Dangerous biblical study - Page 4

**AlanFromWichita** · #46 May 9, '12, 2:18 pm

I am embarrassed that people are viciously attacking each other; judging, calling names and more over the way they think, and this in the name of God and the Roman Catholic Church which I love and hate to see portrayed like this. It's like a bad show on TV, folks. There is an "off" button; nobody makes you reply to a so-called inflammatory post.

pablope · #47 May 9, '12, 2:35 pm

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

And to everyone- I am embarrassed to correct a forum full of Catholics but.... It is true that Jerome submitted and put the apocrypha in his vulgate... However, he differentiated them from the rest of canonical scripture citing them as ecclesiastical and not authoritative.

Hmmm....you must be confused....you must be talking about Luther who did exactly what you are stating.

Quote:

This is admitted by the modern catholic church. If you do not believe me feel free to google it or reference your new catholic encyclopedia. So that's your fun fact correction correction

don't get so sucked up into mainline apologetics that you buy every great one liner you hear.[/

Is this what you are talking about........He never either categorically acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, and he repeatedly made use of them.

Source....A catholic encyclopedia.......http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

Heuchler · #48 May 9, '12, 3:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

Be that as it may that is not the primary reason for this thread and I am not the one who took it off topic. I was really Hoping for a logical cohesive response to why a catholic would risk reading the bible In light of 2 Peter 3:16 which states that unlearned men twist scriptures to their own destruction. If I was a catholic who had an "infallible" church to teach me why take the risk?

(*Sigh*) I have a feeling that we have a troll on our hands. If you want an answer to your question you can look to my original post on this thread, but I'd like to turn the question on you. Why do you read the Bible if you could twist the scriptures. It would logically be harder for you since you are relying on the wisdom of only yourself (which is definitely not infallible) and do not have a church or group which has had hundreds of wise men who have convened on this and (hopefully) have been guided by the Holy Spirit. If you can easily hurt yourself through reading the Bible, and do not have an infallible guide, then why even try to read the Bible at all. You are not commanded to read the Bible. Your entrance into Heaven is not reliant on reading a book. However, if reading this book can lead to your destruction, then why would you ever take the risk? The only reason for a Catholic to read the Bible in light of this is that we do have an infallible guide that can allow us to read the word of God without turning it to our own interpretations, you do not have a guide and have no way of knowing if you are leading to your own destruction by misreading the Bible.

(and in regards to your "fun fact", the Old testament which the Apostles read would have contained the deuterocanonicals as they were not removed until closer to the end of the first century from the Jewish Torah. Seeing as the Torah which included the deuterocanonicals was the one regarded as the scriptures by the Apostles and most importantly Christ, I will stick with them)

**AlanFromWichita** · #49 May 9, '12, 3:45 pm

They with ears, let them hear.

They with eyes, let them see.

Shannon9791 · #50 May 9, '12, 3:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

Shannon I appreciate your attitude and the content of your response! The reason why it doesn't make since to study the bible as a Catholic is basically risk management. If you simply show up to mass, enjoy the readings, and happily enjoy your blind trust in Romes authority you are guaranteed not to fall into error..... Or at least not to be held accountable for any errors that you might be ignorant of. However, as a Carholic if you study the bible objectively and don't go with the strange mystical approach that Alanfromwitchita recommends you may very well fall into heresy. What of you find yourself convinced of sola fide or realize the deuterocanonical books are chalked full of historical error? On the catholic view I do not understand why it would be beneficial to study.

I'm very happy that you brought up Newton. Would anyone who reads newtons theories today expect to find that he was 100% cirrect in everything he ever thought? No. We all know that people in the past often operate in ignorance and can make mistakes. We have the advantage of hindsight and greater resources and can now learn from their mistakes and move forward. This is the same light in which Protestants view church history.

Let's discuss this bolded part of your response to me. But first let me tell you what I believe. I believe that Jesus came to our planet and started One Church. HIS Church. I believe that Church is the Catholic Church and I've come to that conclusion from years of study of not just the Bible, but also history and the writings of those men who pre-date the Bible. That being said, when I read and study the Bible, it is with the belief that my Church, which I feel is the One, True Church, has given me the tools necessary with which to interpret it. As I stated earlier, I am not bound to one interpretation of a large majority of the Bible and in many cases can draw inspiration from many different angles of the same story, i.e. the Prodigal Son parable example I gave in my last post.

Here's the HUGE difference between what you're saying and what I do. I willingly submit to an authority, not blindly, as you may think, but consciously and fully. So even if I decide Sola Fide is the right way, or that the DC's don't belong as part of the cannon of Scripture,I accept that my opinion about things might be wrong, but there are those who have come before me who are smarter and holier and have already commented on what I have questions about, and therefore, their writings/thoughts/opinions/teachings outweigh mine. You, however, submit to the authority of YOU. You alone are judge, jury, and executioner of Scripture interpretation. I am not infallible, therefore I seek those who have been granted that gift to guide me in my learning. Unless you can say you are infallible, and your interpretation of Scripture is exactly and perfectly right, you have to concede that the Church, and it's 2,000 years of teaching, and the way I study Scripture in light of that 2,000 years of teaching might be right.

And because you brought it up, it doesn't matter what Jerome thought about the DC's. He submitted to the authority that was the Church and did as he was told. Even through his disagreement, he understood the Magisterium knew better and was willing to do something even he didn't understand.

Trebor135 · #51 May 9, '12, 5:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

I'm very happy that you brought up Newton. Would anyone who reads newtons theories today expect to find that he was 100% cirrect in everything he ever thought? No. We all know that people in the past often operate in ignorance and can make mistakes. We have the advantage of hindsight and greater resources and can now learn from their mistakes and move forward. This is the same light in which Protestants view church history.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Early Church got it wrong about the trinity, divinity of Christ, crucifixion, and resurrection. Protestants advocate a similar way of going about the quest for correct theology, but simply accept a fair number of doctrines that the Jehovah's Witnesses deny.

A good term has been invented for this worldview: Ecclesial Deism.

onemangang · #52 May 9, '12, 5:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

Yes William Tyndale was accused of these same "vernacular" errors. However, I have never met a Catholic who could give to me an example of one of his errors. Or perhaps you could site an error that the inquisition in Toulouse was battling? Strangely no one has any specifics.

William Tyndale was a learned man, he believed the doctrine of Soul Sleep to be true from reading scripture! Is that an error? If so, says who? If William was wrong, and there were witnesses accusing him of error, where would these people take him?

robwar · #53 May 9, '12, 6:43 pm

Boy wonder,
why are you reading a book that was put together as scripture by the Catholic church?
why would you read it if the Catholic church is so bad and full of errors and did bad things in the middle ages? When looking at the middle ages, one must realize that most of the rulers made heresy illegal in support of the Catholic Church. having read the Bible as a Protestant and now as a Catholic, trust me the Catholic Church has the full and complete and accurate explanations and insight. It is very sad to see someone come on CAF not to truely learn but to stir the pot thinking they know more and are better than these stupid Catholics they are trying to reducate.

Boywonder23k · #54 May 9, '12, 8:55 pm

Thank you Alan and Shannon you gave a very thoughtful and to the point response. I really want to address your comment but first I feel obligated to school all of these rude mini historians. So for the last time and ONLY because Catholics should know their history better....

1. The deuterocanonical books were NEVER in the Jewish canon. The Jews were given the oracles of God and so they SHOULD be the ones to know what books are authoritative and which are not. They were NEVER laid up in the temple and were never authoritative to Jews. Heuchler is confusing the Greek septuegent with Jewish canon. This is attested by Josephus and many other reliable historical sources.

2. Augustine was pro deuterocanonical because he THOUGHT they were in the Jewish canon. He could not read Hebrew. The first catholic bishop who COULD read both Hebrew and Greek was.... Guess who.....

3. Jerome! And surprise, he did not think of them as historical and in FACT did differentiate them in his vulgate which is admitted by most catholic scholars and cardinals today.

4. This is not a fact but in my opinion If the 60 some odd men in Trent had known what we know today they NEVER would have voted those books into canon. Especially in light of the fact that they are chalked FULL of error ie the temple being rebuilt 100 years before it was destroyed, nebekenezer ruling over the wrong area etc etc..... But just like Newton... They made a mistake.

The difference between my reading of history and yours is that you START with the conclusion and then try to make the facts fit. As a protestant I can look at the facts and make the best available conclusion.

The GreyPilgrim · #55 May 9, '12, 9:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

Thank you all very much for your replies. This is not meant to be an inflammatory post and I appreciate the response. For the record I have never read boetner.

You may not think you've read Boettner but you have. "Roman Catholicism" is the work that almost every professional anti-catholic has basically plagiarized and published in their tracts and pamphlets. HIs assertions have been disproven over and over again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

If tyndale was killed for spelling errors and minor hermeneutical errors in my humble opinion that is repressing the bible.

That is absolutely NOT on par with "Jehovah witness" heresies. Also as I have already stated no one can ever show what horrible heresies in Toulouse were being fought. Catholics just simply assert that if the church brutally murdered someone for trying to translate the bible it's because these people made gigantic jehovah witness type errors in translation. I have never seen evidence to support this assertion. Catholics would have more cred by just simply saying "yes we shouldn't have done that but it wasn't an official doctrine to suppress the bible" or some such thing. Also it is odd that all of these countries went through all the risk to defy the Church and translate the bible of there was literally no one that could read? Seems like there must surely have been SOME audience for these martyrs.

You're version of history is flawed, and here's why.

Tyndale was killed by the secular rulers under the crime of heresy. Heresy during the time was a secular crime as well as an ecclesial one. He was convicted for heresy because of what he taught.

But the Church didn't kill those accused-the lords or kings of the land carried out executions.

And often the charge of heresy was used by secular lords to advance their political ambitions.

That is an important distinction that you seem to miss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

Be that as it may that is not the primary reason for this thread and I am not the one who took it off topic. I was really Hoping for a logical cohesive response to why a catholic would risk reading the bible In light of 2 Peter 3:16 which states that unlearned men twist scriptures to their own destruction. If I was a catholic who had an "infallible" church to teach me why take the risk?

You're taking the verse out of context boywonder. Peter is referring to those who are "uninstructed". The idea is that Paul's writings and teachings are not rightly understood by those who lack sound formation in the Apostle's doctrine. The false teachers are the case in point: most likely they are people who were early gnostics who had heard Paul's preaching and then twisted his words and blended them with their own philosophies. There's no reason to believe that Peter himself misunderstood Paul's letters or that the Church did either.

So your conclusion just doesn't follow.

hockeyfan · #56 May 9, '12, 9:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Holy War 11

The Waldenses? They were killed rather unmercifully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwar

they were a heretical group who taught unorthodox ideas and forbidden to teach by Pope Alexander III. founded by Peter Waldo who was a street preacher who taught to his own understanding. It was their teaching that got them into trouble not reading the Bible.

Where's Waldo?

Yes, I just did waste my 100th post on that!

But seriously, though. Good conversation.

Boywonder23k · #57 May 9, '12, 9:21 pm

Now to shannon. Thank you! That was the substantive answer to my question that I have been begging for the last two days. You addressed the heart of my question in a polite and genuine manner. Appreciate it.

If you could please clarify for me....

You said that even if you DID study and found sola fide to be true or the deuterocanonical books to be apocrypha you would still submit to the Church's authority.

This to me is absolutely astounding. So in the case of the deuterocanonical books no matter how many errors are in them no matter how many historical archeological or logical arguments are presented you would still swallow your intuition and bend the knee to 70 people in Trent? I am curious. On your view is their ANY evidence at all that would be able to change your mind? Do you believe that kind of thinking is healthy for a person to submit to something that deep down he doesn't believe but HAS to in the name of Mother Church?
. How can you just simply say "welp, other people have already decided for me"? This has nothing to do with the post but what personally led you to believe this particular institution was worthy of such fanatical devotion that can over ride reason and evidence?

You have already given me a very good answer and I don't think I will get a better one. I guess now I'm jus curious as to how you came to think this way. Your "personal testimony" as we Protestants call it

And no Rob. The catholic Church did not make scripture and the Catholic Church did not make scripture authoritative.... God did. Scriptures are authoritative because they are God breathed. Not because any Church said so.

Thanks again everyone this is my first post and it has been a nice experience over all.

onemangang · #58 May 9, '12, 9:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

Now to shannon. Thank you! That was the substantive answer to my question that I have been begging for the last two days. You addressed the heart of my question in a polite and genuine manner. Appreciate it.

If you could please clarify for me....

You said that even if you DID study and found sola fide to be true or the deuterocanonical books to be apocrypha you would still submit to the Church's authority.

This to me is absolutely astounding. So in the case of the deuterocanonical books no matter how many errors are in them no matter how many historical archeological or logical arguments are presented you would still swallow your intuition and bend the knee to 70 people in Trent? I am curious. On your view is their ANY evidence at all that would be able to change your mind? Say they actually found Marys grave site. Say Saint Paul himself wrote that the book of wisdom was not authoritative. How far does this dedication to Church authority actually go? Do you believe that kind of think

Are there any Historical errors in your bible? If someone were to show you there are a couple in both OT and NT would you throw those books out?

Boywonder23k · #59 May 9, '12, 9:29 pm

The alleged "errors" in the new testimemt are concievably reconcilable. The temple being rebuilt 100 years before it was destroyed has no conceivable answer. Also this is not the primary reason for rejecting them only the icing on the cake. See previous posts for a more full explanation

Trebor135 · #60 May 9, '12, 9:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

And no Rob. The catholic Church did not make scripture and the Catholic Church did not make scripture authoritative.... God did. Scriptures are authoritative because they are God breathed. Not because any Church said so.

You're missing the point. Why is the Christian's conscience bound to a New Testament canon of twenty-seven books?