 |
Where specifically in the Catholic or KJV Bible does it say you cannot ever eat meat on a Friday and where specifically does it say the word 'Purgatory'? If the word 'Purgatory' is in the Catholic version of the Bible, why is it not in the KJV? Thank you. Zsuzsanna
1. Not eating meat on Friday is strictly a Catholic rule.
2. The reason the KJV Bible doesn't speak of Purgatory is because the Catholics have their own Bible. They do not use the same Bible that Christian use.
Neither the word "purgatory" nor the doctrine are found in the Bible. Indeed scripture makes it clear that Jesus paid the price in full for our sins.Quote:
Originally Posted by zsuzsanna
The requirement not to eat meat on Friday is a Roman Catholic denominational requirement, and is again not found in scripture. Indeed quite the contrary:
Col 2:16-17
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
NKJV
I think the no meat on Fridays now is only during Lent, as a penance
First please remember that the KJV is not by far the best translation, merely one of the most common.
There is no difference in the protestant bibles including the KJV except the approved versions of the Catholic Church have all of the books included.
Not eating meat is not part of theology but it is a rule set by the church to show or be a act of penance.
No difference than any act of fasting except the Catholic Church has asked that it be required.
Some KJV refer to the Strong Concordance in Greek and Hebrew which could indeed permit a better understanding of The Word. Bullinger KJV does a wonderful job. Those that speak Greek and Hebrew find Bullinger good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Yes a difference of religion and reality. Religion is what is taught by man, reality is THE WORD being flesh in Christ. Christ is a reality, as easy to hear and finds as a door bell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Only Christ knocks, you open that door.
So the bible does not say anyone pays penance for sin.. People can not buy salvation! We are told to repent from sin...
Tj3, That is no longer practiced by the church correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I thought that Catholics were Christians. Are you saying that the Catholic Bible is NOT Christian? If so, what is it? I have had the privilege of reading both the Catholic Bible and the KJV Bible. As far as I read, they are the same. Only differences I saw is that the Catholic Bible has the book of Macabee's and the last book of the Bible is sometimes referred to as 'Apocalypse and KJV is called Revelation. Other than that they are pretty much the same word for word.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheilamlm
It is still widely practice though I do not believe that it is mandated.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
a penance, guys. An act to show contrition, that you are sorry for some sin you have committed. Now you protestants talk a lot about grace but not so much about sin. Think about it, don't you feel better if someone apologizes to you? But if he goes and does the same thing over again, you don't feel like he really meant it. If instead he goes out of his way to show he is sorry, you can feel even better than you did before the original transgression. Sort of, God asks us to go a mile and we go two miles without complaining.
Repentance is the Biblical approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
First, I am not a protestant and I talk a lot about sin.Quote:
Now you protestants talk a lot about grace but not so much about sin.
It is not an apology that takes away sin but rather it is the blood of Christ shed on the cross.Quote:
Think about it, don't you feel better if someone apologizes to you?
Don't know if I'm writing this is the right place, but I think MY question got lost somewhere between TJ3 and Windandblue. What you two are talking about has nothing to do with my original question. Why don't you two get on line together and have your own q&a. From what I have read on this web site, being that I am not a Catholic, eating meat on Fridays was done away with for a short period. I'm reading here that it was reinstated but with modification. I think they are saying you can eat meat on Fridays if you do some kind of a penance for it ahead of time. But in any case, eating meat during Lent is definitely not permitted. I hope that is correct and that is what I understand from what I have read here from the answers I received. Also, thank you whoever answered me about where in the scriptures I could find that. I understand now that is part of the Catholic doctrine just like Purgatory and not in the Catholic or KJV of the Bible. However I'm not sure what the one person meant when they said the Catholics have their own Bible, not like the KJV which she referred to as 'the Christian' one. I'm pretty sure that all Catholics consider themselves 'Christians' so I'm not sure what she meant by that? As I have stated before. I have had the privilege of reading both the Catholic Bible and the KJV and I find them to say the same thing. Only differences being the Catholic version has the Book of Macabees and sometimes the last book in the Bible is called Apocalypse and in KJV it is called 'The Revelation". I want to thank everyone who took the time to respond to my query. It has helped me understand much better. ZsuzsannaQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
sheilamlm,
The word purgatory is not in the bible, but several verses in the bible indicate that purgatory exists. It is a place where our sinful nature is purged.
The Catholic Bible is the first bible promulgated. It is the complete bible with all of the books, including the apocrypha books.
The first issues of the KJV did have those books in that version of the bible, but because the Protestants complained about them for various reasons and did not want them at a time there was a paper shortage so the publisher left them out.
They are wonderful books that teach more about being a Christian and lover of God.
The Catholic Church asks that Catholics eat fish on Friday during lent as a penance for sins committed.
Christians are told in the bible to confess our sins with sincere remorse.
Catholics do that and by abstaining from meat on Fridays during lent do it as an actual act of remorse.
It’s like shedding tears as an act of being sorry.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
Jesus purges our sin - not a place.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Heb 1:3-4
when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
NKJV
There is no place in scripture which speaks of a place such as purgatory.
Actually, the Apochrypha was not accepted by any denomination until the Roman catholic denomination accepted it as canonical in the 16th century. Jerome rejected it as canonical when he translated the "Catholic Bible" as you call it, and included them only as reference material. You should also note that the OT are the ancient Hebrew scriptures which never included any of the Apochrypha because they did not consider them to be scripture.Quote:
The Catholic Bible is the first bible promulgated. It is the complete bible with all of the books, including the apocrypha books.
I suspect that the reason that you raise this is because any support for purgatory comes from the Apochryphal books, not the Bible itself.
They were included solely as reference material not as part of the canon. And some do have value as reference material (i.e. Maccabees)Quote:
The first issues of the KJV did have those books in that version of the bible, but because the Protestants complained about them for various reasons and did not want them at a time there was a paper shortage so the publisher left them out.
In many places directly contradict the Bible and indeed even Maccabees denies being an inspired work.Quote:
They are wonderful books that teach more about being a Christian and lover of God.
The Bible in many places in the Old Testament commands the Israelites to eat meat on Fridays, specifically to worship at the temple and partake of the sacrifices there. So the Church in saying abstain from meat is sort of deliberately saying, the old covenant where we slaughtered and ate sacrifices over and over again is done away with, and has this as an outward sign of our faith, like putting ashes on the forehead on Ash Wednesday. And I did not mean to imply that people who eat meat on Friday need to do a penance for it, I'm saying the act of eating fish Is the penance for some other sin like not helping an old lady across the street etc... Anyway TJ3 is following me around!! He started it!! If you tell us to both jump in a lake, there's going to be trouble in some lake somewhere!
I would really find it interesting to discuss this with you further (especially your claim that the Jews were commanded to eat meat on Friday, and the claim that this is penance or even that penance is Biblical), but I think that the OP has a point that this is going off topic. Feel free to start to a new thread in the discussion area.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
We should not and are not accountable to others, who of free will choice to do sin. We are told to forgive them within our minds and heart. If we lack that ability to forgive, then it would be our sin that is holding our hearts from forgiving and not his. So Forgive as it is written...Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
I disagree, he should not have to show you more.. you are turning forgiveness into something someone must do more for to obtain, as if he owes you more so that you can forgive.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
We are to lift our soul unto the Lord... THE WORD made flesh in Christ , we forgive others without question when asked to forgive, and repent our own sins unto the Lord alone.
Psalms 86:4 Rejoice the soul of thy servant: for unto thee, O Lord, do I lift my soul.
For the Lord is ready to forgive with much mercy for whom? (those that call upon Him)
Psalms 87:5 For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.
So I pray to the Lord in prayer, and ask that He will hear my voice in supplications
Psalms 87:6 Give ear, O LORD, unto my prayer; and attend to the voice of my supplications.
I will call upon the Lord, for His promise is true and does answer me.. (believe in Him)
Psalms 87:7 In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me.
Notice the lower case "g" in gods... because our Lord knew some would pray to other gods.. Not the God of Heaven but others that are not The Lord. There are none other to pray to according to THE WORD, because none are like our Lord, none that have done all that Christ did for us.
Psalms 87:8 Among the [gods] there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither [are there any works] like unto thy works.
We being all of nations, that our Lord created will come to Him and worship Him. Giving glory unto Him.
Psalms 87:9 All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name.
Why? BECAUSE "He" alone is our God...
Psalms 87:10 For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.
Hear " THE WORD" teaching you to pray that Christ taught you to pray. Walk in truth, and unite your choice, within heart and mind, to the fear of God's wrath when you refuse to listen.
Psalms 87:11 Teach me thy way, O LORD; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.
Thy Will be done, on earth as in heaven..
This was a church teaching that was issued to give sign, and was raise up in man's traditions of the Catholic Church. There are many such occuring traditions that have raised like leaven as Jesus spoke of on several times. Everyone wanting a sign instead of what was already seen. Today the church request these signs for the very same reasons. People want signs or evidence, rather then taking THE WORD as truth and as the flesh of Christ as written.Quote:
Originally Posted by zsuzsanna
Each Book refer will tell of this... Why question One loaf of bread, for had they not seen what Christ could do with one loaf? So is it today, why do these things like fish on Friday, pray to saints, and believe in purgatory? Have you not heard that Christ already paid the price for our sins. Have you not heard that if you call on Him, He will answer?
So the sign the church offered is a place called Purgatory, and the sign in proof of forgiveness is in what they request you are shown to eat... One must ask themself, Will Christ perceive this action as little faith in Him? Christ certain felt His disciples should have realized what one loaf of bread would feed thousands. After all they had seen Christ do these things. Why question ?(question in mind shows doubt or unawareness) Why doubt what the Lord can do... (read of this in Mark 8 and Matthew 16).
Mark 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod.
Matthew 16:1 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16: [Which] when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
Okay you guys, it's time to QUIT at least for MY question. You two have gone on to another subject completely. I think you need to start a new thread as was suggested. I would like to stick to my original questions. From what I understand, eating meat on Fridays and Purgatory are not in either the Catholic Bible or KJV Bible. This is what I surmise from all the answers I've received. Thank you all who answered. This gives me a much clearer view on the matter. Zsuzsanna
zsuzsanna,
I'd like to make it clear for you that the word Purgatory is not mentioned as such in the bible, BUT indications of it's existence are in several passages.
Understanding Purgatory
The origin of the word "hell" comes from the Indo-European "kel". Kel's meaning of "hidden place" gave us modern day words such as: cell, cellar, conceal, and occult. "Hell" came into English from the German "khel"
.
The Swedish gave us the meaning of hell as a place of punishment ("vete") from their word "helvete". So, when the Holy Bible was translated into various languages translators used words they thought were equivalent to Hebrew, Latin, and ancient Greek sources. As a result we have variations in English versions of today.
Early translators used the Hebrew "sheol" (meaning dark hidden place of the dead) to mean "hell". Few modern translators do. That is why "hell" is absent from most modern translations of the Old Covenant. "Sheol" is a place where the Hebrews believe the dead can be prayed for to encourage God to raise them to heaven. There are numerous historical references to such activity. That activity is also found in the complete Bible in
Maccabees 12:46.
"Hell" is found in the King James Version 54 times, in the New International 14 times, and in the New American Standard 13 times. In the Hebrew Bible we find the word "Sheol" (She oh l) is used to also mean "the grave" and as a place near to "bowr" the pit. The KJV always translates "sheol" as hell, regardless of the fact that the Old Covenant often refers to "sheol" as a place near to or on the way to the pit of hell. We see in Isaiah
14:15 that sheol is at the side of the pit. Also in Ezekiel 31:16 we see that sheol is on the way to the pit. Jesus used the word "Gehenna", a reference to the valley of the Son of Hinnon (Ge Hinnon). It was the local dump where garbage was burned. In every instance where Jesus spoke of punishing fire ("pur" in Greek) he used the word "Gehenna". Jesus used the Greek word "haides" four times as also a place for punishment. It's been translated into English as "the depths" and as "Hades" and as "hell". But the Greek word for hell is "Tartaroo"! Peter used it in 2 Peter 2:4. The Hebrew "Sheol" and the Greek "Hades" translates in the Latin as "Purgatorio", a place near the fires ("pur") of hell.
In Isaiah 28:10 the prophet is scolding the Priests for their bad teaching of the people causing them punishment after death. He says, "Your covenant with death shall be canceled, and your pact with "Your covenant with death shall be canceled, and your pact with " shall not stand." In other word's the people in " shall not stand." would be saved from the punishment they were experiencing.
To the Hebrews "sheol" is a dark hidden place of gloom and misery which is aptly pointed out by Jonah 2:2, "sheol" How much despair would one have in such a place? The Greek sailor who was swallowed by a whale shark some years ago was insane when found by rescuers after the huge fish had vomited him out.
The old Covenant tells us that a person can be save from sheol. There's references in the New that attest to that in regards to Hades. Acts 2:27 gives us a sample of the two,"in the belly of 'sheol' I cried out and You heard my voice." It is a tie of the two words from the two covenants for it is Peter quoting King David. Peter used the Greek "Because you will not leave my soul in Hades." when quoting David's use of the word "haides".
What mystery lies in the words of 1 Peter 3:18 & 19 where he tells us that Jesus died in body but was "sheol" and in that state "made alive by the spirit" Could Peter be speaking of the souls imprisoned in what today we refer to as purgatory? Keeping in mind that hell is a permanent abode from which no lost soul escapes, theologians have struggled to find a better interpretation but have fallen short.
Here is another to mentally chew on. When Jesus told the thief on the cross next Him, "went and preached to the spirits in prison?" John 20:17, was he speaking of heaven? If so, three days later, near his tomb, why did he tell Mary not to touch him because he had not ascended? If the paradise Jesus spoke of is heaven we have a biblical conflict.
No, there is no conflict, because Jesus was speaking of that which Peter told us. He and the thief, on the day of their death, would visit the "Today you will be with me in paradise,".
So we now see that in scripture it's not just sheol and Hades translate that into the Latin Purgatorio. The paradise Jesus spoke of to the thief is the prison he that day would visit point to Purgatorio as well.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 3, the apostle Paul is discussing the works of the faith. He says that each person's work in building the faith will be tested as if by fire. If the person's work remains, that person will be rewarded. But, "spirits in prison" (Greek word here translated as "If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss;" is "loss" which also means to experience detriment or receive damage). "zemioo" Paul continues, "But,"
In other words if our works of faith are not as good as they should be we can still be saved but we will be scorched (cleansed) in the process. We must keep in mind that Paul was a Hebrew of his time and thus often spoke and wrote with symbolism. The Holy Bible is full of it, particularly in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation.
It is in Revelation that the Apostle John says that Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:13. It doesn't make sense that Paul is saying that hell will be thrown into hell. We remember that Jesus used the word "he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through flames." when describing the lake of fire hell.
The Church which Christ built on The Rock, teaches from these and other references that the place of cleansing is called in English, "Gehenna", from the Latin "Purgatory" which translates from the Hebrew "Purgatorio" and the Greek "sheol". People there are not completely dead. It's like a driver (spirit, our driving force) walking away from his broken down or worn out car (our bodies). But, Jesus tells us that there is a great rift which people in "haides" cannot cross to heaven. Luke 16:20-31. So how are they going to get out? Can their way out be bought? No, but the treasures they have laid up in heaven will help. So will how fast and completely they are cleansed. Can prayers of the faithful help? Of course. "haides" Matthew 19:25.
Luke 12:57 “The servant who knew his master's will, but did not prepare to do what his master wanted, will be punished with sound blows; but the one who did what deserved a punishment without knowing it shall receive fewer blows”.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The Jews did not even consider Maccabees to be scripture, and even Maccabees itself denies any inspiration from God by internal evidence, is not the word of God:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
2 Maccabees 15:38 If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired. If it is poorly done and mediocre, it was the best that I could do.
NRSV
Here is Is 28:10Quote:
In Isaiah 28:10 the prophet is scolding the Priests for their bad teaching of the people causing them punishment after death. He says, "Your covenant with death shall be canceled, and your pact with "sheol" shall not stand." In other word's the people in "sheol" would be saved from the punishment they were experiencing.
Isa 28:10
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept,
Line upon line, line upon line,
Here a little, there a little."
NKJV
Exactly how do you get your interpretation out of that verse?
This is speaking of Jesus, not of us. Look at the prior passage which provides the context:Quote:
Acts 2:27 gives us a sample of the two,"Because you will not leave my soul in Hades."
Acts 2:22-25
22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25 For David says concerning Him:
NKJV
Hades had two parts, hell and Abraham's bosom, which we see described in Luke 16:19-31. This was where those saved before the cross remainded in comfort until Jesus came and released them into heaven, as described in 1 Peter 3:18-19.
Nope. It is explained above.Quote:
Here is another to mentally chew on. When Jesus told the thief on the cross next Him, "Today you will be with me in paradise," John 20:17, was he speaking of heaven? If so, three days later, near his tomb, why did he tell Mary not to touch him because he had not ascended? If the paradise Jesus spoke of is heaven we have a biblical conflict.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not Latin.Quote:
So we now see that in scripture it's not just sheol and Hades translate that into the Latin Purgatorio.
1 Cor 3:11-16Quote:
In 1 Corinthians chapter 3, the apostle Paul is discussing the works of the faith. He says that each person's work in building the faith will be tested as if by fire. If the person's work remains, that person will be rewarded. But, "If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss;" (Greek word here translated as "loss" is "zemioo" which also means to experience detriment or receive damage). "But," Paul continues, "he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through flames."
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
NKJV
This refers to works. Works done for Christ will remain, but works done for other reason will not survive. This has nothing to do with purgatory. It has to do with works, not men being destroyed or punished in a fiery place. It is also worthwhile to note that this is not referring to literal fire here because works are an act, and cannot be burnt.
It makes sense to me. Why do you think that it does not make sense? Why do you you interpret Hades and the Lake of Fire both to be hell, and why not just accept what scripture literally says?Quote:
It is in Revelation that the Apostle John says that Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:13. It doesn't make sense that Paul is saying that hell will be thrown into hell.
Tj3,
Wrong.
The Jews of Israel did not like Maccabees because it favored the Romans who kicking out the Greeks.
BUT...
The Jews outside of Israel DID use those books. That is why they were included in the original bible and they are still there in the complete bible.
Fred
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I agree that Jews did USE the books. That is quite different from stating that they were canonical. They never were considered scripture for the Jews, and I am sure that you are aware that Jerome opposed their inclusion in the canon, though most or at least many sources considered some of the books of the Maccabees to be of value as a historic record. The reasons that were not considered canonical are several, but the least amongst these is the fact that II Maccabees explicitly states that it is not an inspired work.
Here is a reference that you may find to be of interest with reference to the development of the canon:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the primary witnesses, not in order of time but certainly in stature against canonicity of the disputed books comes from a late period, the 4th century -- St. Jerome. Jerome produced the standard Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, and he felt that it was important for this purpose that he learn Hebrew. He discovered the opinion of the Jews in the matter of the canon, the falsity of the legend of the translation of the LXX, and as a result made many disparaging remarks about the disputed books, "calling them apocrypha" [this seems to have occurred about 390 AD, see "The Cambridge History of the Bible" Volume 2, 92]. Moreover, he seems to attach a certain importance to the idea that there should be 22 books in the Old Testament -- to accord with the number of Hebrew letters. This seems to have also been a motivating factor in his rejection of the deuterocanonical books. In line with the Protestant view, he also disparages the additions to Daniel and Esther, in the prefaces to those books. These remarks were to color the opinion of Christians in the West from that time forward and most explicit lists of the books given by the writers after him follow his thinking.
Yet the evidence from Jerome is not altogether against the books. He sometimes refers to them as "ecclesiastical" rather than "canonical" or "apocryphal" -- they are read in the church, but not to be cited for proof texts of doctrine. [See Jerome, "Against Rufinus"]
(Source: The Old Testament Canon)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Apochryphal books were first added to the canon of the Roman Catholic denomination in the 16th century at the council of Trent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You chose your words carefully, and rightly so. There were many books included physically along with the Bible as reference material, but there were no more part of the canon of the Bible than the reference material that we find today included with study Bibles. Like Jerome, most Christians did not consider these books part of the canon, but considered some of them of value for reference. The reasons for their rejection are many, including as I showed, the quote from Maccabees which denied inspiration through to some doctrines which directly and explicitly contradict scripture such as found in Sirach.
But again, if you wish to discuss the canon, start another thread.
Tom
Tj3,
Thanks for that information that I already have seen.
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and inspired The Church to promulgate the bible.
The Church was inspired to add the apocrypha to the bible so that is what it should be to make the bible complete as it is today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Why then do you ignore these facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
This depends upon what you mean by "the church". Scripture tells us that it is the body of Christ, not any denomination that God guides with His Holy Spirit.Quote:
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and inspired The Church to promulgate the bible.
The Apochrypha was accepted by only one denomination and that happened in the 16th century. So your statement is contradictory. If your denomination claims that the whole Bible includes the Apochrypha, then why was it not part of the canon at the start? Why did the church as a whole reject these books, and why was it rejected as part of the Old Testament canon?Quote:
The Church was inspired to add the apocrypha to the bible so that is what it should be to make the bible complete as it is today.
Second God does not contradict Himself, and he commanded that we not add or subtract from His word. How then could we accept verses like this as "inspired"?
Sirach 3:3 He who honors his father atones for sins; (Only Jesus death on the cross atones for our sins)
Sirach 6:13 Keep away from your enemies; be on your guard with your friends.
(Compare to Matt 5:44)
Sirach 7:36 In whatever you do, remember your last days, and you will never sin. (Compare to Rom 3:23)
Sirach 8:19 Open your heart to no man, and banish not your happiness.
Sirach 9:4 With a singing girl be not familiar, lest you be caught in her wiles. (Is there something wrong with singing women? Compare to Col 3:16)
Sirach 19:7-8
Tell nothing to friend or foe; if you have a fault, reveal it not, For he who hears it will hold it against you, and in time become your enemy. (Compare to James 5:16)
These are just a few examples of errors and contradictions in Sirach.
The Bible was complete at the end of the first century, all 66 books which were adopted by The Church, inspired and decided upon by God.
Tj3,
You KNOW what I mean by The Church.
It's the one that Jesus called my Church and established it with Peter as its first leader.
It Known as the Cathokic Church today also widely known as The Mother Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Neither are in the Bible... Along with no sign of an Apple. We can chose to eat of forbidden fruits today just as Eve was warned not to do. Forbidden fruit is any and all that God has shown us to be evil. And disobedience is not looked upon favorably.Quote:
Originally Posted by zsuzsanna
What is in both the Catholic and KJV Bible is Christ. Christ alone should be all anyone looks to for signs. Christ leads us to believe in what is written as "THE WORD" and that Word is Christ who brought THE WORD to you in flesh. His own Flesh and Blood.
Christ alone is enough! FOREVER and EVER...
Peter was not made the leader of any denomination. There were no denominations in the 1st century. Your denomination was formed in the 4th century. Jesus remainded leader of the true church that He formed.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Are you talking about the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox? Has the Orthodox also had schisms befall it too, does anyone know? Because most of the Protestant groups split from the Roman Catholic church I think. Anyway that was mostly about who the earthly leader was, not basic doctrine, wasn't it?
Are you asking me? No, the 4th century is when the Roman Catholic denomination came to be. The schism between the Roman Catholic denomination and the Orthodox denomination occurred in the 11th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
Has there been other divisions into more denominations within Catholicism - oh yes, many many Catholic denominations exist today, and some of the disputes between these denominations end up with rather strange results, such as this recent news article:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Unholy row threatens Holy Sepulchre
I find the dispute between these Catholic denominations even over the 19th century ladder to be hilarious.
The disagreement between the non-Catholic denominations (many of which existed for years and centuries before the protestant reformation - indeed right back to the start of the church) is primarily over doctrine. The one exception that comes to mind is the Anglican denomination (Church of England, Episcopalian) where it was a leadership issue, but the Anglican church is in essence Catholic in any case - Just English Catholic rather than Roman Catholic.Quote:
Because most of the Protestant groups split from the Roman Catholic church I think. Anyway that was mostly about who the earthly leader was, not basic doctrine, wasn't it?
OK thanks.
But you folks' basic thoughts about not going beyond scripture, while valid, could lead one to just sit around all day with a goofy look on their face, the way the Communists say religion is the opiate of the masses. Of course there are going to be cultural traditions. No one is saying walk around with your fish showing it to everone. It's more of a personal observance, like they say write this on your wrist and speak of it when you sit in your house and walk on the road. If there was no outward signs, how would our children know what we believe? Osmosis?
Really? I fail to see why you think following God's command not to go beyond what is written as out standard for doctrine would cause us to act like brainwashed communists. Perhaps you could detail out your reasoning on this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
Yes, but as scripture says, cultural traditions of men should not be our standard, rather we should be submitting our manmade traditions to the teaching of the word of God.Quote:
Of course there are going to be cultural traditions.
wildandblue,
Please do not believe anything that Tj3 says about the Catholic Church because he is so OFTEN wrong.
The bible and history prove that The Church was founded by Jesus with Peter as it's first leader long before there were any denominations which came about after the reformation many centuries later
Later when other groups started to call themselves a church The Church adopted the name Catholic (which means universal) to distinguish itself from the scatered other Johnny-come-lately churches.
That is the truth, not what Tj3 of others like to peddle.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I back up what I say. I do not just post unsubstantiate opinion as you just have.
What is your evidence/substantiation for this Fred? Do you know that one of the best known Cardinals of your denomination issued a statement which disagrees with your opinion?Quote:
The bible and history prove that The Church was founded by Jesus with Peter as it's first leader
The first denomination came about in 325AD - yours.Quote:
long before there were any denominations which came about after the reformation many centuries later
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."
(Source: Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said Fred, I am willing to substantiate my claims - and you?Quote:
That is the truth, not what Tj3 of others like to peddle.
I'm sorry but I hit a wrong key and didn't get to finish what I was typing. In Isaiah, it states that the WOLF shal dwell with the lamb, yet I have only seen one set of Christmas cards with that picture on it. Also, Luke and John never even met Jesus. They were not his desciples. What they wrote in what we have as the Bible, Catholic or not, is what they were told by the original desciples. I have read and studied the scriptures all my life, and it's been along one and I was just recently made aware of these things. Thank you for your input. Zsuzsanna
I'm sorry but I hit a wrong key and didn't get to finish what I was typing. In Isaiah, it states that the WOLF shal dwell with the lamb, yet I have only seen one set of Christmas cards with that picture on it. Also, Luke and John never even met Jesus. They were not his desciples. What they wrote in what we have as the Bible, Catholic or not, is what they were told by the original desciples. I have read and studied the scriptures all my life, and it's been a long one and I was just recently made aware of these things. Thank you for your input. Zsuzsanna
Sorry, I didn't mean to write John, of course he was an original desciple. I meant to write Mark. Actually his name was John Mark.
zsuzsanna,
From where do you get the idea that Like and John never met Jesus?
I believe they both did as the bibke states.
Also there are many disciples of Jesus who never met him face to face.
Millions are alive today I'm one of them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Didn't mean to mislead you about the descipleship. What I meant was I believe from what I have read in the new testament that Luke and John Mark were not of the original 12 apostles (desciples) that Jesus chose. I didn't mean that they were not his followers as we all are of course. It is very late now as I'm reading this, however I promise that tomorrow I will send you the scriptural information I have that makes me believe that those two never met Jesus, just as Paul did not. This has no real significance as to what is written in their books, it's just that I was surprised to know that it was all hearsay and not witnessed by either of them. Yes, I know Jesus had many desciples and not all are mentioned by name. Again, I was only referring to the original twelve. I will have more information for you tomorrow. Peace to you also friend. ZsuzsannaQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
This is more of a question than an answer, but can anyone tell me what a senior member and an ultra member are? What is the difference? Thanks. Zsuzsanna
One cannot establish a fact based upon silence. Just because we have nothing specific in scripture that says that Mark and Luke met Jesus in the flesh does not mean that they didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by zsuzsanna
Paul actually did meet Jesus (See Acts 9). Yes, it was after Jesus' resurrection, but Paul met Jesus nonetheless.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:35 AM. |