Skip to comments.
Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?
Creation Science Evangelism ^
| 2010
| Joshua Joscelyn
Posted on 02/22/2010 6:48:33 AM PST by bogusname
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-170 next last
To: ArrogantBustard; Free Vulcan
I have a feeling that brother Free Vulcan is repeating what he thinks Rome is about. We must as Catholics also emphasise that the Pope as Patriach of the West is equal to the other Patriarchs, not greater or lesser, but as per tradition, first among equals
121
posted on
02/23/2010 6:15:04 AM PST
by
Cronos
(Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
To: Free Vulcan; ArrogantBustard
However that lasted till Rome tried to assert Papal supremacy, and the Eastern Orthodox told him to spit up a rope to start the Great Schism which never has been healed but on paper.
You simplify it. As I said in my earlier post, Jerusalem never regained it's prominence after it was destroyed in 69AD. Alexandria was now Coptic - the orthodox were small in number compared to Copts, and the Pope of Alexandria (yes, he's called Pope too!) was far "weightier" than the Orthodox Patriach of Alexandria. Both Alexandria and Antioch were under Muslim domination.
The "Schism" was a long drawn out process due to differences in language, culture, history and GOVERNMENT (the East was under the Emperor of Byzantine, while the West had it's own Emperor, the Frankish Emperor). The ultimate date: 1054 was due to the arrogance of the papal nuncio and the patriarch, but it was the culmination of all the above differentiations
The may get along and they may take communion, but I guarantee you historians from the other sects do not and will not agree on and do not accept Roman primacy, nor will they ever.
Ask any Orthodox, they accept Rome's primacy as primus inter pares and call Rome the elder brother. HOWEVER, they do not accept the Bishop of Rome's authority over their own bishops.
And Rome agrees with them -- even within The Catholic Church, the Pope is EQUAL to the Catholicos of the Syro-Malabars or the head of the Maronite Church or hte Catholicos of the Chaldean Catholic Church -- though he is considered first in respect.
122
posted on
02/23/2010 6:23:15 AM PST
by
Cronos
(Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
To: Free Vulcan
No, we consider the Orthodox to be part of The Apostolic Church in fullness
123
posted on
02/23/2010 6:24:02 AM PST
by
Cronos
(Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
To: AlaninSA
Christ is but a part-time player in the liturgy of the word in your church...and, although the eucharist is allegedly Christ-centered, there are a number of other "distractions" in that portion of your Sunday services.
you're kidding right? We read the OT, the NT and the gospels during mass and read the psalms too while the sermon is on the gospel and tying it in with the OT and the NT. What distractions are you talkign about during mass?
124
posted on
02/23/2010 6:28:33 AM PST
by
Cronos
(Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
To: bogusname
oookayyy, but your argument gets devalued if you post Origen, was extremely proactive in his aggressive revision of Gods Holy Words. His version combined his own works known as the Apocrypha with the Hebrew New Testament in a Greek version (the language of the proud intellectuals of Alexandria). which is quite incorrect as it asserts that Origen wrote the Apocrypha. That's completely incorrect.
Also, do remember that Catholics go to Christ -- the mass bears that out.
125
posted on
02/23/2010 6:30:17 AM PST
by
Cronos
(Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
To: Cronos
126
posted on
02/23/2010 6:33:00 AM PST
by
bogusname
(Banish All Liberals)
To: AdamBomb
Spoken like someone who loves Rome more than he loves Christ.
127
posted on
02/23/2010 6:35:39 AM PST
by
Theo
(May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
To: Theo
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
To: bogusname
"LOL! Even though thats 100% false it is very funny."
...Actually, it's a funny analogy, yet completely true.
To: AdamBomb
"U.S. and World Catholic membership up. [FACT]"
Adam, last night I went to an event in Bakersfield where 1,500 converts were in the pews ready to join The Church. Spoke with a Monsignor who said the same number or more folks from the Coachella Valley (Palm Desert area) converted just recently. Folks are finding their way home...
To: bogusname
The first two sentences of this article are true...the rest, frankly is historical rubbish—incredibly mixed up and inaccurate.
Constantine for example never made the Church the “state religion” rather he was the first Emperor to fully tolerate and even favor Christianity. Christianity was not made the state Church until AD 381, long after Constantine’s death.
As someone with a Masters degree in Theology, who agrees that the Roman Catholic Church did NOT give us the Bible—I’d advise people please don’t take anything said in the article above at face value—as it is full of historical inaccuracies...
To: bogusname
Hi. I appreciate your post denying that the Roman Catholic Church “gave” us the Bible. That is very true, they didn’t give us the bible, God did—before the Roman Church was organized.
However, other than the 1st couple sentences, the article by Joshua Joscelyn is completely full of unproved assertions, historical inaccuracies...and ideas that no serious Church historian (and I’m talking about non-Roman Catholic ones) accepts. I have a Masters degree in theology from a very conservative seminary, and these are things I’ve studied.
For example, there are NO ancient copies of New Testament scriptures in Hebrew, anywhere. The oldest texts we have...and we have some from within 75 years of the NT authorship, are ALL in Greek. ....it’s clear that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. wrote in the universal language of the 1st Century, which was Greek—there is no evidence otherwise. The idea that any of the books of the NT were originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic)(or Latin) is ONLY a hypothesis...without any evidence to back it up.
It’s clear the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the bible—however the article by Joscelyn—gives no real history to prove that.
To: AnalogReigns
Yes but if there is no proof that some of the books weren’t written in Hebrew then the whole point behind your post is to sneak in your implied opinion in place of his. It takes no advanced education to do that. That’s the oldest trick in the book. No pun intended.
133
posted on
02/23/2010 8:39:17 AM PST
by
bogusname
(Banish All Liberals)
To: Religion Moderator
Why pick on my comment, when what I was commenting on was so personally insulting, and when others offered similar rebukes? Indeed, other comments are *more* insulting, comparing Roman Catholics to jihadists.
134
posted on
02/23/2010 9:52:19 AM PST
by
Theo
(May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
To: Theo
On my profile page, I note that when one is warned, all posters in the sidebar are to consider themselves warned.
This is based on the principle that two wrongs do not make a right.
To: AdamBomb
Adam:
Rome changed many things in the Church that do not resemble the original unified medieval church. That is, when the Eastern Orthodox Christians were together with the Western Church.
So, with all due respect the Catholic Church as she is today doesn't go farther back then the 12th century. Prior to that priest could marry, the wedding band was worn on the right hand, the Trinity was defined differently, salvation was defined differently, the Eucharist, frequency and witnessing of confession, repentance was all different. These are some of the things that led to the schism aside from power structure.
136
posted on
02/23/2010 1:28:27 PM PST
by
SQUID
To: Cronos
I spent 36 years in your cult...seriously, if you can’t recognize the deviations, then you’re too brainwashed to understand.
To: AlaninSA
So which cult are you in now? And how do they brainwash you?
138
posted on
02/24/2010 9:35:53 PM PST
by
Cronos
(Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
To: Cronos
I left your ‘catholic’ church and became a Christian. Those of us who have done this understand the difference.
To: AlaninSA
Right, you left The Church and joined a grouping outside The Church. Whether that grouping is a cult or not is your issue or it may depend on the level of brainwashing. The Church does not do brainwashing and is not a cult, rather the repository of The Faith in Christ.
140
posted on
02/25/2010 8:25:44 PM PST
by
Cronos
(Philipp2:12, 2Cor5:10, Rom2:6, Matt7:21, Matt22:14, Lu12:42-46,John15:1-10,Rev2:4-5,Rev22:19)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-170 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson