Catholic? Jewish?

[preston08]

I am new to this forum... so be nice

I started reading the bible a month ago, and am now in the book of Ruth in the Old Testament.

Me and my cousin talk a lot about Christianity...we both ruled out Catholocism, and the Jew's beleifs for a simple reason. The Jews took away a part from the bible (New Testament) and Catholics added on. Right there you rule them both out.

You cannot take away, or add to the Bible. Am I right?

I am more confused about Catholicism. Why have they added books to the bible? Isn't it common sense that you should not add to the bible?

Forgive me, for I have much to learn. Tear apart this post piece by piece if you must. I am just trying to learn

Thank you.

 

[MattMMMan17]

In short, I'm glad you're wanting to learn. You're right, the bible cannot be added to or taken away from. The Catholic Church compiled the scriptures, old and new testaments, and canonized them as the Bible back in the fourth century. Protestants removed seven of the books, they call the apocrypha, we call the deuterocanonicals. It is common sense that you should not add OR remove from the bible. It is the old testament books that were removed, books that were included in the original greek translation of Hebrew scriptures that was known as the Septuagint. That was the primary scriptures in use during Jesus' time. The Catholic Church accepts the books within the Septuagint as inspired word of God, and therefore they are included in all Catholic Bibles. You will find that Catholics did NOT include three books that were in the septuagint. This was because they could not be proven to have been included during Christ's time on earth. I hope that EXTREMELY simplified version of the history of the bible helps you understand.

It's also important to note that you've disqualified the Jews for rejecting Jesus and the new testament, which is VERY correct. And at the same time that they rejected this, they officially rejected those 7 books, the deuterocanonicals, as they saw fit. This council of Jamnia took place after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, with one of its primary goals being to stop the spread of Christianity. The new scripture they put together by removing those books and modifying parts of others, has come to be known as the Masoretic text. It is upon that text that the NIV bible relies upon, only partly referring to the Septuagint. My Presbyterian friends use that bible so I've been able to glean that much from reading the introduction in it.

God bless you in your search. If you have more questions, PLEASE do ask them. Either here or PM, whatever is best.

 

[preston08]

Once again, give me a slap on the wrist when I deserve it

But I have thought of catholicism as satanic. This may sound like a bit much, but if you think about it... satan wants to confuse people and send them off track. Instead of comming in the form of a ridiculous religion, he comes in the form of a religion that is similar to Christianity, only changed. This way even people looking to worship Jesus can miss the mark.

Do you know what I mean?

Don't catholics give the pope more authority than the Bible? The pope gets the last say, over the Bible? This is wrong!!

Correct me if I am wrong please.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

You are wrong. The Pope must obey the Bible like all of us.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Preston,

It sounds like you have a lot of questions about Catholicism which we would love to answer for you, so please go ahead and ask whatever you are wondering.

In answer to your last post, Catholicism is not a changed form of Christianity- it is the original form of Christianity. Protestantism didn't come along until about 500 years ago. Catholicism has been around much longer than that.

 

[KennySe]

I am new to this forum... so be nice

Peace be with you, Preston.

Welcome to ChristianForums and to the One Bread, One Body (OBOB) Catholic Discussions forum.

I appreciate that you are asking us Catholics about the Catholic Church.
(So often, people decide what the Catholic Church teaches, without asking the Catholic Church; and often what these people say the Catholic Church teaches is not true.)

Please ask, and we will answer.

I started reading the bible a month ago, and am now in the book of Ruth in the Old Testament.

When you get to the New Testament, specifically the Gospel according to John, please come here to OBOB and we can discuss Chapter 6.

Me and my cousin talk a lot about Christianity...we both ruled out Catholocism, and the Jew's beleifs for a simple reason. The Jews took away a part from the bible (New Testament) and Catholics added on. Right there you rule them both out.

You and your cousin rule out Catholicism.
God does not.

You cannot take away, or add to the Bible. Am I right?

You are correct.
And the Catholic Church set the canon of the Bible.

Why did Martin Luther remove 7 books from the Old Testament and 4 books from the New Testament? When he died, the Church of Germany (Lutheranism) returned the Books of : Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation to their German language Bible.

I am more confused about Catholicism. Why have they added books to the bible? Isn't it common sense that you should not add to the bible?

The Canon of the Old Testament and the Canon of the New Testament were defined by Pope Damasus in A.D. 382 at the Synod of Rome.
At the ecumneical synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) list the same books as that list of Pope Damasus.

Pope Damasus had the priest Jerome, collect these various books into a single book, the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, a scholar, with great knowledge of Greek, Latin, Aramaic; transalted the original writings into the common and "universal language" of the day which was Latin.

Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse questioned Pope Innocent I on which writings ARE scripture and which books are not, the Pope sent that same list of Pope Damasus and Synod of Rome, and Synod of Hippo, and Synod of Carthage.

Forgive me, for I have much to learn. Tear apart this post piece by piece if you must. I am just trying to learn

Thank you.

No sweat, Preston. You ask and we will answer.
Pray that God will guide you in your learning.

Here are some links.
These are easier reading than my post.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM

***

And here's a piece of history for you.

The King James Bible of 1611 included those 7 Deuterocanonical books in a section called "Apocrypha", and any references to passages that were in those books, were in the margins of the King James Bible.

Those 7 books were officially removed from the King James Bible in 1885 by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
http://www.signumcrucis.net/av1611.htm
.

 

[Preachers12]

Preston08, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

Thank you for your questions! There are so many misperceptions and outright lies about the Catholic faith out there that it is refreshing to see someone attempting to learn the truth. This is a good place to do that, with many very well versed and learned Catholics who can explain our beautiful faith and its doctrines.

Ask anything. You won't offend people here, as we know the truth of our Faith and are confident in it. You've already demonstrated your sincerity by the respectful nature of your question(s).

More than anything, as you seek to learn, pray. Everytime you log onto CF, say a prayer that the Holy Spirit guide you and increase your faith and understanding. So many people forget to do that and miss a wonderful opportunity.

Also, don't be shy to ask people how you can verify what they tell you. That is, what official Church records or other documents can you go to in order to verify it is what the Church teaches.

God Bless,
P12

 

[Hoonbaba]

Once again, give me a slap on the wrist when I deserve it

But I have thought of catholicism as satanic.

Actually I once thought the same thing LOL! Lord forgive me

This may sound like a bit much, but if you think about it... satan wants to confuse people and send them off track. Instead of comming in the form of a ridiculous religion, he comes in the form of a religion that is similar to Christianity, only changed. This way even people looking to worship Jesus can miss the mark.

I think the same can be said of some protestants, particularly liberals who preach 'another gospel', where they flat out deny the divinity of Christ, or even the virgin birth.

Regardless, the Catholic Church's doctrines have always been consistent with 2000 years of history, while protestants unfortunately kept splitting, and even now they continue to split off on their own. Not exactly how Jesus envisioned unity (John 17:23)

Don't catholics give the pope more authority than the Bible? The pope gets the last say, over the Bible? This is wrong!!

If you think about it, every single pastor claims authority over the bible: They said their interpretation of the bible is correct. While another pastor will say their interpretation of the bible is correct. And they dish out all sorts of scripture to prove their point (of course using their interpretations). While the bible is authoritative, I think the bigger issue is this: Who has the authority to interpret scripture, the individual, or the church?

By the way, the pope doesn't have authority over the bible. But I do believe the magisterium (the teaching hand of the Church, i.e. 1 Cor 12:28-29, Eph 4:11) is the correct interpreter of scripture. We believe the Church has is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), not the bible. It was the Catholic Church who put the entire New Testament together anyway. Yet at the same time, every believer (including the pope) is subject to all the teachings.

Hope this helps

-Jason

 

[tigersnare]

We believe the Church has is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), not the bible.

Intresting. What is the Church founded on?
I might be confused.

 

[BAChristian]

What is the Church founded on?

Jesus Christ. The Bible and Sacred Tradition are our tools.

 

[tigersnare]

Jesus Christ. The Bible and Sacred Tradition are our tools.

Jesus Christ (God) whom we come to know through the scriptures (word of God)?

Therefore what is the foundation?

 

[BAChristian]

Jesus Christ (God) whom we come to know through the scriptures (word of God)?

Therefore what is the foundation?

Once again, Jesus Christ is our foundation.

The Bible didn't just fall out of the sky one day and all of a sudden the Church was founded upon it.

Christ was quite clear about who he gave the keys to, and who he told would bind and loose...

Christ didn't give Peter the Bible and say, "Here, the Bible is the foundation...now go tell everyone about it.", rather he told all of his disciples to tell everyone about Him (Jesus Christ).

Tigersnare, I'd like to point out that I've read a lot of your posts in the last few hours, and while I like to see that you're learning, I question your "desire" to learn. And while I don't like to "rule people out", I'm being honest when I say that I can read behind the lines -- I know all the little setup questions that a person can throw out when they're trying to "roundabout" convince people that they're wrong.

And that's fine. You can continue to do that, but at some point you need to take what we say and leave it that. If you want to debate, then let us know that you want to.

In other words, if you don't believe any of this, be a man and say that you don't, admit that you want to debate, and post something in IDD.

Otherwise...please don't play games. Would you want me to do that to you?

 

[tigersnare]

Once again, Jesus Christ is our foundation.

The Bible didn't just fall out of the sky one day and all of a sudden the Church was founded upon it.

Christ was quite clear about who he gave the keys to, and who he told would bind and loose...

Christ didn't give Peter the Bible and say, "Here, the Bible is the foundation...now go tell everyone about it.", rather he told all of his disciples to tell everyone about Him (Jesus Christ).

Tigersnare, I'd like to point out that I've read a lot of your posts in the last few hours, and while I like to see that you're learning, I question your "desire" to learn. And while I don't like to "rule people out", I'm being honest when I say that I can read behind the lines -- I know all the little setup questions that a person can throw out when they're trying to "roundabout" convince people that they're wrong.

And that's fine. You can continue to do that, but at some point you need to take what we say and leave it that. If you want to debate, then let us know that you want to.

In other words, if you don't believe any of this, be a man and say that you don't, admit that you want to debate, and post something in IDD.

Otherwise...please don't play games. Would you want me to do that to you?

Take it easy friend. If you choose to read into questions that far, than you can choose not to answer as well. I'm sorry you think I"m trying to munipulate you, I'm asking questions for my sake of understanding how Catholics approach the bible. If you would like to further discuss please don't get aggressive on here, I am willing to discuss via pm if you like.

 

[BAChristian]

I'm asking questions for my sake of understanding how Catholics approach the bible.

If that's the case, then cool...

I'm glad we got that out of the way...

Game on...

Please also remember that it's very hard to read questions, reply, then get questions to the reply that look like a setup, and NOT think that the person isn't trying to "play around" with you. So please try to look at it from my perspective as well.

 

[tigersnare]

If that's the case, then cool...

I'm glad we got that out of the way...

Game on...

Please also remember that it's very hard to read questions, reply, then get questions to the reply that look like a setup, and NOT think that the person isn't trying to "play around" with you. So please try to look at it from my perspective as well.

Understood. Even though the question was not directed at you originally, I was trying to see how Catholics fill the hole that I saw.

You tell me...

Paul founded a few churches. Paul then used to word of God to establish the churches (epistles). After the death of the apostles and the circulation of scriptures new churches were founded on Jesus....but only what they could read in the sciptures. So logially to me church it looks like church would be founded on sciptures, and not sciptures on the church. How do you see it?

 

[ps139]

Paul founded a few churches. Paul then used to word of God to establish the churches (epistles). After the death of the apostles and the circulation of scriptures new churches were founded on Jesus....but only what they could read in the sciptures. So logially to me church it looks like church would be founded on sciptures, and not sciptures on the church. How do you see it?

Paul did not use the epistles to establish churches. He wrote them to already existing congregations. And while Scripture played an important role in spreading the good news, remember that (A) not all Scripture had been written - John was ~90 AD and (B) Scripture was not the only means of teaching truth.
See 1 Thess. 4:2 - "For you know what instructions we gave to you by the authority of the Lord Jesus" This is the first letter to the Thessalonians - so these instructions had to be orally taught. So there we already see an authority which is not Sola Scriptura. In Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians, he says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings (also translated as traditions) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15) There we also see that traditions passed on "by word of mouth" are of equal authority as those "by letter," presumably referring to 1 Thessalonians. So it cannot be possible that these churches were founded on Scripture. They were founded by the authority in the Church given by Our Lord.

 

[tigersnare]

Paul did not use the epistles to establish churches. He wrote them to already existing congregations.

I should have made it clearer what I mean by establish using a couple definitions:

3 a : to make firm or stable
5 a : to put on a firm basis b : to put into a favorable position c : to gain full recognition or acceptance of

I chose to use these meanings for establish when refering to Paul and his establishment of the church. I feel like Paul first founded the churches and then later "established" them with his epistles, esp based on the content and the fundemental problems he was having to address, because that content leads me to belive the churches weren't exactly firm and stable.

But I believe as I read, I see Paul founding the church at *Corinth(check me, don't have my word handy) by spending ample time "reasoning from the scriptures", which of course would be the O.T. I understand that he first and foremost preached the good news, but he "reasoned" from the scriptures to build a foundation for the gospel, a similar technique used by the writers of the gospels later when they frequently built cases for Christ by quoting the O.T.

In Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians, he says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings (also translated as traditions) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15) There we also see that traditions passed on "by word of mouth" are of equal authority as those "by letter," presumably referring to 1 Thessalonians.

Ok traditions:
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

Ok from one generation to another, from Paul to new Christians.

I guess I would have to ask, since Paul was a Jews Jew, what traditions did he hand down from his generation?

 

[Hoonbaba]

But I believe as I read, I see Paul founding the church at *Corinth(check me, don't have my word handy) by spending ample time "reasoning from the scriptures", which of course would be the O.T. I understand that he first and foremost preached the good news, but he "reasoned" from the scriptures to build a foundation for the gospel, a similar technique used by the writers of the gospels later when they frequently built cases for Christ by quoting the O.T.

He also reasoned from Greek thought to drive his message across in Athens. In other words, from all of Acts 17:22-32 he doesn't quote a single scripture, but he quotes a stoic poet (Acts 17:28). Since he addresses a non-Jewish speaking crowd in Athens, he uses Hellenistic ideas to explain Christ, because these people were philosophers and Christianity from a Jewish perspective would make no sense to them. And Acts 17:34 tells us some of them were convinced of his 'nonbiblical' arguments for Christ.

However, earlier in the same chapter, Paul reaches out to the Bereans using scripture, because there were Jews living there (Acts 17:10-12). So would this mean philosophers' foundation was on nonbiblical arguments by apostle Paul?

In anycase, Jude also quotes a nonbiblical book to prove his point (Jude 14-15) about judgment day. It's literally verbatim from the book of Enoch (Enoch 1:9), which is not scripture. Does this mean we should consider it scripture because Jude reasoned from a nonbiblical text?

I don't think it matters that one uses scripture to bring someone into the Christian faith. Because, as others said, the foundation is on Christ, whether it be biblical or nonbiblical arguments.

I guess I would have to ask, since Paul was a Jews Jew, what traditions did he hand down from his generation?

Written and oral tradition (2 Thess 2:15), which consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, respectfully. As for the exact contents of the latter, I don't know. It wasn't written down. Perhaps someone else has a better answer

-Jason

 

[Hoonbaba]

Jesus Christ (God) whom we come to know through the scriptures (word of God)?

Therefore what is the foundation?

Hmm...after thinking about it, I think it's the Holy Spirit which is the ultimate foundation. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot understand the scriptures, and it's likely that the Holy Spirit convinced the Greek philsophers in Acts 17.

The same holy Spirit was promised to lead the disciples to continue Jesus's work (John 16:13-15), from a Catholic perspective, these disciples initially made up the leadership of the church, which was ultimately passed down to others via apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. This would explain how the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth: Because the Holy Spirit guides it into truth.

-Jason

 

[tigersnare]

I don't think it matters that one uses scripture to bring someone into the Christian faith. Because, as others said, the foundation is on Christ, whether it be biblical or nonbiblical arguments.

Ok that sounds good enough. I agree that the foudation is Christ, but how did you come to know Christ...was it not through the scriptures?

Written and oral tradition (2 Thess 2:15), which consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, respectfully.

Ok we know that the Scripture was that of the Jews, becuase that's all the scripture he had....would this mean that the sacred traditions were also of Jewish decent, or no?