HomeFAQRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog in

Share | 
 

 Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?

Go down 
AuthorMessage
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Sat May 10, 2008 10:17 pm

The short answer is no.
Again, I'm just not that good at arguing with smart people,
and the following article says it much better than I'll ever be able
to say it: http://www.scborromeo.org/glad/c2.htm

Q. Why tradition and scripture rather than just scripture?
Q. Does the Bible support the use of oral tradition?

Occasionally one will encounter an individual who says "If it isn't in the Bible, I don't believe it." This presumes that everything Jesus said and did is recorded in the Bible. However, we all know that Jesus didn't make His graces dependent upon the ability to read or own a Bible. Jesus didn't command that His Apostles go and write down everything He had said so that people can read it. Rather, Jesus said
"Go and baptize! Go and teach!" (Matthew 28:19-20) His truths were to be spread, as was obviously necessary before the invention of the printing press, mainly by the spoken word. It is true that some of the Apostles and their companions did commit to writing many things about the life and doctrines of our Lord. The oral teachings of the Apostles are just as truly the Word of God as their written words that we find preserved in the New Testament. This fact is evidenced by the following scriptural passages:

"Jesus performed many other signs as well--signs not recorded here--in the presence of his disciples." (John 20:30, KJV)

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, and which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25, KJV)

"hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV)

And in Luke 10:16 where Jesus says "He who hears you, hears me." (KJV)

"I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete." (2 John 1:12, NIV)

"I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." (3 John 13-14, KJV)

These last two passages can be especially appreciated if you remember that family members communicate best by talking to each other rather than passing notes back and forth. By the New Covenant we were all made members of God's family (as opposed to belonging to His book-of-the-month club). The bare essentials to receive God's favor are contained in the Bible but this doesn't mean that God, in His loving generosity, has not provided abundantly far more for those who will avail themselves of it. Nor does it mean that all of us can read it to ourselves and understand the words contained in the Bible, as Acts 8:30-31 so clearly enumerates in the story about the Ethiopian eunuch. Remember that 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is useful; it doesn't say or even imply that it is the exclusive source.

The point is that:

1. The Bible, Word of God that it is, doesn't claim to be the sole source of information but instead documents certain happenings and the establishment of a teaching authority within His Church; and
2. Dependence upon the Bible as the sole authority in essence says that Jesus' word is not to be trusted when Jesus says that He will be with His Church (as it baptizes and teaches) until the end of time (Matthew 28:20).

The Bible is not a catechism or theological treatise where one can go for quick easy answers. It's too bad that it isn't, but wishing it was (or pretending that it is) doesn't make it so. Attempting to use the Bible in this manner is to misuse Holy Scripture. The truth is there, but we must know how to get at it as, in many cases, it is not presented in a straightforward manner readily understandable to the 20th Century Christian. This is because the sacred writers depended heavily upon 1st century (and earlier) Jewish traditions, customs, and beliefs which are not necessarily recorded in the Bible. It is important that we also consult the other historical writings to find, and therefore learn, how the writings (now part of Holy Scripture but only important writings at that time) were understood and taught by those to whom the writings were addressed.

"If it isn't in the Bible, I don't believe it" may seem reasonable to the one saying it, but it is a self-contradicting statement because nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the exclusive authority. Thus, the person saying this believes something which is not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says that the Church is the authority: "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15, NAB)


Good stuff, huh?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
POP*ICON

avatar

Number of posts : 65
Age : 38
Location : Eau Claire, WI
Registration date : 2007-12-29

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:01 pm

Maybe I am lost? or maybe that was just too many words for me, but I am not sure how that answers your main question?? I agree it is "good stuff" and agree that it is a teaching tool, how could it not be since it is was written by man inspired by God? I believe that you need to do your own research and reading of the scriptures and not base your faith on just what your church teaches you. Those people who are heading the church are just that... people. We are all here together to keep eachother on track.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
47.5

avatar

Number of posts : 275
Age : 25
Registration date : 2008-01-01

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:30 pm

POP*ICON wrote:
Maybe I am lost? or maybe that was just too many words for me, but I am not sure how that answers your main question?? I agree it is "good stuff" and agree that it is a teaching tool, how could it not be since it is was written by man inspired by God? I believe that you need to do your own research and reading of the scriptures and not base your faith on just what your church teaches you. Those people who are heading the church are just that... people. We are all here together to keep eachother on track.
this is exactly what I believe

and what I've been trying to tell you
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:14 pm

POP*ICON wrote:
I agree it is "good stuff" and agree that it is a teaching tool, how could it not be since it is was written by man inspired by God?

Yep, I agree.
The only problem is that we DO get our theology from the Church,
not the other way around, as I've been saying.
So if there is a question we have about Scripture,
we ask the Church how to interpret it, not one of our friends,
or even "the local pastor" for that matter.

That's one reason I decided to adopt the Catholic faith.
There is tradition there from BEFORE we ever had the Bible,
and it's because if the Church and its tradition that we HAVE the Bible.
So would I take a Church teaching's word over how I or others
want to interpret Scripture?
In a heartbeat.

Quote :
I believe that you need to do your own research and reading of the scriptures and not base your faith on just what your church teaches you.


Well, to a certain extent.
But who the hell are we to interpret Scripture?
Do you think we're going to do a better job
than over 2,000 years of study and teachings?
I don't think so.
As I've said before, there's a difference in blind faith
and DEFAULTING one's faith to someone else, or some other entity,
in this case: The Catholic Church.
If somehow this pope tells Catholics that "Oops, we made a huge mistake, y'all - everybody needs to do heroin and kill each other",
well, then we have a problem.
But I'm not talking about that, and I believe I've made that clear.
I said on matters of Faith and Truth and things Holy (or something like that).
I believe that with that historical backing and all the checks and balances they have in their system of teaching and interpretation,
it's pretty hard to go wrong.


Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
47.5

avatar

Number of posts : 275
Age : 25
Registration date : 2008-01-01

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:40 pm

BeMyIcon wrote:

Yep, I agree.
The only problem is that we DO get our theology from the Church,
not the other way around, as I've been saying.
So if there is a question we have about Scripture,
we ask the Church how to interpret it, not one of our friends,
or even "the local pastor" for that matter.
No, we get our theology from the Bible. And we never said it was the other way around. No one here has said (to my knowledge) that the people give the Church their theology.

And technically, isn't the local pastor the Church? This is besides the point. Don't go on a big tangent about this.

BMI wrote:

That's one reason I decided to adopt the Catholic faith.
There is tradition there from BEFORE we ever had the Bible,
and it's because if the Church and its tradition that we HAVE the Bible.
So would I take a Church teaching's word over how I or others
want to interpret Scripture?
In a heartbeat.

That's where we differ. I like to read and find things out on my own rather than take the knowledge from a third party blindly. This third party may be the Church, but it is still a manmade organization. They have errors.

BMI wrote:

But who the hell are we to interpret Scripture?
God's children
BMI wrote:

Do you think we're going to do a better job
than over 2,000 years of study and teachings?
I don't think so.
The way I study scripture would be to take knowledge from biblical scholars and possibly *gasp* the Church and compare it all with the Bible to see which seems to be the most accurate. By testing everyone's interpretation and fusing them to make the most logical, you have a much better chance of getting it right.


BMI wrote:

As I've said before, there's a difference in blind faith
and DEFAULTING one's faith to someone else, or some other entity,
in this case: The Catholic Church.
Actually, believing something without questioning it and testing it for factuality would be blind faith. Blind faith according to Dictionary.com is "belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination". You are believing the Catholic Church without understanding what they're debating, checking it out for yourself in the good ol' Bible, and you don't look at other resources for a possibly better theory.

BMI wrote:

If somehow this pope tells Catholics that "Oops, we made a huge mistake, y'all - everybody needs to do heroin and kill each other",
well, then we have a problem.
But I'm not talking about that, and I believe I've made that clear.
I said on matters of Faith and Truth and things Holy (or something like that).
So until they say something against what your morals say, you're going to follow them? As I've found before, sometimes morals do not lead us in the right direction. Morally, I wanted to be an Armenian (what is being debated in the "election" thread), however, every bit of scripture pointed in the exact opposite direction. Therefore, my morals were just in human terms, but they were not on the same level with God. Sometimes, the Church strays just slightly in the wrong direction. It's not enough to make anybody freak out or sometimes even notice.


BMI wrote:

I believe that with that historical backing and all the checks and balances they have in their system of teaching and interpretation,
it's pretty hard to go wrong.
But just in case something does get interpreted wrong, wouldn't you like to have it right? Be cautious is all I'm saying. You can listen to the Church, just compare what they say to what others say then see which is backed up by scripture. Most of the time it probably will be factual, but just in case it isn't you don't want to have your salvation in trouble.


BMI wrote:

Smile
Sad
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:32 pm

47.5 wrote:

No, we get our theology from the Bible.

I used the wrong word.
I think probably that "theology" has something to do with Scripture.
I should have said we get what we know about God from the Church through Scripture.
Without the Church, there is NO New Testament.

I'm not going to talk more about this aspect of it until you ask your pastor
how the Bible was made and which came first,
because I feel knowing that may change your approach.
I'm not saying you'd agree with Catholicism,
I just think you'd re-structure your thoughts and angles.

47.5 wrote:
]And technically, isn't the local pastor the Church? This is besides the point. Don't go on a big tangent about this.

Actually, this a HUGE part of the point.
You can call them tangents all you want,
but if we only debate things on a straight line, nothing new can be learned
and you can't back things up with examples.
You can't prove one point without the whole argument in many cases.

Let me clarify what I mean by the Church with a capital "C",
as I've been using it.
The "Church" is the unified Roman Catholic Church.
Each church building and its congregation do not believe different things,
as they are all part of the "Teachings" of Jesus.
So there's no deviance from them.
See?
So by me saying "your local pastor", that is a far different thing
than the "priest" at a Catholic Church, who has spent years in the Seminary learning EXACTLY what Catholics believe.
I guess I should have clarified that, but I assumed since I was capitalizing it, you would know.
Sorry!



47.5 wrote:

That's where we differ. I like to read and find things out on my own rather than take the knowledge from a third party blindly. This third party may be the Church, but it is still a manmade organization. They have errors.

I said we shouldn't do it blindly.
I clarified that in my last post, so please re-read that.
There's a difference between blindly following and "defaulting to".
Especially with tradition and history and the Bible's "creation".

47.5 wrote:

The way I study scripture would be to take knowledge from biblical scholars and possibly *gasp* the Church and compare it all with the Bible to see which seems to be the most accurate. By testing everyone's interpretation and fusing them to make the most logical, you have a much better chance of getting it right.

I really wish you'd answer many of the questions I've posed in earlier posts, because it spares me from having to post things like I am now.
You say "fusing them to make the most logical".
Q: Does Jesus rising from the dead seem logical?

We cannot use man's logic to interpret many of the mysteries of Scripture and the mystery of God's nature.
I don't know how a person would do that.
Luckily, we have people who were THERE with Jesus who wrote books about it and gave those books to the Church (or whatever).

47.5 wrote:

So until they say something against what your morals say, you're going to follow them? As I've found before, sometimes morals do not lead us in the right direction. Morally, I wanted to be an Armenian (what is being debated in the "election" thread), however, every bit of scripture pointed in the exact opposite direction. Therefore, my morals were just in human terms, but they were not on the same level with God.

Morals?
Who said anything about "morals"?
Killing is against a commandment.
Morals are not Biblical whatsoever..
And you actually just said that for me.
I know many non-Christians who are "morally" better than me.
That's not a tangent, either.


47.5 wrote:
Sometimes, the Church strays just slightly in the wrong direction. It's not enough to make anybody freak out or sometimes even notice.


LOL.
What are you talking about?
I think you just said that to say it.


47.5 wrote:
Be cautious is all I'm saying.

That's not all that you're saying, as this entire thread shows.
I've mentioned three times now that I am not "blindly following" anything.
I really don't get it.
I've said that I believe......oh, good grief, you GET it.

I default to the Catholic Church.
If I were stranded on a deserted island, and I had to choose between
the Bible or "The Catechism of the Catholic Church",
I would choose the latter without question.
Not even close.


I just asked a friend of mine which he would rather have,
and HE said the Bible because it's a narrative and interesting.

Good point.

Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
47.5

avatar

Number of posts : 275
Age : 25
Registration date : 2008-01-01

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:31 pm

BeMyIcon wrote:

Without the Church, there is NO New Testament.
God would've had it written no matter what. The Church had no part in having the Bible written.

BMI wrote:

I'm not going to talk more about this aspect of it until you ask your pastor
how the Bible was made and which came first,
because I feel knowing that may change your approach.
I'm not saying you'd agree with Catholicism,
I just think you'd re-structure your thoughts and angles.
The books were written before the Church was created. All of the old testament and some of the new. That is undebatable because it is a fact. The Church did not change what was written in the Bible and just because the Church existed, it did not have an effect on what Paul or the others wrote.

BMI wrote:
I said we shouldn't do it blindly.
I clarified that in my last post, so please re-read that.
There's a difference between blindly following and "defaulting to".
Especially with tradition and history and the Bible's "creation".
You've stated before that you believe what the Catholic Church says without questioning it.


BMI wrote:
I really wish you'd answer many of the questions I've posed in earlier posts, because it spares me from having to post things like I am now.
You say "fusing them to make the most logical".
Q: Does Jesus rising from the dead seem logical?
By logical I mean comparing theories to what the Bible says. I am regarding the Bible as truth so I base everything off of it.


BMI wrote:

We cannot use man's logic to interpret many of the mysteries of Scripture and the mystery of God's nature.
I don't know how a person would do that.
Luckily, we have people who were THERE with Jesus who wrote books about it and gave those books to the Church (or whatever).
I think I stated that same idea earlier either somewhere else or here. I don't want to look for it. Actually it was in my last post about Armenians. We don't can't use our logic to find answers. God has a different idea on things.

BMI wrote:

Morals?
Who said anything about "morals"?
Killing is against a commandment.
Morals are not Biblical whatsoever..
And you actually just said that for me.
I know many non-Christians who are "morally" better than me.
That's not a tangent, either.
I mean morals as in a conscience. Feeling bad about bad things.


BMI wrote:

LOL.
What are you talking about?
I think you just said that to say it.
It was part of my point. Out of context it means nothing, however. You were saying something along the lines of that you wouldn't listen to the church if they went on a killing spree and I said that to state that it won't be blatant when they do stray off. It will be a subtle change.


BMI wrote:

I've mentioned three times now that I am not "blindly following" anything.
I really don't get it.
I've said that I believe......oh, good grief, you GET it.
But do you question what the Catholic Church says?

BMI wrote:

I default to the Catholic Church.
If I were stranded on a deserted island, and I had to choose between
the Bible or "The Catechism of the Catholic Church",
I would choose the latter without question.
Not even close.
There. That's the point we differ on. We are going extremely in depth into a debate that doesn't need that.

You think of the Church as above the Bible while I think the opposite. There is no reason to debate anything else since this is the only true point; every other debate we've had thus far has stemmed from this. I am such a retard for not noticing this earlier. Because of this one point, no matter what we debate on, neither side can win.

BMI wrote:

I just asked a friend of mine which he would rather have,
and HE said the Bible because it's a narrative and interesting.
Yeah I don't agree with your friend.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:49 pm

47.5 wrote:

You think of the Church as above the Bible while I think the opposite. There is no reason to debate anything else since this is the only true point; every other debate we've had thus far has stemmed from this. I am such a retard for not noticing this earlier. Because of this one point, no matter what we debate on, neither side can win.

The only way that I could see to really validate my point of view - or to at least get you to understand why it IS a valid viewpoint would be to show you which came first and WHY.

When you say the Bible would have been created regardless,
you're speaking in hypotheticals, and that's not fair or valid in a debate.
You're the one who keeps talking about "facts", not me.
But the "fact" is that the Church put the Bible together based on what it
felt "jived" with its teachings.
Dude, you NEED to ask your pastor about that, seriously.
This aspect is not debatable.

Well, it IS, I suppose, using hypotheticals, but I don't believe that to be fair.

47.5 wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with your friend.
You don't think it's interesting or you don't think there are stories in it?
I'm not trying to debate the historical facts of the stories in the Bible here.
I'm referring to it as a narrative because there are, in fact, stories - narratives.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
47.5

avatar

Number of posts : 275
Age : 25
Registration date : 2008-01-01

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:01 am

BeMyIcon wrote:
The only way that I could see to really validate my point of view - or to at least get you to understand why it IS a valid viewpoint would be to show you which came first and WHY.

When you say the Bible would have been created regardless,
you're speaking in hypotheticals, and that's not fair or valid in a debate.
You're the one who keeps talking about "facts", not me.
But the "fact" is that the Church put the Bible together based on what it
felt "jived" with its teachings.
Dude, you NEED to ask your pastor about that, seriously.
This aspect is not debatable.

Well, it IS, I suppose, using hypotheticals, but I don't believe that to be fair.
Yeah I know the Church changed things. I know that. The problem is that they did not have the Authority to change the things in the Bible. They did do it though.

What you were saying earlier is that the Church didn't just change things within the Bible, but they wrote it. Or at least that's what I thought you were saying.

BMI wrote:
You don't think it's interesting or you don't think there are stories in it?
I'm not trying to debate the historical facts of the stories in the Bible here.
I'm referring to it as a narrative because there are, in fact, stories - narratives.
Oh yeah I don't disagree with that. I disagreed with the idea that that was the only reason for choosing the Bible.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:11 am

47.5 wrote:

Yeah I know the Church changed things. I know that. The problem is that they did not have the Authority to change the things in the Bible. They did do it though.

AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!
LOL.
Why do you keep saying that?
There was NOTHING TO CHANGE, since it didn't EXIST.
Seriously.
And the Church WAS the authority.
They DECIDED what was in line with its teachings.
I'm losing my mind over here.
Smile


Quote :
What you were saying earlier is that the Church didn't just change things within the Bible, but they wrote it. Or at least that's what I thought you were saying.

Again, I never said EITHER of those things whatsoever.
The Church as an entity did not WRITE the Bible.
How could that be? LOL.
I'm pretty sure the dudes who wrote it were part of the Catholic Church,
though, so in a way, yes....but not in the way you're asking.
Nothing was "changed", as nothing existed yet (New Testament).


47.5 wrote:
Oh yeah I don't disagree with that. I disagreed with the idea that that was the only reason for choosing the Bible.


I only talked to him for about a minute, literally, and that was just the first thing he said, that's all.
I'm sure if he thought more about it, he could come up with more reasons.
LOL.
And he does not at this time attend Catholic Mass.
He attends an Evangelical church, but agrees with most of the Catholic catechism.
I've tried to get him to post here, but he won't.
Ass!
Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
47.5

avatar

Number of posts : 275
Age : 25
Registration date : 2008-01-01

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:21 am

BeMyIcon wrote:


AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!
LOL.
Why do you keep saying that?
There was NOTHING TO CHANGE, since it didn't EXIST.
Seriously.
And the Church WAS the authority.
They DECIDED what was in line with its teachings.
I'm losing my mind over here.
Smile



Again, I never said EITHER of those things whatsoever.
The Church as an entity did not WRITE the Bible.
How could that be? LOL.
I'm pretty sure the dudes who wrote it were part of the Catholic Church,
though, so in a way, yes....but not in the way you're asking.
Nothing was "changed", as nothing existed yet (New Testament).



I only talked to him for about a minute, literally, and that was just the first thing he said, that's all.
I'm sure if he thought more about it, he could come up with more reasons.
LOL.
And he does not at this time attend Catholic Mass.
He attends an Evangelical church, but agrees with most of the Catholic catechism.
I've tried to get him to post here, but he won't.
Ass!
Smile
Yeah I'm done debating because: I can't persuade you to come to the dark side and there's no way in hell I'm changing my beliefs, you crazy catholic. We differ on one topic and because of it, we can't agree on anything else. Everything stems from that one difference.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:28 am

Quote :
Yeah I'm done debating because: I can't persuade you to come to the dark side and there's no way in hell I'm changing my beliefs, you crazy catholic. We differ on one topic and because of it, we can't agree on anything else. Everything stems from that one difference.


I wish you'd answer the questions.
What did the Church change?
We are NOT disagreeing on any ONE thing because I still don't know
what it is you're thinking was "changed".

You can believe whatever you want, as I'm not trying to convert you to Catholicism, LOL.

I just don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say you "know they changed the Bible".
What does that mean?

Maybe I'm just not getting it!
jocolor


I wish there were more people posting here so we could figure this out.
Don't you?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
47.5

avatar

Number of posts : 275
Age : 25
Registration date : 2008-01-01

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:54 am

BeMyIcon wrote:
Quote :
Yeah I'm done debating because: I can't persuade you to come to the dark side and there's no way in hell I'm changing my beliefs, you crazy catholic. We differ on one topic and because of it, we can't agree on anything else. Everything stems from that one difference.


I wish you'd answer the questions.
What did the Church change?
We are NOT disagreeing on any ONE thing because I still don't know
what it is you're thinking was "changed".

You can believe whatever you want, as I'm not trying to convert you to Catholicism, LOL.

I just don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say you "know they changed the Bible".
What does that mean?

Maybe I'm just not getting it!
jocolor


I wish there were more people posting here so we could figure this out.
Don't you?
They removed some books I think and changed people's thought on Mary Magdalene (making her out to be a whore) and other stuff
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:07 pm

47.5 wrote:

They removed some books I think and changed people's thought on Mary Magdalene (making her out to be a whore) and other stuff


O.K., this is getting a little silly.

Let's call it the New Testament from now on, not the Bible.
I've clarified what I was talking about twice, but maybe not well enough.

Please explain: SINCE THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT YET,
HOW the Church could remove books from it.
There WAS no "it".

It's like us saying that George Lucas removed Scenes from Episode VII.
Impossible, since Episode VII has not been filmed yet.
(Is there GOING to be an Episode VII? That would be really cool.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:17 pm

Here are the books removed by - I believe - Martin Luther.
Or at least by Protestants:

1-Esther
2-Baruch
3-Book of Daniel
4-1 Esdras
5-2 Esdras
6-Judith
7-The letter of Jeremiah
8-1 Macabees
9-2 Macabees
10-The Prayer of Manasseh
11-Ecclesiasticus
12-Tobit
13-The Wisdom of Solomon

You've stated time and time again how the Church had no authority
to remove books from the New Testament.
Which is great, because they DIDN'T.

Yet you have no problem with Martin Luther doing it?
His authority was somehow greater than that of the Church?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
47.5

avatar

Number of posts : 275
Age : 25
Registration date : 2008-01-01

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:57 pm

BeMyIcon wrote:
Here are the books removed by - I believe - Martin Luther.
Or at least by Protestants:

1-Esther
2-Baruch
3-Book of Daniel
4-1 Esdras
5-2 Esdras
6-Judith
7-The letter of Jeremiah
8-1 Macabees
9-2 Macabees
10-The Prayer of Manasseh
11-Ecclesiasticus
12-Tobit
13-The Wisdom of Solomon

You've stated time and time again how the Church had no authority
to remove books from the New Testament.
Which is great, because they DIDN'T.

Yet you have no problem with Martin Luther doing it?
His authority was somehow greater than that of the Church?
I've said that I've studied this and I'm trying to find the answers to it now. I've asked the teachers at my school and they haven't given much help. I don't know anything on this subject.

We have Esther, it is between Nehemiah and Job.
We have Daniel, and it is one of my favorite books. It is between Ezekiel and Hosea
We have a book named Jeremiah, which I'm guessing is what you referred to as the Letter of Jeremiah
We have Ecclesiastes, however, we don't have Ecclesiasticus. Probably the same thing.
We have Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs, which may be this "Wisdom of Solomon" you said.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BeMyIcon
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 396
Age : 43
Registration date : 2007-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:10 pm

Quote :

We have Esther, it is between Nehemiah and Job.
We have Daniel, and it is one of my favorite books. It is between Ezekiel and Hosea
We have a book named Jeremiah, which I'm guessing is what you referred to as the Letter of Jeremiah
We have Ecclesiastes, however, we don't have Ecclesiasticus. Probably the same thing.
We have Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs, which may be this "Wisdom of Solomon" you said.


LOL.
Sorry, I wasn't really paying much attention, as I just copied those.

Revised:
* Tobit
* Judith
* Additions to the Book of Esther
* Wisdom of Solomon
* Ecclesiasticus (or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son or Sirach)
* Baruch
* The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch ch. 6)
* The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel:
The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees


Something like that, anyway.
Sorry about that!
Smile


The only ones I've really read are [the]Wisdom [of Solomon] - and I like it -
and one of the Maccabees.
LOL.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://durandurantalk.forumotion.com
47.5

avatar

Number of posts : 275
Age : 25
Registration date : 2008-01-01

PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:23 pm

BeMyIcon wrote:
Quote :

We have Esther, it is between Nehemiah and Job.
We have Daniel, and it is one of my favorite books. It is between Ezekiel and Hosea
We have a book named Jeremiah, which I'm guessing is what you referred to as the Letter of Jeremiah
We have Ecclesiastes, however, we don't have Ecclesiasticus. Probably the same thing.
We have Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs, which may be this "Wisdom of Solomon" you said.


LOL.
Sorry, I wasn't really paying much attention, as I just copied those.

Revised:
* Tobit
* Judith
* Additions to the Book of Esther
* Wisdom of Solomon
* Ecclesiasticus (or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son or Sirach)
* Baruch
* The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch ch. 6)
* The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel:
The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
Why were these thrown out of the Protestant Bible?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?   

Back to top Go down
 
Q: Do Catholics take the Bible "literally"?
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Kates Bible & Articles in the Files
» Castle Craig Death was "Avoidable"
» Businessman who helped expose Nursery paedo ring has "no regrets"
» GREECE MAY HAVE IT"S CREDIT RATING TO JUNK FROM BBB-
» Conservative Foreign Secretary Denies "Gay" Rumour

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Crap That Matters :: Debate :: Religion-
Jump to: