Jimmy Swaggart Bible - Page 4

robwar · #46 Jun 15, '12, 5:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chafer DTS

Hey but Roman Catholics use Saint Jerome for things too like the doctrine of Mary being the ever virgin. lol

All is fair that each side can quote him on some things lol

Mary Ever Virgin is not an LOL. It has always been taught right from the beginning and from the earliest Christian writers. I learned about this from a liberal Protestant professor while a protestant. Both Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Christians agree on this. Only protestant 1500 years later started to deny this doctrine. Are you on CAF to LOL on Catholic teaching or are you on CAF to learn and understand the Catholic church better?

robwar · #47 Jun 15, '12, 5:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Finley

I wouldn't. First of all, you're right, $100 is a ridiculous amount of money for a Bible but, in all fairness, books in general are very expensive.

If you're looking for a good study Bible, I'd pick John MacArthur's study Bible in the ESV. The amount of notes, study aides, and references is staggarring.

For the most part, Swaggart's doctrine isn't the problem. It's that he's a Pentecostal and that he carries a lot of baggage. I've heard him say some things that are really ridiculous and some things that show an amazing level of insight. Just the same, though, I wouldn't.

You are on a Catholic site, why in the world would you even suggest a Bible that has commentary from a leading anti-catholic? he does not think Catholics are Christian and you are suggesting on a Catholic web site for Catholics to read his Bible? Are you serious?

Burubara · #48 Jun 15, '12, 6:03 pm

To clear things up, yes, my father is a Pentecostal, and probably believes this Jimmy Swaggart guy is good enough for him

but thanks for the answers guys, I gave it back to him and told him I didn't want it. He seemed to be relatively expectant of it

**Mickey** · #49 Jun 15, '12, 6:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burubara

To clear things up, yes, my father is a Pentecostal, and probably believes this Jimmy Swaggart guy is good enough for him

but thanks for the answers guys, I gave it back to him and told him I didn't want it. He seemed to be relatively expectant of it

May God bless you and your father abundantly.

**po18guy** · #50 Jun 15, '12, 6:36 pm

I think that it has been amply shown in this thread, from comments both on and off topic, that once a believer departs from Church authority, strikes out on their own seeking what they prefer, the field is wide open to the ideas of men.

**po18guy** · #51 Jun 15, '12, 6:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burubara

To clear things up, yes, my father is a Pentecostal, and probably believes this Jimmy Swaggart guy is good enough for him

but thanks for the answers guys, I gave it back to him and told him I didn't want it. He seemed to be relatively expectant of it

From your Catholic bible, you can tell him of the three (there's that number again) mentions of the resurrection in 2 Maccabees. You can tell him of the teaching of eternal life in 2 Maccabees. You can tell him of life everlasting which is taught in the book of Tobit. You can ask him if he has heard of the Jewish holy day of Hanukkah, which was established by the events in 2 Maccabees, when the Law of Moses, which had been banned by the Seleucid kings, was restored to Israel, and the Temple cleansed and re-dedicated in time for Christ to be born under the Law so as to fulfll the Law. Things like that. Some say that those books were not inspired of God.

I would like to know just who inspired the resurrection, eternal life, and the restoration of the (still in-effect) Mosaic Covenant to Israel, if not the Lord.

Porknpie · #52 Jun 15, '12, 8:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwar

Mary Ever Virgin is not an LOL. It has always been taught right from the beginning and from the earliest Christian writers. I learned about this from a liberal Protestant professor while a protestant. Both Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Christians agree on this. Only protestant 1500 years later started to deny this doctrine. Are you on CAF to LOL on Catholic teaching or are you on CAF to learn and understand the Catholic church better?

The reformers also believed in Mary's ever virginity with Luther even supporting the praying of the Hail Mary. I've said this before.... When the reformers and the Catholics agree on something and you do not, you have to question the sand that your house is built on.

Jimmy Swagger often does not, showing the fruits of sola scriptura lead to some pretty perverse outcomes.

Good for you in pIcking his bible not....

Chafer DTS · #53 Jun 15, '12, 8:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwar

Mary Ever Virgin is not an LOL. It has always been taught right from the beginning and from the earliest Christian writers. I learned about this from a liberal Protestant professor while a protestant. Both Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Christians agree on this. Only protestant 1500 years later started to deny this doctrine. Are you on CAF to LOL on Catholic teaching or are you on CAF to learn and understand the Catholic church better?

No it has not always been historically taught held doctrine. Jerome is the first one that can be cited for it. The doctrine first appeared in gnostic writings and not christian writings . I guess you have not carefully studied the early church fathers which would explain the false claims you make. I am not doing LOL at that doctrine or laughing at Roman Catholic doctrine.. I did that with regard to each side being able to cite him on something. If unsure of this you should have asked me first rather than assume the worst. I dont think very highly of Liberal protestant professors at all. Evidently you are unaware of the various views held on this issue. Even when men like Jerome held to it that belief itself was not a dogmatically defined held doctrine itself. You see I dont care one way or the other if one believes in it or not. I do have an issue when it is made a required doctrine to be held by all the people of God. I personally do not hold to it but allow the right of others to mistakenly to believe it as long as it is not made a dogmatic doctrine. You seem to be unaware of the " Helvidian theory " . This theory is held by a majority of Protestants.The so called " Hieronymian theory " and the " Epiphanian theory " are clearly exegetically false and contradict one another in it's arguments for Mary being ever virgin. The RCC has not settled which of those two theories for Mary being ever virgin is correct. You seem to be unaware of Protestant beliefs. The early reformers were divided on the issue and yet none of them held to it as a dogmatically held doctrine. Sure some had belief of it but never as a defined doctrine requried to be held by everyone. Very big difference there. Beside this is off the topic of the tread. You do see the title of this thread right ? Please do not be selffish and distract from the purpose of this thread.

**PRmerger** · #54 Jun 15, '12, 10:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chafer DTS

Hey but Roman Catholics use Saint Jerome for things too like the doctrine of Mary being the ever virgin. lol

All is fair that each side can quote him on some things lol

The Catholic teaching on Mary being ever-virgin comes from the Apostles. If St. Jerome affirmed this, then he was just being a good Catholic.

robwar · #55 Jun 15, '12, 10:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chafer DTS

No it has not always been historically taught held doctrine. Jerome is the first one that can be cited for it. The doctrine first appeared in gnostic writings and not christian writings . I guess you have not carefully studied the early church fathers which would explain the false claims you make. I am not doing LOL at that doctrine or laughing at Roman Catholic doctrine.. I did that with regard to each side being able to cite him on something. If unsure of this you should have asked me first rather than assume the worst. I dont think very highly of Liberal protestant professors at all. Evidently you are unaware of the various views held on this issue. Even when men like Jerome held to it that belief itself was not a dogmatically defined held doctrine itself. You see I dont care one way or the other if one believes in it or not. I do have an issue when it is made a required doctrine to be held by all the people of God. I personally do not hold to it but allow the right of others to mistakenly to believe it as long as it is not made a dogmatic doctrine. You seem to be unaware of the " Helvidian theory " . This theory is held by a majority of Protestants.The so called " Hieronymian theory " and the " Epiphanian theory " are clearly exegetically false and contradict one another in it's arguments for Mary being ever virgin. The RCC has not settled which of those two theories for Mary being ever virgin is correct. You seem to be unaware of Protestant beliefs. The early reformers were divided on the issue and yet none of them held to it as a dogmatically held doctrine. Sure some had belief of it but never as a defined doctrine requried to be held by everyone. Very big difference there. Beside this is off the topic of the tread. You do see the title of this thread right ? Please do not be selffish and distract from the purpose of this thread.

First of all, I was a former protestant and actually I really don't care about the fancy names of all your different theories. This has been taught and testified to from the beginning of the Church. It is not an invention of St. Jerome. I only brought up this old Professor because while he did not even believe in the virgin birth, he did admit that this was the teaching of the church from the start and the get go, written and testified from the earliest writers and those who might have known Mary or knew those who knew Mary. You are the one that brought it up and I wanted to defend Our Blessed Mother and I am very much aware of Protestant beliefs and I am not a cradle Catholic.

**po18guy** · #56 Jun 15, '12, 11:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

The Catholic teaching on Mary being ever-virgin comes from the Apostles. If St. Jerome affirmed this, then he was just being a good Catholic.

He was a good Catholic in agreeing to translate the scriptures into Latin, a good Catholic when he deferred to the Church on the canon, and is praying for Christian unity before the Lord's throne as we speak!

Chafer DTS · #57 Jun 16, '12, 12:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwar

First of all, I was a former protestant and actually I really don't care about the fancy names of all your different theories. This has been taught and testified to from the beginning of the Church. It is not an invention of St. Jerome. I only brought up this old Professor because while he did not even believe in the virgin birth, he did admit that this was the teaching of the church from the start and the get go, written and testified from the earliest writers and those who might have known Mary or knew those who knew Mary. You are the one that brought it up and I wanted to defend Our Blessed Mother and I am very much aware of Protestant beliefs and I am not a cradle Catholic.

Sorry the belief that she was the ever virgin is just not apostolic in orgin.You have no idea of what I believe or teach or anything of my theological back ground of my entire life. Please give it a rest. I read the church fathers themselves and I dont find that teaching in the 1st or 2nd cen at all.Guess some fairy tales from you. I do agree that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. That is the core issue. It does not matter if you are a former this or a former that. This does not make you more realiable of anything . The fact of the matter is from a historical stand point the belief Mary forever remained a virgin was first documented in Gnostic writings and not Christian writings. You dont want to defend anything and are rather causing an unnecessary argument over something that is entirely irrelevent to this thread. Get yourself together. I was not trashing Mary in case that was what you were incorrectly thinking. Me saying Jerome can be cited by each side for something different is what I was talking about in context and nothing more than that. In reality there was nothing to defend at least not in this thread. You are making it a biggger deal than what it really is. All too often converts such as yourself do totally unnecessary stuff like this and there is no need to. I dont run into problems like this with cradle catholics. I never acted like that either from the cradle either. All I am here to do in this thread is to explain why Swaggart is heretical in several of his teaching which is a concern for Roman Catholics and Protestants.Because of you I will leave this tread.

**po18guy** · #58 Jun 16, '12, 12:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chafer DTS

All I am here to do in this thread is to explain why Swaggart is heretical in several of his teaching which is a concern for Roman Catholics and Protestants.Because of you I will leave this tread.

You have done that very clearly.

Since this thread is pretty much DOA, why not start other threads to discuss the issues you have with the Catholic Church?

**Eric Hilbert** · #59 Jun 16, '12, 1:27 am

Stay on the topic please

Chuck Finley · #60 Jun 16, '12, 4:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwar

You are on a Catholic site, why in the world would you even suggest a Bible that has commentary from a leading anti-catholic?

Because a question was asked about finding a good Bible and this happens to be an excellent Bible.

Quote:

he does not think Catholics are Christian and you are suggesting on a Catholic web site for Catholics to read his Bible? Are you serious?

I've had this Bible for about two years and read it every day and I haven't found anything that even the staunchest Catholic could consider "anti-Catholic". Is there anything in particular about the Bible you find anti-Catholic?