Posted on 07/13/2020 7:27:43 PM PDT by metmom
Part of non Catholics understanding is that they only accept what they read in the Bible after 7 books were removed by Luther.
Which falsehood further testifies to your indoctrination in the propaganda that you blindly parrot, whereas it is well evidenced that rather than Luther removing 7 books from a indisputable settled canon, in reality scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
And that the 39 book OT is the most ancient canon, being that mostly likely held by those who sat in the seat of Moses. Thus Catholic sources themselves testify that, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
Now you can longer be excused due to ignorant faith in RC apologetics.
And then they reject or try to change meanings of God’s Truth or even deny the Truth that doesn’t meet their protestant doctrines.
And then they reject or try to change meanings of God’s Truth or even deny the Truth that doesn’t meet their protestant doctrines.
Which is simply based upon your prevailing logical fallacy, that of presuming what is not and cannot be proved, that "God’s Truth" is whatever Rome says, since Rome declared she possesses ensured veracity, but which Truth she has changed from what the NT manifestly believed.
Catholic understand that Jesus and the Apostles passed down the teachings of Jesus in the oral tradition which continues today.
I know what Catholic understand, which does not make it true, while as shown and ignored while you parrot propaganda, God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written and established, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
And rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
Catholic authors wrote the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament (inspired by God)
That is patently absurd, a bombastic assertion you can only imagine was the case, for as said and shown and ignored, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
And if Catholic authors wrote the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament they they did a very poor job, for it would not have been hard to put a sentence in the numerous books describing believers praying to a created being in Heaven, men or angels, and or priests confecting the Eucharist and offering it as a sacrifice for sins and eaten in order to obtain spiritual life (interpretive of the gospels), rather than by the hearing of the nourishing word of God, (1Tim. 4:6) being milk and meat, (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12,14) and exhorting the church to submit to Peter as its corporate supreme head, and baptizing infants, etc. etc. Instead, you can only wish this is what the the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive word of God reveals the NT church believed.
and all the books were organized into the Bible by Church councils.
Which includes those penned and preserved and passed down by the Jews, with the Scribes and Pharisees being magisterial stewards of them, thus if being instrumental in this work means submission to all such instruments, then the NT church should have submitted to the judgments of the Scribes and Pharisees as to faith in a certain itinerant prophet and Preacher from Galilee.
Non Catholics try to tell us only to believe in inspired Bible.
Inaccurate. Non Catholics tell us a lot of things we do not believe, but that Scripture the only wholly God-inspired and substantive word of God and thus should be the sure and supreme standard on faith and morals is indisputable.
Somehow the protestants or “bible christians” (name change came into existence after the invention of the printing press and were able to promote alternative teachings contrary to Jesus Christ and aided by Satan. Not so, for there were always “bible christians,” from the disciples who believed on the Lord Jesus who substantiated His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and who thus "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself," (Luke 24:27) and "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" [not oral tradition], (Luke 24:45) and those who likewise believed the words of Christ and the apostles as being subject to testing by established Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
However, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby - neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils can claim to do. As the classic Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm Moreover, unlike the canon of Scripture, there simply is no infallible list of all infallible Catholic teachings, papal or conciliar, thus leading to debate, and unlike Scripture, even in formal papal teachings it is not the arguments, reasoning and evidences invoked for a solemnly defined teaching that are held to be infallible, but only "the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) In contrast all Scripture is wholly inspired of God, while Catholics debate where a infallible teaching begins and ends as well as &to some degree) the meanings of such.
Non Catholics ignore or dispute the words of Jesus. Again, using the term "non-Catholics" is a invalid term and thus you are presenting a faulty argument, since you are not simply debating non-Catholics, but those of a faith which, like those who profess to be like the noble Bereans in Acts 17:11 who subjected the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching to testing by Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
John 6:52-58; Matt 16:18-19; among many other verses.
Catholics also debate the former, since they invoke John 6:53,54 which if taken literally as meaning the Catholic "Real Presence" excludes those who reject that as having spiritual and eternal life, while also affirming Lumen Gentium (if they do) which broadly affirms properly baptized Prots as being born again Christians.
As for Matt 16:18-19, Catholics also debate this, with some arguing that "this rock" refers to Peter and not the faith of Peter, while others agree it is the rock was the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The Orthodox also lay claim to the title "Catholic" and from https://www.oca.org/questions/history/on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church we have this:
In Matthew 16:18, the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession of faith, and not to Peter himself, despite the fact that Peter/rock is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic [cephas] and Greek [petros]. As we read in 1 Corinthians 10:4, “...they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,” Who alone is the very foundation, or true Rock, upon which stands the Church. It is on Jesus Christ, the Rock, that the Church’s unchanging faith and confession is firmly rooted.
Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9” (CCC 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
How does the Cardinal see in Mary a warrant for the “equilibrium of faith”?
All of which fallible arguments with their wishful, vain extrapolation are a poor excuse for a utter lack of testimony for a required belief in a doctrine that that the NT church of Scripture manifestly did not believe in, and all your prolix propaganda is a failure to warrant it, and the hyper exaltation of Mary leaves Catholicism guilty of thinking of moral far, far, far above that which is written, which 1 Co. 4:6 reproves.
But, you already agreed that rites are not basically theologically different. They are more geographical and culturally different. By the way there was a great deal of duplication in your list.
By the way, as an Orthodox Christian, I'm not defending Rome, just trying to clarify things.
Maybe this will help. Two Orthodox jurisdictions in the US, the Antiochian Archdiocese and ROCOR (the Russian Church Outside Russia) have a small Western Rite. The services in those parishes can look like Roman Catholic or Anglican services depending on the liturgy used BUT the theology is identical to standard Orthodox teaching. Those rites are under the same governance as are the Eastern rites in the same jurisdictions.
And such is the difference between most Evangelical denominations, yet that's not good enough for most Catholics.
Catholics on this forum have clearly expressed that they expect us to agree lockstep with each other, in which case there would be one massive denomination.
The fact that there's not they read to mean that there's something like 20,000 different interpretations of Scripture and it's a flaw and weakness of Protestantism, when the same degree of disparity between Catholic rites is lauded as a strength of Catholicism.
IOW, it's blatant and blinding hypocrisy. They have two standards they apply as it fits to make Catholicism look good and Protestantism to not look good.
Yours.....
Assembly of the saints - Ps 89:7
Assembly of the upright - Ps 111:1
Body of Christ - Eph 1:22,23; Col 1:24
Branch of God’s planting - Isa 60:21
Bride of Christ - Re 21:9
Church of God - Ac 20:28
Church of the Living God - 1Ti 3:15
Church of the first-born - Heb 12:23
City of the Living God - Heb 12:22
Congregation of saints - Ps 149:1
Congregation of the Lord’s poor - Ps 74:19
Dove - So 2:14; 5:2
Family in heaven and earth - Eph 3:15
Flock of God - Eze 34:15; 1Pe 5:2
Fold of Christ - Joh 10:16
General assembly of the first-born - Heb 12:23
Golden candlestick - Re 1:20
God’s building - 1Co 3:9
God’s husbandry - 1Co 3:9
God’s heritage - Joe 3:2; 1Pe 5:3
Habitation of God - Eph 2:22
Heavenly of Jerusalem - Ga 4:26; Heb 12:22
Holy city - Re 21:2
Holy mountain - Zec 8:3
Holy hill - Ps 15:1
House of God - 1Ti 3:15; Heb 10:21
House of the God of Jacob - Isa 2:3
House of Christ - Heb 3:6
Household of God - Eph 2:19
Inheritance - Ps 28:9; Isa 19:25
Israel of God - Ga 6:16
King’s daughter - Ps 45:13
Lamb’s wife - Re 19:7; 21:9
Lot of God’s inheritance - De 32:9
Mount Zion - Ps 2:6; Heb 12:22
Mountain of the Lord’s house - Isa 2:2
New Jerusalem - Re 21:2
Pillar and ground of the truth - 1Ti 3:15
Sanctuary of God - Ps 114:2
Spiritual house - 1Pe 2:5
Spouse of Christ - So 4:12; 5:1
Sought out, a city not forsaken - Isa 62:12
Temple of God - 1Co 3:16,17
Temple of the Living God - 2Co 6:16
Vineyard - Jer 12:10; Mt 21:41
:)
Yes, exactly!
“Residuls?”
Finally I get and answer thank you for the laugh, lol.
Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition: (Viva Voce – Whatever We Say)
Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as ‘living tradition.’ This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome’s magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.7
It's true because we now say so.
How very convenient.
Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition: (Viva Voce – Whatever We Say)
Yes, and the argument is that without an infallible authority you cannot be sure what is of God or its meaning (even though souls such as knew Scripture and men as John the Baptist were of God before there was a church of Rome), but which means that Cath assurance of faith rests upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
Which they know is of God since
While I appreciate your reply, your answers for the most part are an attempt to ignore the meaning of God’s Truth and misrepresent history. You keep on saying the same old same old protestant versions and misrepresent God’s Truth. To me your version is not truthful and just made up to fit the protestant doctrine.
Today’s Gospel is especially appropriate:
“Because knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven
has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.
To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich;
from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
This is why I speak to them in parables, because
they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, (Matt 13:10-17)
Sola Scriptura and SolaFides doctrines are not biblical.
While your comment that the Catholic Church recognizes baptized Protestants as christian and members of Christ Body, many (catholics included) may still be in mortal sin which destroys the relationship with God and risking their salvation unless they repent and confess. Again the Church is not the judge of a person’s soul but wants to help all reach eternal life with God.
The Catechism (once again quoting Lumen Gentium) summarizes all this as follows:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)
Concerning the books of the Bible:
In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septuagint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.” The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanonicals
The Catholic faith key tenets include Peter as the Pope And the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ Are expected to be believed by all Catholics and not subject to debate.
A baptized Catholic that rejects the Catholic faith, rejects Jesus. (Luke 10:16) They always have the opportunity to repent and confess and do penance.
I do not know why you left the Catholic faith, nor do I understand why protestant doctrine appeals to many Catholics that have rejected the Catholic Church. Perhaps not being required to go to weekly Mass or annual confession or able to accept an alternate false version of God’s Truth or the promise of their word only once that they are guaranteed salvation?
There is a hatred of the Catholic Church and not accepting that Jesus established His Church- The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church followed Jesus command over the centuries to preach and baptize all nations, while the protestant versions were founded by men about 500 years ago.
I do believe that many Catholics are betting their salvation on the false word of men or their own false beliefs instead of faith in God’s Truth.
Rather, it is I who provided abundant substantiation for Truth claims but which you overall ignore, while not even quoting what you are referring to from me, and insist on basically just parroting refuted prevaricating polemics and vain argument by assertion. You need to realize that your arguments are not new, and have been refuted extensively time and again, and only a few RC's are left who do not seem to know better by now than to try your craft.
Sola Scriptura and SolaFides doctrines are not biblical.
More mere assertions, and most likely you hold to an erroneous idea of both, and thus (to save typing) see Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura and here , by the grace of God.
Concerning the books of the Bible: In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septuagint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.
So goes the typical RC version, which means at beast that you are poorly informed, since for there was not only no standard version of the the Septuagint, but evidence does not support the assertion that the Septuagint of the 1 Century included the seven disputed books, and not that those who sat in the seat of Moses held them to be Scripture.
Here is just an excerpt (read it all) from the testimony against your Romanized history.
"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49) By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015)
Most scholars agree that by the time of the destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E. most Jews accepted the final three-part canon of the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim.... This was a twenty-four-book canon that came to be attested widely in Jewish writings of the time; eventually the canon was reconceptualized and renumbered an that it became the thirty-nine books of the Christian Old Testament. But they are the same books, all part of the canon of Scripture. (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)
Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.
For many reasons (and see note on Jamnia) it is held that the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha.
For while Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ and which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.
Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.
Addressing the theory that the first century Septuagint contained the the apocryphal books, we have such scholarly testimony as the below:
The Septuagint is a pre-Christian Jewish translation, and the larger manuscripts of it include various of the Apocrypha. Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, where the theory was first propounded, was based upon the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus.
However, as we now know, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era," and since, in the second century C.E., the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila's translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century, are all of Christian origin. An indication of this is that in many Septuagint manuscripts the Psalms are followed by a collection of Odes or liturgical canticles, including Christian ones from the NT. Also, the order of the books in the great fourth and fifth-century Septuagint codices is Christian, not adhering to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon; nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha to include. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus all include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and integrate them into the body of the or rather than appending them at the end; but Codex Vaticanus, unlike the other two, totally excludes the Books of Maccabees. Moreover, all three codices, according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt," yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, ex-cluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. Mulder, M. J. (1988). (Mikra: text, translation, reading, and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Phil.: Van Gorcum. p. 81 ) Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35. British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64) Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin. Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html) Likewise Gleason Archer affirms, Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm) The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59) Also, The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages) contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel. And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html) While your comment that the Catholic Church recognizes baptized Protestants as christian and members of Christ Body, many (catholics included) may still be in mortal sin which destroys the relationship with God and risking their salvation unless they repent and confess. Again the Church is not the judge of a person’s soul but wants to help all reach eternal life with God. You are missing the point, which is that Catholics interpret V2 differently, including the many here who reject at least parts of it, and even the present pope, while Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus as proclimed in Unam Sanctam and other popes requires submission to him. Meanwhile to take Jn. 6:53 literally is to reject Lumen Gentium. The Catholic faith key tenets include Peter as the Pope And the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ Are expected to be believed by all Catholics and not subject to debate. Another mere vain assertion, while the papacy is not of Scripture, but as documented (even with Cath sources) and ignored, it was a later development.Likewise the Eucharist as the Real Presence (apparently a borrowed Anglican term) which as provided already, is refuted by the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive word of God, as understood by the NT church. A baptized Catholic that rejects the Catholic faith, rejects Jesus. (Luke 10:16) Another rote reply, but that is not up to you to judge, but your church, beginning with the local ordinary who states who is excommed, and as said and ignored, Rome manifestly considers even proabortion prohomosexual public figures to be members in life and in death. And if you think those RCs who reject the pope or who call him a heretic are guilty of departing from the Catholic faith, then you could try to tell them. I do not know why you left the Catholic faith, But you proceed to postulate: Perhaps not being required to go to weekly Mass That attempt is a utter fail, since I was a never-miss weekly and holy day Mass-going RC when I prayerfully left and which resulted in my going to even more services, and in fact to leaving all to serve the Lord, by the grace of God.. or able to accept an alternate false version of God’s Truth Rather as shown, it is Rome that preaches an alternate false version of God’s Truth. or the promise of their word only once that they are guaranteed salvation? There is a hatred of the Catholic Church and not accepting that Jesus established His Church Why not just accept that instead it was a willingness to go where Scripture leads, which includes conditional security vs. OSAS, and finding Rome to be spiritually deficient? Which is the main reason most Cath converts to evang faith testify to: 71% of converts from Catholicism to Protestant faith said that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% of Evangelical Protestants in particular concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated. 71% of converts from Catholicism to Protestant faith said that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% of Evangelical Protestants in particular concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) Only 23% (20% now evangelical) of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion they liked more in Protestantism. 55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough.
Only 23% (20% now evangelical) of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion they liked more in Protestantism.
55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough.
The Catholic Church followed Jesus command over the centuries to preach and baptize all nations, while the protestant versions were founded by men about 500 years ago.
Rather, the Catholic Church is the most manifest historical deformation of the NT church, which deformation was progressive, and which finally reached the point which required the Reformation, which itself was and is not perfect nor the “work of one day or two.
I do believe that many Catholics are betting their salvation on the false word of men or their own false beliefs instead of faith in God’s Truth.
As are those who believe the false gospel of Rome masquerading as God’s pure Truth.
Overall, your "argumentation is basically engaging that of a type of soliloquy, parroting claims that may give Cath comfort and perhaps due under the fantasy that they gain one an indulgence. May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Good job. As always I - and no doubt many others - appreciate the time and care you put into your responses on these threads. It would be wonderful if those to whom they are addressed would show the slightest inkling that they have actually read your replies and digested them in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth. For others, though, we should expect there will be no acknowledgment nor correction of false assertions and we’ll see the same tossed out here at the next opportunity. If it were me, I’d be embarrassed to keep doing that.
The practice of simply asserting refuted Catholic claims time and time again in lieu of an actual valid argument (which they lack) in interaction with that refutes them is indeed an argument against being a Catholic, as it means committing intellectual suicide akin to cult members. I actually suspect that such Catholics imagine that this mindless "defense of the faith" obtains them an inheritance, and or that they find parroting propaganda to be comforting.
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.