But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Catholic Exchange ^ | April 2, 2013 | JOHN ZMIRAK

[presently no screen name]

thank you for giving me an opportunity to forgive and the grace that accompanies forgiveness.

What are you forgiving?

Reminder: There is no grace for empty words which is deception and/or projecting.

All I witness so far is a lost opportunity to ask to be forgiven for calling RF a cesspool.

[CynicalBear]

Get this straight once and for all. I accept the truth found in scripture. Trying to trap me into agreeing with something the RCC says or does isn’t going to happen. The RCC has perverted virtually every aspect of Biblical truth. I have seen nothing of the RCC that has not been taken from paganism or perverted by it. I believe it to be the whore referred to in Revelation with all that entails and as such avoid any association with it in any way. Choose this day whom you will serve.

[annalex]

I see no reference for apostolic succession in the RC sense

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood (του πρεσβυτεριου). (1 Timothy 4:14)

Sacraments confer grace. Ordination is a sacrament.

There is no head man.

the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops (επισκοπους ), to rule (ποιμαινειν) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28)

The Church therefore has people who rule over it.

I do not see celibacy as elevated over married sexuality

I would that all men were even as myself [i.e. celibate] [...] He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. [34] And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. (1 Cor. 7:7, 32-34)

Etc. You read, and you shape what you read into what you want to read. That is the Protestant method. If you read the Holy Scripture with open heart and open mind, you will become, like me, Catholic and save your soul.

[Natural Law]

"What are you forgiving?"

Making another post about me for a start.

Peace be with you

[presently no screen name]

Like I said - thinking everything is about them - we have one in the WH, also. So forget about any grace (and peace), consider it n/a.

[JCBreckenridge]

Do you or do you not accept Nicaea? Simple question CB.

[CynicalBear]

What part about “I accept the truth found in scripture” did you not understand? When Catholics say “one catholic” it means something different then what scripture calls the universal body of Christ. When Catholics say “virgin Mary” it means something different then what scripture describes about Mary. To say that I mean what Catholics mean when they say the Nicene Creed means something totally different then what scripture teaches. Agree with Nicene Creed? That was a Catholic understanding of the words. You can try to play silly word games with me but I don’t fall for the tactic.

[Natural Law]

"So forget about any grace..."

You will not provoke anything from me except my forgiveness, my prayers and my love. I pray that you find the peace you are seeking.

Peace be with you.

[boatbums]

If you are going to cite Luther, why not first of all READ Luther's Works rather than cut and paste what some other Catholic misquotes and misinterprets from Luther? In context, here is that quote and what Luther was talking about:

From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=we+concede+to+the+papists

In expounding on John 16, Luther discusses how those who call themselves the “True Church” actually became corrupt and began persecuting true believers- just as the Jewish leadership did to the Old Testament prophets (like Jeremiah). Luther says,

“Today the pope and his crowd cry out against us that they are the church, since they have received Baptism, the Sacrament, and Holy Writ from the apostles and are their successors. They say: “Where else should God’s people be than where His name is praised, and where the successors and heirs of His apostles are to be found? Surely the Turks, the Tartars, and the heathen cannot be His people. Therefore we must be His people; otherwise it will be altogether impossible to find a people of God on earth. Consequently, he who rebels against us resists the Christian Church and Christ Himself.”” [LW 24:303].

But Luther insists they who make this claim are just like the Old Testament Jewish leadership. They claimed to be God’s people (and at one time they were), but because of sin and corruption, they actually persecuted God’s true people. They did not heed the words of the prophets. Luther notes that the plight of the true Christian in such a circumstance is exceedingly difficult. He says,

“This will surely offend and repel anyone who is not armed with different weapons and different strength, who listens only to such opinions of the most eminent and influential people on earth. “You are a heretic and an apostle of the devil,” “You are preaching against God’s people and the church, yes, against God Himself.” For it is exceedingly difficult to deprive them of this argument and to talk them out of it." [LW 24:304].

Then, comes the citation in question:

“Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints.” [LW 24:304].

The quote as cited by Roman Catholics has nothing to do with an infallible Church declaring the contents of Scripture. The quote isn't discussing canonicity. The quote isn't discussing if Rome gave us an infallible list of biblical books. Rather, the quote is part of an argument based on Old Testament Israel persecuting God’s true people, and the Roman Catholic Church persecuting the Reformers. This is made clear as Luther continues. Old Testament Judaism had God's law. does this mean they were the ones who infallibly declared what that law was?

“But what is now our defense? And what is the ground on which we can hold our own against such offense and continue to defy those people? It is nothing else than the masterly statement St. Paul employs in Rom. 9:7: “Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.” Not all who bear the name are Israelites; or, as the saying goes: “Not all who carry long knives are cooks.” Thus not all who lay claim to the title “church” are the church. There is often a great difference between the name and the reality. The name is general. All are called God’s people, children of Abraham, Christ’s disciples and members; but this does not mean that they all are what the name signifies. For the name “church” includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey God’s Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had God’s Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been God’s people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name “church” that God was forced to say: “This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: ‘You are sons of the living God’ ” (Hos. 1:10; 2:23).” [LW 24:304].

Luther realizes that even within the corrupt papacy, the true church exists:

“Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy. On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s. And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.” [LW 24:305].

“In the meantime we adhere to the distinction made here by Christ and do not regard as Christendom those who do not hold truly and absolutely to what Christ taught, gave, and ordained, no matter how great, holy, and learned they may be. We tell them that they are the devil’s church. On the other hand, we want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.”[LW 24:309].

From these paragraphs, it should be obvious what Luther is driving at. It is the job of the True Church- those who believe and trust only in Christ's righteousness by faith, to call the visible church to repentance. The visible church will claim to be God speaking. The visible church may claim to be that authority which determined the Canon. But if the visible church is in rebellion against God, it is the task of the true Christian to point her back to her master.

[daniel1212]

At least the KJV is not actually copyrighted in this country, unlike most others and the NAB.

[presently no screen name]

So you’re just going to wave away an ecumenical council just like that eh? ....It must be nice to be your own pope

It's easy to ignore what man says when we have God's Word. You obey man/pope and Christian's obey God and follow HIS WORD ALONE. You have your papa and we have our Father.

Life is Good! - and so is The Way and The Truth!

[BlueDragon]

I accept the comments of the Early Church Fathers and theMagisterium over the history of the Church as authoritative.

WHAT A DODGE. I didn't ask you what you believed. Instead, you had just said it was up to ME to prove Paul did not look to Apocrypha as holy writ, (which I have made progress towards) when actually, it is still up to you to prove otherwise, for you were the one to bring the claim to the contrary here, in this discussion.

Appealing to Early Church "fathers", as a link I provided in my last comment towards you shows, doesn't help either your own latest rhetorical flourish (that Paul was somehow no longer a Jew?) for in response to my pointing out that Paul was a Pharisee (as he himself claimed), You said;

Saul was a Pharisee. St. Paul was a celibate Catholic priest and bishop.

which comes across as some sort of attempt to distract from my own pointing out that Paul didn't accept Apocrypha...

...to continue appeals to Early church notables seriously challenges if not refutes your overall positions, even as it rhetorically shifts away from what WAS being discussed. To get back to the present flow;
You said;

On the contrary, one must prove that St. Paul excluded it, which his successors clearly did not.

Oh, but many of the so-called successors did exclude the Apocrypa. Unless you'd care to more specifically name Paul's own succesors...

Who are they? Be specific. Name them. You claimed "they clearly did not". They must have names if they "clearly" did ANYTHING. Where are the quotes? From "Early Chruch Fathers". It is you whom blends those with "magesterium". Whom are you depending upon? How about checking the provided link? You'll see some Early Church Fathers in disagreement with you, or at the least, in agreement that Apocrypha isn't up to par with Hebrew Tanakh.

But your reply to me here, seems yet another case of the "fuzzy infallibles" as near as I can tell, naming and claiming "your belief" in the magesterium being always correct in it's results (that was not what was under discussion)...for there is abundant evidence (brought to and linked right to this FR thread) that the truth of the matter is much different than your own vague & specious assertions.

Very simply, again,
Paul came from the Pharisee tradition, was instructed by a top Pharisee. We were talking specifically about whether or not Paul would have considered Apocrypha as holy writ. The Pharisees most certainly did not. ADDRESS THAT.

Can that be proven otherwise, or there be some reply other than the type of short side-show, rhetorical song & tap dance/recital, you have sent my way in your last reply? I doubt it, or else we'd have all known of it, long before now. Save the Romish special pleadings. I'm a' gonna' hit 'em with a rock, each time I see one scurry across the pages here, if I can keep finding the time and energy, that is. Get used to the idea.

What now? Somebody else will chime in again with claims from "scripture-catholic", that apocrypha was quoted right and left in the NT? Oh, puh-leeze! I was able to refute several of those claims easily enough off-hand (before they reorganized their presentation, making it painfully slow to need to dredge out what they are talking about, instead of publishing the precise quotations), and I'm no bible scholar...and found yet another refutation (a NT use from OT which "scripture-catholic" cited as being only from their beloved "deuterocanonicals") quite by accident, when looking up something else in the OT.
For comparisons sake, if one was to find some passage quoted from the likes of the book of Jasper, used in the NT, that wouldn't qualify that book for inclusion in Christian canon.

What have you brought to show to the contrary (that Paul looked to Tanakh as completed scripture) that was not by vague allusion to some imprecisely named or cited persons much later than "early church father's" opinions, for ANY of what otherwise we, you and I, have also been discussing on this thread? Nothing, that's what!

It is possible to cite a few on one side of the ledger...and on the other, at the same time. THAT is the truth of the matter.

Vague reference to "magesterium" or calling Paul a capitalized letter "C" catholic "bishop", long after the fact, does not change in the slightest any of what has been laid out here, in plain sight.

This "Magesterium" you reference was still debating the OT canon right up until Trent, so there's not much help for you there, if we are looking for actual unanimous consent of long standing, nor is Trent any help if we are also looking for "early church fathers". The Apochrypa was discussed/debated at Trent as towards what it's proper status should be. (the canon most certainly was not "closed" in earleir centuries, as you otherwise also have claimed). Some preferred Jerome's admonition and warning towards those works. Others, for reasons I've delved into [slightly] on previous occasions, wanted for the Apocrypha the same status as Torah, and greater Torah (Tanakh) long enjoyed amongs the Jews. Which leaves you nothing much there (beyond possible johnny-come-lately opinion) indicating Paul considered Apocrypha on par with Tanakh (Jewish bible), other than possibly opinions such as you seem to express now, evidently being based on RC self-reverential attitudes of flawlessness (of the magesterium) which could lead to the assumption Paul must have thought just the way those at Trent did in majority, ending up voting in majority (but not unanimously) to include Apocrypha sans Jerome's warnings, re-naming the same "dueterocanonical" at that juncture.

The world didn't have that word "deuterocanonical" until it was made up, devised at Trent (or at least first introduced & adopted there) to get away from the [embarrassing] word Apocrypha. Yet at this late date, comes the baseless claim that Paul regarded Apocrypha as "scripture". Is it based on reliance upon claims of infallibility regarding the "teaching authority" of the Magesterium? Seems so...and I can say that without mind-reading, or attributing motive, for otherwise that attitude towards "the teaching authority of the Magesterium", has been often seen clearly stated, previously on these pages, more than a few times, by yourself. In fact, when the issues are pressed hard enough, what emerges but claims the RC church has never erred in it's "teaching authority"?

Paul was no less born a Jew and remained Hebrew, a "Jew" for reason Roman Catholics later claim Paul was or became "one of them", a RC (to the exclusion of other Christians, it may be added). Paul himself never used the word "catholic", much less capitalized the word into transforming from being an adjective, originally meaning universal, to being a pronoun. That today's Roman Catholics have shifted usage of that word yet further, to be in regards to chiefly themselves (if not only themselves) is yet more of the same. There is seeming no end to it...for it relies upon and continually returns back to the same sets of circular logic "navel gazing".

But Paul DID say that he himself was "A Hebrew of Hebrews". Once a Jew, born a Jew...always a Jew. Ask most any Jew, I'm sure they'd agree. Paul...one of the first Messianic Jews, maybe? And an early convert to Christ, by way of his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.

A Jew today, converting to Christianity, only becomes less Jewish according to that famous club, "Jew who hate Jesus". Ok, I know there is no such actual club, I made that up for effect.

Paul never ceased being Jewish, even as being the one who wrote most of the book (NT) which Christians rely upon. Christ came to fulfill the law (that exact same law much taught to Paul by the Pharisee Gamaliel) not to do away with it.

John 4

22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Take this additional peculiar argument or point raised; that Paul somehow became something other than Jewish after in a blindingly spectacular moment, Paul encountered the risen Christ, the King of the Jews Himself, to that same King of the Jews, Jesus Himself. I'm running out of patience with those sort of passive-agressive stunts, or methods of discussion.

[caww]

Well I left the thread awhile ago.....the debate took on another “flavor” I wasn’t in the mood for. By the time I went back it looked more like a huge essay with all the information flowing....and the debate wasn’t getting to the heart of the matter.

Frankly, it isn’t all that important....We have “His” Word and there’s plenty of it for all....more than enough for this lifetime.......and I love it just the way it is. Besides, with just one verse God can keep one occupied where it matters that it does...to Him!

[Boogieman]

“No, but all Catholic priests received their ordination in that manner.”

Alright, but this means you can’t use the laying on of hands as any conclusive evidence that Paul was a priest, since non-priests have received laying on of hands also.

“It is entirely possible.”

Yet not knowable.

“Every priest regularly performs the Anointing of the Sick. Further, not everyone receives the same gift from the laying on of the hands (1 Corinthians 12:1-11)”

Do any priests receive those gifts? Surely, some must prophecy or speak in tongues, if the ordinance your church is performing is the same as the one in Acts.

“There were 120 persons present at the first Pentecost, St. Paul was not among them. In order to participate in the Apostolic Succession directly to the Pentecost St. Paul received his ordination from one who had been present.”

Or, from someone who had received their ordination from someone present, or from someone else further down the line, right? That is how the succession is supposed to work, I think. So, if Ananias had the power to confer the Holy Spirit to Paul, then that is evidence enough that Ananias’ laying on of hands should have been sufficient for this purpose, correct? Which would make a second ordination redundant for that purpose, would it not?

“There was more than one Barnabas.”

Not mentioned in that passage, there isn’t. Unless you want to also argue that there were two Sauls?

[presently no screen name]

You will not provoke anything from me

Don't be paranoid - no one wants anything from you. Perhaps time for another 'break'?

except my forgiveness

Your forgiveness for what? Show me where I asked for it. Seeing things that aren't there, perhaps, indicates time for another one of your 'breaks'?

Projecting and avoidance of truth shows how Catholicism is destructive to one's soul but that is old news and widely known.

I pray that you find the peace you are seeking.

NO WHERE did I say I was looking for peace. So saying that I am seeking peace is the utmost in deception or are you seeing things that aren't there? Time for another 'break' BEFORE 'another' name calling event and claiming RF and others are the problem?

RCC/man made teachings was designed to reign in the weak of mind/soul. So it is obvious who are looking for peace and seeking it in all the wrong places.

While The PEACE OF GOD lives within me and all those whose FINAL AUTHORITY is God's Word. THANK YOU, JESUS!! TRUTH REIGNS!!

God's Holy Spirit inspired Word is the FINAL Authority. JESUS IS THE WORD made flesh as It is Written.

And GOD'S WORD ALWAYS WAS so NO ONE can lay claim to it. "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD...'. But isn't it just like evil/Rome/RCC to lay claim to it - the very reason many ran from it! PRAISE GOD FOR HIS WORD - THE ONLY TRUTH there is!

[JCBreckenridge]

Good thing that Christ gave to Peter the authority to bind and loose - to forgive sins and the key to the kingdom of heaven.

[JCBreckenridge]

‘To say that I mean what Catholics mean when they say the Nicene Creed means something totally different then what scripture teaches.’

Ahh, I see. So when the Catholics recite:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

What parts are contrary to Scripture?

[Natural Law]

"Your forgiveness for what? Show me where I asked for it."

I do not see your vitriole and absence of the Fruit of the Holy Spirit in your posts to me as anything other than evidence of a wounded spirit in need of forgiveness and love. Animus is a heavy burden that I do not choose to carry and as the Gospel teaches us forgiveness is as much for the one who gives it as it is for the one who receives it.

In the beginning was the Logos, not a book. When God created the universe He created it in perfect order, not in chaos. That perfect order, God's idea of Himself, is the Logos. . When disorder and chaos entered the world through sin it required that the Logos enter the world to restore His perfect order. That Logos made flesh is Jesus

Peace be with you

[Natural Law]

"What parts are contrary to Scripture?"

The Creeds were the profession of faith learned and recited at the Baptism of early Christian converts. They preceded the Bible and largely formed the litmus for the determination of Canonicity. The cannot be contrary to Scripture.

Peace be with you

[Vermont Crank]

Dear boatbums. I was trying to be kind to him and quote him writing the truth about the One True Church.

Now, I could have written what he taught about Jesus, that He, Jesus, became a sinner, an evil doer and a murderer:

But Christ took upon Himself all of our sin, and thus He died upon the cross. Therefore he had to become that which we are, namely a sinner, a murderer, evildoer, etc. . . . For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God's Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandoned by God for a short time

See? The truth about what the great Heresiarch taught is quite nasty, heretical and evil. The person, Luther, taught that Jesus, He who is eternally without sin , He who is Our Lord and Saviour, was a damnable Sinner - like Luther.