thinking of converting

[Fiskare]

This directly refutes geocajun’s point, because she didn’t “see through his (White’s) claims", she did not even know what his claims were or are!

OK, got it.

Lastly, no, the behavior of a person stating a certain proposition does not affect the veracity of the proposition itself. My comment on the behavior of the Roman Apologists should be taken at nothing more than face value, to consider that poor and discourteous behavior can happen on both sides...

I would agree. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Fiskare]

Hi there!

I read your posting, but I skipped over the 38 responds already given. There are particular reasons why any text was rejected to be a part of the canonized text.

Malaka,

It's easy to get caught up in the Josh McDowell type apologetics as to why certain books of the Bible are rejected by certain groups of modern-day Christians. The real question should not be why certain books are rejected but how the books we all agree upon came into the canon. Once that question is answered, then I think the entire "we reject this because of such-and-such" looks quite superfluous and almost silly.

First of all, the canon of the Bible was decided in the early Church, and included all the books of the Old Testament, including the ones you reject. No one can dispute that. It's history, documented, and agreed upon by all scholars.

However, this fact alone begs the question- if the criteria you have presented for the rejection of the "apocrypha" are enough to kick a book out of the canon, then what of books like Esther, which is never quoted in the New Testament, or, if Tobit is considered a myth, why not Jonah? If Baruch is rejected because it echoes other parts of the OT, why include Deuteronomy, which echoes entire slabs of the previous books? If we don't know the author of Wisdom, do we know the authors of Job, Proverbs and other parts of the OT? In fact, how do we even know who the authors are for any book? Who decides what is "outside of acceptable time frame of acceptable standards", and how do you know they are right about their conclusions?

The point is that no matter who we are, we all take the early church's word that the books we have are the canon of scripture. For us to now take liberal arguments ("it's a myth") or arguments from silence ("the author is unknown") or worse ("it doesn't line up with my beliefs") is downright spurious and unfaithful to Christ. It's academically dishonest to accept the early church's canon of the New Testament, yet reject the canon of the Old from the very same sources and councils! Frankly, it's liberalism, and as the Bible teaches, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Benedicta00]

Shelb5, I am thinking of

"Once she learned and got passed the myth and lies that are often told about Catholicism she saw how invalid all the arguments her brother made against the Church" in particular... I usually think of my beliefs being called “myth and lies” as not being compliments, in fact, I could have used a stronger word than sarcastic….. look again at the rules for this forum, we, as Protestants are not to say certain things about the Catholic/Orthodox Church, to be specific, the rules at one point state “Basically, try to rephrase your question and post so that it does not come across as being judgemental (sic) and accusatory.” Again, having my beliefs called “myth and lies” is, if it is anything, judgmental and accusatory.





now you can feign innocence, but the bottom line is this, in this area non Reformed/Evangelical/Protestant persons are not to debate, especially when the answer was to a question not even given by you.....

Ken,

Where in this quote do you see me using bitterness, sarcasm, or rule braking by saying that myths and lies are often told about MY beliefs, not yours?

"Once she learned and got passed the myth and lies that are often told about Catholicism she saw how invalid all the arguments her brother made against the Church"

I have said nothing regarding Protestant beliefs in this thread.

You have obviously mis-read this. I can say (because it’s true) that the James White's arguments pertaining to Catholicism are invalid, he tells myths and sometimes lies pertaining to the Catholic Church, he has no authority to speak on behalf of Catholicism. If one wants to learn Catholicism, then GO TO CATHOLICS to learn. Is that really against the rules?

I grew up in many different Protestant denominations, am I, IYO, an authority to speak for Protestantism? Would you come to me to learn about Protestantism?

This is the only point I was making to the author, that if you want to learn Catholicism, then study it with out bias and let the teachings with no bias or spin put on them, stand for themselves.

How in the world is this speaking against what Protestants believe?

 

[Serapha]

Malaka,



First of all, the canon of the Bible was decided in the early Church, and included all the books of the Old Testament, including the ones you reject. No one can dispute that. It's history, documented, and agreed upon by all scholars.

Hi there!

You are mistaken in your statement concerning what books were in "the Scriptures", but more importantly Christ NEVER quoted from those books.


Now you say you are considering a conversion to Catholicism because of the considerations given those ancient writings... well... convert... but know when you convert that our Lord and Savior never used them so why should you use it for a basis in your own conversion..


Use CHRIST as your vehicle to conversion.

I don't think I can help in your decision. Your mind is already made up. If you hurry, you can get into an RCIA class for this year and be able to sign the book of elect in February and join the Church at Easter. Otherwise, you will have to be miserable waiting for another year to pass before you can go through the process to join the RCC.


~malaka~

 

[Fiskare]

Hi there!

You are mistaken in your statement concerning what books were in "the Scriptures", but more importantly Christ NEVER quoted from those books.

Christ lived and upheld the teachings of the apocrypha. According to John 10:22 ff, he attended and kept the Feast of Dedication which is ordained in 1 Macc. 4:36-59, 2 Macc. 1:18-2:29, 10:1-8 . If it was a heretical feast ordained in a book discarded as "fictious" then why did He keep it?

Christ quoted from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which included the apocyrpha!

Christ didn't quote from Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah either. Shall we discard them too?

Furthermore, what are we going to do with the Book of Jude, which quotes from sources that are not in any scripture? (Jude 9, 14, 15)

Furthermore, we don't know everything Christ said, but we do know which canon of the Bible he held and followed, the Septuagint, which included the apocrypha.

Now you say you are considering a conversion to Catholicism because of the considerations given those ancient writings... well... convert... but know when you convert that our Lord and Savior never used them so why should you use it for a basis in your own conversion..

I think you should read the thread more carefully brother- that was someone else.

 

[nyj]

I don't think I can help in your decision. Your mind is already made up. If you hurry, you can get into an RCIA class for this year and be able to sign the book of elect in February and join the Church at Easter. Otherwise, you will have to be miserable waiting for another year to pass before you can go through the process to join the RCC.

Just a clarification. People can enter into the Catholic Church at any point in the year. Yes, Easter is the time most people do enter into the Church, but at the parish I attend, people enter in at other times to. It depends on the individual and where they are in their journey with the Lord. Take your time distancerunner, no need to rush. When one follows the Lord, they will never be miserable.

 

[KennySe]

You are mistaken in your statement concerning what books were in "the Scriptures", but more importantly Christ NEVER quoted from those books.

This would make a great post on the IDD. I invite you to begin it, Malaka.

 

[isshinwhat]

Just a reminder, this is not a debate forum. I ask all Catholic/Orthodox/Anglo-Catholic members to respect our Non-Catholic/Orthodox bretheren and give them the opportunity to address the original post without harassment. Statment's like nyj's clarification are great, but others delving into the world of debate... Leave that to IDD.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Serapha]

Just a clarification. People can enter into the Catholic Church at any point in the year. Yes, Easter is the time most people do enter into the Church, but at the parish I attend, people enter in at other times to. It depends on the individual and where they are in their journey with the Lord. Take your time distancerunner, no need to rush. When one follows the Lord, they will never be miserable.

Please cite your source that tells me that in all the dioceses of the world, a person may join the Roman Church at any time during the year. In particular, would you cite the source that states that this person may join the Church at any given time of the year, for that you need to know which diocese he resides in.

For, my friend, you have made assumptions on the acceptability of the baptismal record, and that the individual is a "candidate" and not a "catechumenate"

and could you make that source "imprimi"

Thank you.

~malaka`

 

[nyj]

Please cite your source that tells me that in all the dioceses of the world, a person may join the Roman Church at any time during the year. In particular, would you cite the source that states that this person may join the Church at any given time of the year, for that you need to know which diocese he resides in.

Actually, you made the claim (albeit incorrect) first. Therefore, the responsibility is up to you to cite your sources and prove the accuracy of your own comments. Besides, I'm just a guest in this forum and I do not wish to be seen as debating.

For, my friend, you have made assumptions on the acceptability of the baptismal record, and that the individual is a "candidate" and not a "catechumenate"

If distancerunner has been baptised with the trinitarian formula then she would be considered a catechumen. Only non-baptised individuals are considered candidates.

 

[Serapha]

If distancerunner has been baptised with the trinitarian formula then she would be considered a catechumen. Only non-baptised individuals are considered candidates.

What catholic church teaches that?

You got your terms backwards. A candidate has a qualified baptism that is acceptable to the Church, a catechumen is an unbaptized individual.


and you rated me badly???? stating that you rated my reputation down because "I" didn't know my RCIA training???

I am reporting this posting.

 

[nyj]

You got your terms backwards. A candidate has a qualified baptism that is acceptable to the Church, a catechumen is an unbaptized individual.

Yep, you're correct, my bad. It was late when I replied to your post, I goofed. It happens.

and you rated me badly???? stating that you rated my reputation down because "I" didn't know my RCIA training???

I am reporting this posting.

Wow, that's kind of harsh for making a mistake.

 

[Bayhawks83]

my advice is you probly shouldnt go to a catholic church, they add things like sacraments.

 

[Benedicta00]

my advice is you probly shouldnt go to a catholic church, they add things like sacraments.

Really?

 

[distancerunner]

thank you all for your replies. There were some tangent parts that flew over my head, but i think i followed you guys for the most part. Can I briefly redirect this to one of my original thoughts:

i just don't understand how our church could, 1800+ years after Christ's death discover his true teachings.

I know the catholic church got corrupt in the middle ages and that was the basis for the reformation (to try to get back to Christ's original teachings). But I also know that Martin Luther was the first one to use the concept of sola scriptura. This seemed like a good idea to me until i started thinking about the problem we have with it today--look at how divided it has made our christian people (because everyone interprets the bible to mean what they think it does). it seems like there is more animosity between christians than between christians and non-christians. What's up with that?!

(not to say that there should be animosity between christians and non-christians, but i just don't understand the hostility within our own faith. In my opinion, if all that is truely important is accepting Jesus as your savior, we have all done it, and there should be no need to fight)

 

[Terri]

thank you all for your replies. There were some tangent parts that flew over my head, but i think i followed you guys for the most part. Can I briefly redirect this to one of my original thoughts:



I know the catholic church got corrupt in the middle ages and that was the basis for the reformation (to try to get back to Christ's original teachings). But I also know that Martin Luther was the first one to use the concept of sola scriptura. This seemed like a good idea to me until i started thinking about the problem we have with it today--look at how divided it has made our christian people (because everyone interprets the bible to mean what they think it does). it seems like there is more animosity between christians than between christians and non-christians. What's up with that?!

(not to say that there should be animosity between christians and non-christians, but i just don't understand the hostility within our own faith. In my opinion, if all that is truely important is accepting Jesus as your savior, we have all done it, and there should be no need to fight)

The bible says there are false gospels and false Jesus', so we must be very careful about what gospel we follow and what Jesus we believe in.

The truth has been here since Pentecost. Don't let any group that claims they are the only one with the truth from the beginning take you captive by their lie. I can pick up the Bible and read the truth as recorded by an apostle that was there with Jesus. The letters were distributed to the various chruch when they were written, so the bible existed at the time of the apostles.

The real gospel is ALL about God and what He did for us--it has nothing to do with what we do. God WILL NOT share HIS GLORY with anyone. A false gospel says that you can help work your way to heaven by your actions. Anything you have to do to get your sins forgiven other than believing Jesus paid for all of them would be a work. This is trying to take God's Glory. A false gospel is saying HIS FINISHED Work on the cross is not sufficient to save you--that is denying Jesus and is a huge insult to God and to His power.

You can find the real gospel here. http://www.christianforums.com/gospel.html

I would also suggest you read the Bible on your own (no commentary telling you what the verses mean) totally trusting in God through His Holy Spirit to lead you into all understanding. I would read Romans and Galatians every day as many times a day as I could--these books are very important to understanding the true gospel. I like the NIV Bible. It is much easier to understand than the King James.

 

[Benedicta00]

Interesting Terri, you telling him to read the bible on his own with out commentary but then again, you also suggest he takes your word for how you interpret truth.

 

[Acceptance]

A false gospel says that you can help work your way to heaven by your actions.

Does your church teach this? The Catholic church does not

 

[BAChristian]

my advice is you probly shouldnt go to a catholic church, they add things like sacraments.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to honor God now would we?

 

[Fiskare]

my advice is you probly shouldnt go to a catholic church, they add things like sacraments.

Actually, friend, even the Protestant Churches teach that Christ instituted the sacraments.