Frank tells it how it is Ping!
There, fixed it for you.
Call me a crank, but I get annoyed by how much of Catholic apologetics are aimed at Protestants. Maybe I have this attitude because I’ve spent most of my life in non-Protestant areas, but I think Catholic apologetics should focus more on converting agnostics, atheists, indifferent people, and the like, since they seem to be more common these days than sincere Protestants (and Catholics.) Don’t get me wrong, apologetics aimed at Protestants are valuable, but it seems like Protestants are, to paraphrase Rush, living in the heads of Catholic apologists rent free.
Thank you and bless you Salvation.
I thought Christians were supposed to love God and Jesus, not some book that’s been re-translated a couple of dozen times by whoever happened to be in charge of the scribes at the time.
The Biblical emphasis which is the heritage of the Protestant churches is visible even in the Architecture of its buildings. In the Catholic church the altar is central. There the sacrifice of Christ is believed to be renewed in the mass. In the Protestant churches the pulpit is the center of attention. It is essentially a stand to hold the Bible in a position where it is easy for the preacher to read because the reading and explanation of the Word of God is central. The Bible contains everything that is necessary to bring the Christian to perfection. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. The Bible contains all that is needed to bring us to faith in Christ, and to help us grow in that faith. (John 20:30-31; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
I think it should be pretty obvious that the author is NOT a "Biblical scholar". If he was, he would know that the "Apocryphal" books would NEVER have been included in the temple collections of the Torah, the Psalms and Proverbs and the Prophets - major and minor - the Jewish canon. The Jewish religious leaders in Jesus' day would NOT have made reading any of these extra books part of the Sabbath observance. So, no, Jesus would not have read from them on another day.
You post about this topic many times, Salvation, so you may have saved this one "for a long time" but it certainly isn't the first time you have posted Protestant-baiting and provoking threads. Seems like for "education's sake" we may need to have more than one viewpoint. I agree with the poster up thread who remarked that you should be more concerned with reaching the lost for Christ than sparring with non-Catholics. Roman Catholic threads dominate the Religion Forum every day so I guess you think that's what you're doing. I still wonder why most of these Catholic/Protestant "battles" start from threads of articles posted over and over again. We'll not shy away from a good argument when our faith is slammed. You should know that by now. I pinged a few others who feel the same.
Interesting. That’s why I’m not a Catholic - because I love the bible.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Thank God no one gets robbed, tortured and murdered anymore for reading it in anything other than Latin! ‘Twasn’t always so.
"At Mass today, for example, the gospel reading is from Luke and begins like this,"
"Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had grown up and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll from the prophet Isaiah. (Luke 4:16-17).
What the passage doesn't say of course, is that He could possibly, on a different day of the week, or on a different day of the liturgical calendar, have been handed a scroll from Tobit, Sirach,......
What the passage also doesn't say, of course, is that "And when he had opened the book, HE FOUND THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN...". Jesus Christ CHOSE what was read in His FIRST SERMON. Not only that, but He CHOSE HOW it was read, if you will take the time to study it, "for education's sake", you know.
He was quoting from Isaiah 61:1,2.
"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings, unto the meek; he hath sent me to blind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: TO PROCLAIM THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD, AND THE DAY OF VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD; TO COMFORT ALL THAT MOURN;"
But what does Luke 4:17-21 say?
"...The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor: he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, TO PREACH THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD. AND HE CLOSED THE BOOK, and he gave it again to the minister, and SAT DOWN...".
WHY didn't He finish verse 2 of Isaiah 61:2? He stopped mid-verse and left out "..and the day of vengeance of our God;..."
Instead of saving this for a long time, studying it would have been far more beneficial. He didn't finish Isaiah 61:2 because the comma separating "to preach the acceptable year of the Lord" and "the day of vengeance of our God" is separated by 2000 years, so far. It's the difference in His first coming, His earthly ministry, and His second coming, to set up His Millenial Kingdom. "The day of vengeance of our God is of course, the Tribulation. One comma separates two time periods.
If you understood 2 Tim. 2:15, you would understand that easily. Rightly dividing the Word of Truth. NOT truth from a lie. But truth from truth. The "acceptable year of the Lord" is truth. "The day of vengeance of our God" is also truth. But they have been separated by about 2000 years, so far.
So tell me again how much you believe the "whole Bible".