The Catholic Religion Proved By The Protestant Bible

OLRL ^

[PetroniusMaximus]

"This book was written after the death, resurection and ascension of our Lord, Jesus Christ, not during His lifetime."

That was not part of your original contention. Your article stated, "Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so?  Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write;". It says nothing about "during his lifetime".

 

"Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question."

This is the very same argument theological liberals use to undercut passages that throw a wrench in their theologies!!!

"Again, thank you for the commentary which simply does not apply."

It most certainly does apply. The o­nly reason you could possibly think that it doesn't is because is disproves your very first statement.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“I think his point is that Jesus himself personally did not write, nor command his disciples to write, any of the New Testament.”

Do you think that Jesus, the God-man, was unaware that his disciples would write it???

Think about this for a minute - Peter spoke of Paul's writings as Scripture...


"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." -

2 Peter 3:14-16

[Salvation]

BTTT!

Great post!

[Salvation]

Got mine too!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

*** This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. ***

Protestant bibles had the Apocrypha for many years. The Geneva and 1611 KJV both originally had them. You can still get a protestant bible with them by just asking the bookseller.
Here are several...
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/religious_studies/kjv/

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/bibles/kjv/apocrypha.htm

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/bibles/kjv/camrefap.htm

[AnalogReigns]

King James I was a bitter enemy of Catholicism.

James I was also a bitter enemy of Protestants...attempting to keep the Church of England firmly under his control. Due to his record of persecuting religious dissenters, the Pilgrims and Puritans who came to America wouldn't touch a King James Bible with a ten foot pole. There's was the older Geneva Bible--and they knew the scriptures better than any generation of Christians before, or since.

Ephesians 2:8 below, Douay-Rheims (Roman Catholic) translation...

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***But sadly incomplete and in places rewritten to conform to the passions of the moment.***

Where. I have several with the Apocrypha. So where is the rewrite?

[narses]

See http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/cathprot.htm

[narses]

To repeat myself, see http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/cathprot.htm

[narses]

One more time, to repeat myself, see http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/cathprot.htm

[narses]

To repeat myself, see http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/cathprot.htm

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Thanks. But most of the arguments appear to be nitpicking and hairsplitting.

I will save it for further reference.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Also, if we are going to point out differences look at I John 5: 7. It is in the Douai-Rheims and also the KJV but not in mny other ancient bibles.

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B62C005.htm

Byzantine Majority
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV

Alexandrian
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV

Hort and Westcott
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV

Latin Vulgate
5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

King James Version
5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

American Standard Version
5:7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Bible in Basic English
5:7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.

Darby’s English Translation
5:7 For they that bear witness are three:

Douay Rheims
5:7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

So... who added the extra words?

[irishtenor]

***Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; ***

Try Revelation 1:11 where Jesus personaly told John to write what he saw and give it to the churches.

[ladyinred]

Narses, I must say I respectfully disagree with you. I have a Catholic Bible as well because I wanted to read the other books. I guess my only problem with the Catholic Church is that they say they are the only Church and have the only truth. That always rings alarm bells inside me. I accept Catholics as Christians, but until I started visiting this forum, I didn’t realize the feeling wasn’t mutual. I do not mean to argue with anyone however, so I will just say Bless you!

[Iscool]

Thank you both for referencing the Book of Revelation. This book was written after the death, resurection and ascension of our Lord, Jesus Christ, not during His lifetime.

I got news for ya...Jesus Christ lived long before the conception of the baby Jesus and Jesus Christ our Lord is STILL alive

You guys seem to have a 'disconnect' when it comes to Jesus...Jesus is not a 'was'...He is an 'is'...

When you refer to Christ, what we hear is He's over there (in that monstrance), or no, He's over there (in the priest's hand)...

Just like your new cross bearer Scott Hahn who had never known Jesus til he saw HIM in a cookie at one of your churches...And then he ate Him...

If your premise had any credibility at all, then everything Jesus said to the disciples after he was ressurrected is pure conjecture and not to be believed...And that in itself is beyond the scope of reality to Christians that are filled with, and have the testimony of the Holy Spirit...And of course, if one is not filled with the Holy Spirit, that person is NOT a Christian...

You then, do not believe any of the Epistles of Paul since his knowledge of Jesus came AFTER Jesus the man was crucified and risen...

There are numerous citations in the Old Testament where God commanded folks to WRITE the scriptures...

Again, thank you for the commentary which simply does not apply.

Of course it applies...Jesus said 'WRITE'...

The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader.

No, it's not that difficult to understand...The problem is some of you folks just don't want to believe it...

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but don’t make it personal.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Do you think that Jesus, the God-man, was unaware that his disciples would write it???

It is not up to me to speculate on what Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, was or was not aware of when He was on this earth. To know that would require Divine insight, which I do not have.

It is a matter of historical fact that, as best we can tell, Jesus Himself personally neither wrote or instructed his disciples to write, any of the New Testament.

Whether they did so of Divine Inspiration is a different matter and a different question: I believe they did.

What St Peter said of St Paul, or what St Paul thought of St Peter, is entirely beside the point. NYer’s point remains intact and, on this matter anyway, fundamentally correct.

[irishtenor]

Are you sure this post is aimed at me?

[PetroniusMaximus]

"It is a matter of historical fact that, as best we can tell, Jesus Himself personally neither wrote or instructed his disciples to write, any of the New Testament."

That has already been disproved by the passages from Revelation. Repeating an untruth will not make it true.

"What St Peter said of St Paul, or what St Paul thought of St Peter, is entirely beside the point. "

No, it is not. It shows the even in the lifetimes of the Apostles, they were already viewing their own writings as God-breathed Scripture.

Paul even specifically refers to a Gospel (Luke 10:7) passage as "Scripture".

1 Timothy 5:18
For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to prop up the "authority" of the RCC by knocking down Scripture a couple of rungs. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now.