't give the Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers.

(7) They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one.

(8) They downplay into virtual irrelevance the strong testimony (be it in Scripture, Tradition, or Patristics) for the Papacy.

(9) They have backed out of agreements, such as the Council of Florence, often with individual bishops overturning the 'votes' of other bishops and Patriarchs.

(10) They have had little influence in terms of evangelization outside of Eastern Europe, where as the Catholic Church originally evangelized (and still dominates) North and South America, Africa, and Asia all centuries ago.

bible.con appeals to uneducated people.

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Why I am not Eastern Orthodox

MASSIVE index of articles on the Orthodox that bible.con doesn't want you to see:

Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism (Index Page)


 
Last edited:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice,
belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

Changing the meaning of "Tradition" then knocking it down is a straw man fallacy.
First, Tradition must be defined according to Scripture, not according to anti-Catholic bigots. The first NT book was written 20 years after Pentecost. How was the "Word of God" preserved during that time? Tradition. Or the Protestant scholars are wrong too. This is the definition found in the catechism:

context in default text; main points in blue:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
33 DV 7.
34 DV 7.
35 DV 7 § 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,3,1G 7/1,848; Harvey,2,9.
36 DV 8 § 1.
37 DV 8 § 1.
38 DV 8 § 3.
39 DV 8 § 3; cf. Col 3:16.
40 DV 9.
41 Mt 28:20.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Transmission of Divine Revelation

DV means Dei Verbum. See paragraph 12 for guidlines for exegesis.
Without the Tradition of the episcopate, there would be no Bible.
A parallel, but not contradictory definition:

One might loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity is fundamentally grounded in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (His incarnation, preaching, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension).

Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2; Acts 1:1-3; 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the early Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church's authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable, and is a very good thing: not a “bad” thing at all.

Many read the accounts of Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is not true.


A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7:8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “precepts of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “word of God” or “the commandment of God” and so forth. St. Paul makes exactly the same contrast:

Colossians 2:8 (RSV) See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God's true traditions). Corrupt traditions from the Pharisees were bad; though many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus (see, e.g., Mt 23:3).

The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings (some eventually formulated as Holy Scripture; some not) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles, and “ratified” by the Church.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages (among others):

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

St. Paul makes no distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn't regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. This is made even more clear in two other statements to Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, . . .

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
(all this is in harmony with the catechism)

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow” his oral teaching which “heard from” him, but to also pass it on to others. This is a clear picture of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine: precisely what the Catholic Church calls sacred tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.”

The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42, Jude 3). The Catholic Church considers itself merely the “custodian” or “guardian” of this public revelation or “deposit” from God, because we believe that God set up His Church (Matthew 16), making St. Peter the leader, and that it has continued through history ever since. It's all God's doing, not ours. We participate in His plan by His grace and mercy.

When the first Christians went out and preached the gospel of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition. Some of it was recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most was not, and indeed could not be, for sheer volume (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn't read then anyway).
Tradition is Not a Dirty Word — It's a Great Gift
Jesus, the greatest teacher the world has ever seen, could teach the entire gospels in one day. He was with the Apostles for THREE YEARS. Most did not get written down. Jesus and the Apostles did not read from the New Testament.

Now that the definition is partially explained, I'll move on...
 
Last edited:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It's my turn for "irrefutable questions" with multiple guess answers:

Which of the following oral traditions that the Apostles taught are not found in the Old Testament?

A) Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

B) Matthew 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

C) 1Cor.10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

D) All of the above.

3) Which of the following are oral traditions that the Apostles taught that are found in the Gospels or the Old Testament?

A) Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

B) Eph.5:14 Therefore it is said, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give you light."


C) Hebrews 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets – 37 They were stoned,
they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated --

D) Jude 14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."


E) none of the above are found anywhere in the Gospels or the Old Testament

11. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)
A) it's written on the top of the page
B) oral Tradition, reflected in the Early Church Fathers writings
C) bible scholars can prove it


Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
A) The Gospels
B) The Epistles
C) Revelation
D) nowhere

13. True or False: Jesus told all His apostles to write things down.

14. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?
A) The Gospels
B) The Epistles
C) Revelation
D) nowhere

15. If the authors of the New Testament believed in Sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14
15)?
A) once its written, its no longer tradition
B) oral Tradition is part of Divine Revelation and just as authoritive

Some Christians claim that Jesus categorically condemned all oral tradition (Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His
listeners to oral tradition by telling them that to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matt 23:2)?


A) Jesus could not have condemned all oral tradition, just the ones

(He said "your traditions") that violated God's word, not the Sacred Traditions that the Jews properly followed
B) the scribes and Pharisees were pure, true Christians, and Jesus was telling his listeners to follow their example.
C) Jesus was saying that the corruption of people with authority had no bearing on the necessity of obedience, which is pleasing to God.
D) "Moses' seat" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament, so Jesus was reading from the New Testament

E) A and C

17. True or False: God's Word is restricted only to what is written down.

19. On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?
A) on the authority of the publisher
B) on the authority of the Church who set strict principles for the canonization of scripture
C) Luke was a clone of Paul

20. Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what
biblical basis do you think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?
A)..there is no biblical basis.
B)..the Holy Spirit will remind ministers and bible scholars all things, since we no longer need bishops.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics can't answer

Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can't answer
(from an intensely anti-Catholic nondenom site, bible.con

Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it?


"Rome" had to prove the inspiration of EVERY BOOK. Inspiration occurs at the time the books were written. Canonization occurs when the inspired books (to be read out loud in church) are made binding on all Christians as Scripture. "Rome" could not have rejected what has not yet proven to be inspired. The question is a non-sequitur fallacy.

Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected.
An assertion without naming the books. The books that were later rejected were previously used in some churches, but they were never canonized and did not involve the whole church. They were rejected because they failed the strict criteria for proving inspiration. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Barnabus etc. were debated to be included in the canon, but proven by the authority of the Church to be uninspired. This occured about 100 years before the closing of the canon in 397 A.D. The Church has never rejected a book after it has been canonized. The question is dishonest.

If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

If the author is quided by the Holy Spirit, why does he display so much ignorance and false history? The Catholic Church does not claim to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit, she claims certain teachings on faith and morals are infallible, because the Holy Spirit is infallible.

Popes, councils, and bishops are not infallible. Just as the Council of Jersalem in Acts 15 was infallible, so is the teachings of the Church are infallible. All councils thruought history are modeled after the structure of the Council of Jerusalem.There is nothing in Scripture that says the Church would never have another controvery, and there is nothing in Scripture that says no more future councils would be needed, or we would all be Arians.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any teaching to be infallible without the Holy Spirit. Heaven cannot bind an error.

If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?

The Orthodox agree with the first 5 councils of the Church. Some say seven. The church had a geographical division, east and west. At the time the Council of Carthage closed the canon, the Orthodox Church as we know it, did not exist. Eastern churches eventually became Orthodox, but they were excommunicated
5 X. Using the term "Orthodox" without any historical context or dates or time frame, and assuming both churches had parallel development, is an error found all over the site. There is no evidence the Book of Revelation was even quoted until the mid 3rd century. The author hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

more
If Rome didn't give us the Bible then who did?

If the men of the Catholic Church are not illuminated by the Holy Spirit then what men are or what men of which church are?

Curious Mary
 

Miss Hepburn

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2009
1,674
1,333
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Is the Op's intent to convince Catholics to leave their religion of choice?
I do not think that is nice.
It belongs in a blog or on the Op-Ed Page somewhere.
Who will be next Presbyterians?
Maybe Charismatics?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Is the Op's intent to convince Catholics to leave their religion of choice?
I do not think that is nice.
It belongs in a blog or on the Op-Ed Page somewhere.
Who will be next Presbyterians?
Maybe Charismatics?
The intent is to answer the questions the author claims can't be answered by Catholics. The secondary intent is to expose the falsehoods that some bible.con followers like to post on this board at the expense of Catholics. They can't leave us alone. Everything on this thread is DEFENSIVE. If they find facts OFFENSIVE, it's not me with the problem.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Is the Op's intent to convince Catholics to leave their religion of choice?
I do not think that is nice.
It belongs in a blog or on the Op-Ed Page somewhere.
Who will be next Presbyterians?
Maybe Charismatics?
I believe you've misunderstood the O.P.
Maybe because it's so long?
It really should be in Catholic Apologetics. (if it exists here).

Anyway, I think it's a great O.P. answering many questions that anti-catholics have regarding that faith.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
That is a lie. Anyone can read the canons of the Council of Trent where it affirms the same books as the Council of Florence which affirms the same books as Hippo and Carthage which is available on line to anyone who dare seek the truth. Trent closed the debate, it did not re-invent the Bible.
You talk about "the lie", but you have forgotten to tell the reader that including NON INSPIRED books in the Bible itself is a A LIE. Since they cannot be included with Scripture, they should have been EXCLUDED.

So Trent's lie was to rule that the nine Apocryphal books listed below were equal to Scripture, when they had already been rejected by the Jews, as well as by Christ.

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

There's no point in trying to establish how the Catholic Church arrived at a *canon* when their canon itself is false! That's why the Protestant Bibles exclude these and other apocryphal books.
 

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You talk about "the lie", but you have forgotten to tell the reader that including NON INSPIRED books in the Bible itself is a A LIE. Since they cannot be included with Scripture, they should have been EXCLUDED.
So Trent's lie was to rule that the nine Apocryphal books listed below were equal to Scripture, when they had already been rejected by the Jews, as well as by Christ.
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
There's no point in trying to establish how the Catholic Church arrived at a *canon* when their canon itself is false!
That's why the Protestant Bibles exclude these and other apocryphal books.
Protestant Bibles? Is that maybe, the KJV?
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
You talk about "the lie", but you have forgotten to tell the reader that including NON INSPIRED books in the Bible itself is a A LIE. Since they cannot be included with Scripture, they should have been EXCLUDED.

So Trent's lie was to rule that the nine Apocryphal books listed below were equal to Scripture, when they had already been rejected by the Jews, as well as by Christ.

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

There's no point in trying to establish how the Catholic Church arrived at a *canon* when their canon itself is false! That's why the Protestant Bibles exclude these and other apocryphal books.
I believe Hebrews 11:35 is referring to 2 McCabees.

I do believe those two books were eliminated by Protestants because it supports praying to or for the dead.
Can't remember right now.
 

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe Hebrews 11:35 is referring to 2 McCabees.

I do believe those two books were eliminated by Protestants because it supports praying to or for the dead.
Can't remember right now.
Belief and facts are differing things. Hebrews is not referring to 2 Macc, but other OT texts, such as in the days of Elijah and Elisha, and other such places.

It has been said, by many 'catholics', "The Bible is a catholic produced book!"

This is simply an undocumented and undocumentable (as it has never been done yet) assertion, and is not therefore 'infallible', and there was never any evidence to support this point. I do not agree with such an assertion, and since it is unproved, I cannot agree to it. The Bible is God's produced book, and the entire OT was in existence before anything such as a 'catholic' existed (even by their own words), such as one such catholic apollo-gist said, "The term "Catholic" missed the bible cut off by only a FEW years: (then cited wicked-pedia-files, aka wikipedia)".

For instance (shown from the KJB and DR; Douay Rheims Online, 'DR' from here on), there was already the "church in the wilderness", which was with Moses, children of Israel:

Act. 7:38 KJB This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Act. 7:38 DR This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the words of life to give unto us.

Additionally, Paul wrote that the "oracles of God" were committed unto the Jews, and Peter also mentions this:

Rom. 3:1 KJB What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Rom. 3:2 KJB Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Rom. 3:1 DR What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?

Rom. 3:2 DR Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them.

Heb. 5:12 KJB For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Heb. 5:12 DR For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: and you are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

1 Pet. 4:11 KJB If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Pet. 4:11 DR If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God. If any man minister, let him do it, as of the power, which God administereth: that in all things God may be honoured through Jesus Christ: to whom is glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.

Now the DR here (1 Pet. 4:11), inserting a comma changes the meaning, from the text itself as from saying (KJB) that when men speak they are to speak what the scriptures say, and the Jesuit (DR) makes it to mean that whatever a man speaks, that is "the words of God", thus eliminating the foundation from the text itself, to men (in what they say).

The entire OT texts were already 'canon' in the days of Jesus, none of which included any of the apocrypha (aka 'catholic deuterocanon'). Jesus Himself identified the texts:

Luk. 24:44 KJB And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Luk. 24:45 KJB Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Luk. 24:44 DR And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Luk. 24:45 DR Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

Jesus identified the beginning and the ending of the OT among the children of Israel:

Mat. 23:35 KJB That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Mat. 23:35 DR That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

Luk. 11:50 KJB That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Luk. 11:50 DR That the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation,

Luk. 11:51 KJB From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Luk. 11:51 DR From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who was slain between the altar and the temple: Yea I say to you, It shall be required of this generation.

This is an important statement by Jesus since, it gives two 'book ends' on the prophets, "Abel" unto "Zacharias", which was the "A" to "Z" of the OT, since according to the children of Israel's reckoning, Chronicles was the last book of the Tanakh (OT) [Torah (Gen. to Deut.), Prophets (Jos. to Mal.), Writings (Psa. to 2 Chron.)]:

2 Chron. 24:20 KJB And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.

2 Chron. 24:20 DR The spirit of God then came upon Zacharias the son of Joiada the priest, and he stood in the sight of the people, and said to them: Thus saith the Lord God: Why transgress you the commandment of the Lord which will not be for your good, and have forsaken the Lord, to make him forsake you?

2 Chron. 24:21 KJB And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.

2 Chron. 24:21 DR And they gathered themselves together against him, and stoned him at the king's commandment in the court of the house of the Lord.

2 Chron. 24:22 KJB Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.

2 Chron. 24:22 DR And king Joas did not remember the kindness that Joiada his father had done to him, but killed his son. And when he died, he said: The Lord see, and require it.

I would recommend a helpful webpage with further detail - How Many Books Are In The Old Testament?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Phoneman777

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe Hebrews 11:35 is referring to 2 McCabees.

I do believe those two books were eliminated by Protestants because it supports praying to or for the dead.
Can't remember right now.
Peter also already knew (well before AD 90, sometime circa AD 65-68, since the epistles mention Peter's nearing death (2 Pet. 1:14) what the 'scriptures' were in regards to Paul's epistles (14 letters, Romans to Hebrews; ie, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews):

2 Pet. 3:16 KJB As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2 Pet. 3:16 DR As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

The Holy Scriptures are inspired of God, and are therefore, not 'catholic', but rather is God's word, the "word of God" (Jhn. 10:35):

2 Tim. 3:15 KJB And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Tim. 3:15 DR And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Tim. 3:16 KJB All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim. 3:16 DR All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

2 Tim. 3:17 KJB That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Tim. 3:17 DR That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

2 Pet. 1:21 KJB For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Pet. 1:21 DR For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

The "scriptures" were already well known in Jesus' day in regards the OT, as per:

Dan. 10:21; Mat. 21:42. 22:29, 26:54,56; Mar. 12:10,24, 14:49, 15:28; Luk. 4:21, 24:27,32,45; Jhn. 2:22, 5:39, 7:38,42, 10:35, 13:18, 17:12, 19:24,28,36,37, 20:9; Act. 1:16, 8:32,35, 17:2,11, 18:24,28; Rom. 1:2, 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, 15:4, 16:26; 1 Cor. 15:3,4; Gal. 3:8,22, 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Tim. 3:15,16; Jam. 2:8,23, 4:5; 1 Pet. 2:6; 2 Pet. 1:20, 3:16

In fact, how could Jesus say to the Jews, "Search the scriptures" that prophesied of Christ Jesus, if the Jews had no idea what "the scriptures" were, to search, and every man had their own idea as to what constituted them?

Jhn. 5:39 KJB Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jhn. 5:39 DR Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.

In fact, none of the apocrypha ('catholic deuterocanon'), are cited by any of the Apostles in the NT as fulfilling prophecy (some might attempt to point to Jud. citing so-called 'Enoch' (pseudopigrahpon), but that is another matter, and it doesn't either, as both are referring to Gen. and Deut.).

The angel Gabriel, in the days of Daniel was able to explain to Daniel, the prophecies given him from the very texts which existed before 'Daniel' was written (basically Gen. to Jer. (maybe some Eze.) and others hadn't yet been written by then, such as Ezr., Neh., Est., etc. and some of the 'minor prophets'):

Dan. 10:21 KJB But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Dan. 10:21 DR But I will tell thee what is set down in the scripture of truth: and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince.

As for the 'apocrypha ('catholic deuterocanon'), they were never accepted as Canon in the OT, not even by Jesus' day, nor Josephus' day.

"The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, "we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter." To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century, when, as Jerome informs us, they were read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine;" and contemporary writers state that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read in the church, it was given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. To conclude: Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the last Council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the prophets." - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. by Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. of Saint John's College, Cambridge; rector of the United Parishes of Saint Edmund the King and Martyr and Saint Nicholas Acons, Lombard Street; Prebendary of Saint Paul's; New Edition, from the Eighth London Edition, Corrected and Enlarged. Illustrated with numerous maps and fac-similies of Bilical Manuscripts. Volume I. Philadelphia: Published by J. Whetham & Son, 144 Chestnut Street. Stereotyped by L. Johnson. 1841.; page 426 (left column) - https://archive.org/stream/anintroductiont07horngoog#page/n459/mode/1up

Apocrypha, and the reasons they are not accepted as "canon":

"... 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone (a little Syriac/Chaldee in Daniel, etc.) used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead...

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. ..." - bro. Sam Gipp - The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp | Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. | A Friend to Churches Ministries

As for the amount of 'books' in the whole of scripture as we now have them in the KJB, we can know that ther are 66 books:

There are two stacks of 6 loaves on the table of shewbread, which represents God's word, taken together. 6-6.

Across from the table of shew bread is the candlestick when all the flowers, knops etc added up. 66.

The book of Isaiah, being the mini bible, from creation to redemption and new heavens and earth, are chapters. 66

The number of man is 6. Jesus took upon himself the form of a servant, and became 'man', 6. There God who took upon himself humanity (Jesus) and man. 6 - 6.

The OT itself, the standard of judgment is the limit of the law, meaning, 40 stripes save 1. 39.

The NT is a little more interesting, in that there are 4 gospels, corresponding to the 4 living creatures of Revelation, 7 letters to 7 churches by Paul as like in Revelation, etc and it also ties into the Sanctuary. The 4 gospels in the altar of Sacrifice, the book of Acts the Laver of Baptism, the letters to the churches and epistles the life in the Holy Place (bread (word), incense (prayer), light (share)), and Revelation ending in the Most Holy Place. It also is 3 to the 3rd power (3x3x3). 27.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoneman777

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe Hebrews 11:35 is referring to 2 McCabees.

I do believe those two books were eliminated by Protestants because it supports praying to or for the dead.
Can't remember right now.
Also the word 'catholic' is not once found in the scripture.

Act. 7:38 KJB This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Act. 7:38 DR This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the words of life to give unto us.

Also, the word 'catholic' is not once found in scripture, at all.

The word “catholic” [Greek, “καθολικος”, Greek Tr. “Katholikos”] is not found in scripture [KJB], nor even directly in the koine Greek manuscripts, but is rather a derivation of two koine Greek words:

[1] [G2596] “καθ” [from “κατα”, a 'preposition'], “kath”, meaning “through” and

[2] [G3650] “ολης” [an 'adjective' [in this instance, though can be used as noun or adverb]], “holos”, meaning “whole, all, entire”.

Therefore, both, when combined together, meaning the “throughout all” [Acts 9:31 KJB], the whole, entire, or 'universal'.

The word 'catholic' is supposedly, as a later adaptation, in the writings of Ignatius ca. AD 110 (however there are issues here as there are forgeries in some if not all of 'Ignatius'), and also by Cyril of Jerusalem, Ireneaus speaking about Polycarp, and used from the 2nd Century onward by a certain class of persons calling themselves by this name, and is ultimately made more and more prominent, especially in the reign of the Emperor Constantine, in the years of the 4 Emperors [and even afterward], and the various political-religious factions all vying for clout for their self-perceived doctrines. I will recommend you read The Two Republics, by A. T. Jones [approximate 1,000 pages], excellent history,- https://ia801409.us.archive.org/10/items/tworepublicsorr00jonegoog/tworepublicsorr00jonegoog.pdf

There are attempts [please note this word] by the apologists of “Catholicism” to 'find' this word “καθολικος” in the scripture [I cite the KJB, the KJB with Strong's notation, the Greek New Testament from Textus Receptus, and also the same with Strong's notation and Robinson's morphological analysis codes, for each verse, words highlighted]:

[01]

Acts 9:31 KJB - Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Act 9:31 KJB + - ThenG3767 (G3303) hadG2192 theG3588 churchesG1577 restG1515 throughoutG2596 allG3650 JudaeaG2449 andG2532 GalileeG1056 andG2532 Samaria,G4540 and were edified;G3618 andG2532 walkingG4198 in theG3588 fearG5401 of theG3588 Lord,G2962 andG2532 in theG3588 comfortG3874 of theG3588 HolyG40 Ghost,G4151 were multiplied.G4129

Acts 9:31 GNT TR - αι μεν ουν εκκλησιαι καθ ολης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχον ειρηνην οικοδομουμεναι και πορευομεναι τω φοβω του κυριου και τη παρακλησει του αγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο

Act 9:31 GNT TR + - αιG3588 T-NPF μενG3303 PRT ουνG3767 CONJ εκκλησιαιG1577 N-NPF καθG2596 PREP οληςG3650 A-GSF τηςG3588 T-GSF ιουδαιαςG2449 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ γαλιλαιαςG1056 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ σαμαρειαςG4540 N-GSF ειχονG2192 V-IAI-3P ειρηνηνG1515 N-ASF οικοδομουμεναιG3618 V-PPP-NPF καιG2532 CONJ πορευομεναιG4198 V-PNP-NPF τωG3588 T-DSM φοβωG5401 N-DSM τουG3588 T-GSM κυριουG2962 N-GSM καιG2532 CONJ τηG3588 T-DSF παρακλησειG3874 N-DSF τουG3588 T-GSN αγιουG40 A-GSN πνευματοςG4151 N-GSN επληθυνοντοG4129 V-IPI-3P

*This is the only known instance in the Greek TR texts, where these two words are side by side, yet are clearly two distinct words, not directly speaking of the “church” [“εκκλησιαι”, “ekklesiai”] itself as “καθολικος”, but rather references the locality adjectively [“throughout all”] in which the “church” had “rest” [from persecution].

[02]

Romans 16:23 KJB - Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.

Romans 16:23 KJB + - GaiusG1050 mineG3450 host,G3581 andG2532 of theG3588 wholeG3650 church,G1577 salutethG782 you.G5209 ErastusG2037 theG3588 chamberlainG3623 of theG3588 cityG4172 salutethG782 you,G5209 andG2532 QuartusG2890 a brother.G80

Romans 16:23 GNT TR - ασπαζεται υμας γαιος ο ξενος μου και της εκκλησιας ολης ασπαζεται υμας εραστος ο οικονομος της πολεως και κουαρτος ο αδελφος

Romans 16:23 GNT TR + - ασπαζεταιG782 V-PNI-3S υμαςG4771 P-2AP γαιοςG1050 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ξενοςG3581 A-NSM μουG1473 P-1GS καιG2532 CONJ τηςG3588 T-GSF εκκλησιαςG1577 N-GSF οληςG3650 A-GSF ασπαζεταιG782 V-PNI-3S υμαςG4771 P-2AP εραστοςG2037 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM οικονομοςG3623 N-NSM τηςG3588 T-GSF πολεωςG4172 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ κουαρτοςG2890 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM αδελφοςG80 N-NSM

*In this instance, the koine Greek word [G2596] “καθ”, is not used at all in combination “ολης”. The word “ολης” is simply being used [as in many other places, 112 KJB [G3650]] as an adjective [“A-GSF”, Adjective – Genative, Singular, Feminine], to describe the amount [of persons thereof, locally] of the church who is [are] doing the greeting [“Tertius”, vs 22], with Paul and Gaius [Paul's “host”]. It is just simply including everyone in the church in the greeting, even after having listed a bunch of names to be greeted [vss. 1-16]. It does not designate the church as “καθολικος”.
[03]

1 Corinthians 14:23 KJB - If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

1 Corinthians 14:23 KJB + - IfG1437 thereforeG3767 theG3588 wholeG3650 churchG1577 be come togetherG4905 intoG1909 one place,G846 andG2532 allG3956 speakG2980 with tongues,G1100 andG1161 there come inG1525 those that are unlearned,G2399 orG2228 unbelievers,G571 will they notG3756 sayG2046 thatG3754 ye are mad?G3105

1 Corinthians 14:23 GNT TR - εαν ουν συνελθη η εκκλησια ολη επι το αυτο και παντες γλωσσαις λαλωσιν εισελθωσιν δε ιδιωται η απιστοι ουκ ερουσιν οτι μαινεσθε

1 Corinthians 14:23 GN TR + - εανG1437 COND ουνG3767 CONJ συνελθηG4905 V-2AAS-3S ηG3588 T-NSF εκκλησιαG1577 N-NSF οληG3650 A-NSF επιG1909 PREP τοG3588 T-ASN αυτοG846 P-ASN καιG2532 CONJ παντεςG3956 A-NPM γλωσσαιςG1100 N-DPF λαλωσινG2980 V-PAS-3P εισελθωσινG1525 V-2AAS-3P δεG1161 CONJ ιδιωταιG2399 N-NPM ηG2228 PRT απιστοιG571 A-NPM ουκG3756 PRT-N ερουσινG2046 V-FAI-3P οτιG3754 CONJ μαινεσθεG3105 V-PNI-2P

*In this instance, the koine Greek word [G2596] “καθ”, is not used at all in combination “ολης”. The word “ολης” is simply being used [as in many other places, 112 KJB [G3650]] as an adjective [“A-GSF”, Adjective – Nominative, Singular, Feminine], to describe the amount [of persons thereof, locally] of the church if [a possibility] they came together as one group. It does not designate the church as “καθολικος”.
Each attempt to 'find' this word, “καθολικος”, in scripture [KJB] yields no [0] results. The words “καθ” [used 378 times in the GNT TR, G2596] and/or “ολης” [used 112 times in the GNT TR, G3650] are used throughout the scripture, in various ways, most of which are never in connection with the word “εκκλησια” whatsoever.

This is further confirmed by the Jesuit ('catholic') 'bible' itself, put together in the late 1500's, early 1600's AD (NT 1582 AD, OT 1609-10 AD) or more 'modern translations' approved by the 'catholic church' likewise ( Approved Translations of the Bible or The New American Bible ), wherein if we simply search for the word 'catholic' in the text, the verses, itself (apart from footnotes, commentary, headings), we get the following result, which confirms the earlier statements of myself: "Could not find 'catholic' in any verses of the Whole Bible." - Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes / Search and the same result in the NAB ( The New American Bible - IntraText Concordances: «catholic» )

The church in the NT was called "sect of the Nazarenes", Act. 24:5; "the way which they call heresy", Act. 24:14 (and I am of this number, as 'catholicism' so designates); "the way", Act. 18:26, and also "Christians", Act. 11:26, 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16. Please notice that last one. Peter himself said "christian", not ever did he take up the word 'catholic' in the scriptures, nor epistles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoneman777

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe Hebrews 11:35 is referring to 2 McCabees.

I do believe those two books were eliminated by Protestants because it supports praying to or for the dead.
Can't remember right now.
Furthermore, 'catholicism' promotes the idea of a greek OT, called (now) 'Septuagint' (aka LXX), which is based in a lie, and has many errors in the greek OT's from Origen's hexapla:

Remember, the "oracles of God" (OT) were committed to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2), thus written in Hebrew, not the Greek:

The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.

"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf

"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." - The Septuagint, by H. St. J. Thackeray

De bibliorum textibus originalibus - Humfredi Hodii linguae graecae professoris regii et Archidiaconi Oxon. De bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus graecis, & latina vulgata libri 4..

Other sources, identifying the same - The Septuagint

"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf

"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...

... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]

... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.

First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.





 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoneman777

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Furthermore, 'catholicism' promotes the idea of a greek OT, called (now) 'Septuagint' (aka LXX), which is based in a lie, and has many errors in the greek OT's from Origen's hexapla:

Remember, the "oracles of God" (OT) were committed to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2), thus written in Hebrew, not the Greek:

The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.

"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf

"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." - The Septuagint, by H. St. J. Thackeray

De bibliorum textibus originalibus - Humfredi Hodii linguae graecae professoris regii et Archidiaconi Oxon. De bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus graecis, & latina vulgata libri 4..

Other sources, identifying the same - The Septuagint

"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf

"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...

... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]

... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.

First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.





BC
I stopped reading after the first post !!
You went off on a wild tangent and I don't know why.

Hebrews is speaking about Maccabees. This is accepted by theologians.
I don't really care one way or the other. I just dislike incorrect information being posted...which I don't even remember what it was anymore.

If you're going to post re this, find where it says that Hebrews 11:35 is NOT about the mother in 2McCabees....
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I do believe those two books were eliminated by Protestants because it supports praying to or for the dead.
Actually Christ eliminated those books long before Protestants. See Luke 24. Protestants were simply trying to hold to the true Bible, and the Hebrew Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible used by Jesus of Nazareth) eliminated all of the apocryphal books.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoneman777