The NT is not an add on

[dingoling.]

RCs have devalued the word of God in many ways. But one likes to keep destroying the NT by claiming it is an add on.

Of course this is wrong and is meant to justify their evil institution which it doesn't and its adding of false doctrines to the scriptures.

The NT is confirming that the promised new covenant is now fulfilled. It gives the details of this fulfillment.

Peter confirms that Paul's writings are scripture. This is before the bad tree came into existence. Paul is one of the main contributors to the NT.

2 Peter 3

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The OT also makes up a lot of the NT. In fact, the NT helps us understand the OT.

The reason the extra books the RC have added are not accepted is because they have errors in them for a start, there were false teachings, these are two of many reasons to leave them out. The Jewish people did not have them as their scriptures, but said they were good to read. If you need to understand more Matt Slick wrote an article reasons why the apocrypha does not belong in the bible.

So we do not need the RCC to tell us the NT is part of the scriptures and it is not an add on. God has revealed this truth to true believers.

So why do RCs belittle the word of God by using such defences?

Your opening statement is false. The Catholic Church has not devalued the word of God at all.

 

[Bonnie]

Can you give an explicit example of Catholics claiming the New Testament to be an "add on." What does that even mean? Honestly this post is just nonsensical to me. Do you mean tear out books of the Bible and add words according to your own perverted belief like Luther did?

Here you go, post no. 208:

- Mother Mary

No, your church has no authority to teach anything since it popped up 1500 years too late. Your institution has no authority as it fails EVERY scriptural tests and its fruit prove it is the bad tree.

forums.carm.org

I responded to it.

BTW--Luther didn't "tear" out books of the Bible or add words that change the meaning and teachings of the Bible.

 

[RiJoRi]

No but it appears there is a lot RCs want to rip out of scripture. You really hate Luther don't you? What has he got to do with the op.

I think the old term was "whipping boy". Luther is the RC's (here, anyway) go-to bugbear. Any problem? Luther's fault. I'm somewhat surprised that Luther isn't blamed for sedevacantism!

--Rich

 

[Bonnie]

Your opening statement is false. The Catholic Church has not devalued the word of God at all.

It devalues it by adding doctrines that are not found in Scripture--like Mary's PV, IC, and Assumption--like venerating the dead and their statues. They also devalue it by reading their a priori beliefs into it in some places, when those beliefs are not there.

 

[RiJoRi]

Here you go, post no. 208:

- Mother Mary

No, your church has no authority to teach anything since it popped up 1500 years too late. Your institution has no authority as it fails EVERY scriptural tests and its fruit prove it is the bad tree.

forums.carm.org

I responded to it.

BTW--Luther didn't "tear" out books of the Bible or add words that change the meaning and teachings of the Bible.

Technically, Luther couldn't "tear books out of the Bible". Luther did his translation in 1534. The RCC canon wasn't officially defined until 1546 at the RCC Anti-Reformation's council at Trent. THAT'S TWELVE (12) YEARS LATER! ?

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

 

[Bonnie]

Technically, Luther couldn't "tear books out of the Bible". Luther did his translation in 1534. The RCC canon wasn't officially defined until 1546 at the RCC Anti-Reformation's council at Trent. THAT'S TWELVE (12) YEARS LATER! ?

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

I thank you for that information, Rich!

 

[Nondenom40]

It is true and if I could link I would, it comes up regularly and if you read all the RCs posts in these threads then you would have seen it, of course you claiming you haven't seen it means either you don't read their posts or you are pretending you haven't seen it.

If you look at the post # in the upper right hand corner of the post you want to copy, right click, you'll see 'copy link address'. Click that. Then simply paste it where you want in the body of your post...right click, paste. Done. Or sometimes if find where someone else has quoted them, then copy that and paste it with brackets like a normal post and its like you quoted them.

 

[Nondenom40]

Technically, Luther couldn't "tear books out of the Bible". Luther did his translation in 1534. The RCC canon wasn't officially defined until 1546 at the RCC Anti-Reformation's council at Trent. THAT'S TWELVE (12) YEARS LATER! ?

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

Right, but Luther did translate the apocrypha in his finished bible. He thought they were edifying just like Jerome did a over a thousand years earlier.

 

[Nondenom40]

We don't belittle the Word of God, only the Protestant retelling and redefinition of God's Word. We hold the New Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament. You have to know and understand the Old Testament to understand the New Testament and the Church the New Testament

The Church, as early as apostolic times,( Cf. 1 Cor 10:6,11; Heb 10:l; l Pet 3:21.) and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son. [CCC 128]​

​

Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.( Cf. Mk 12:29-31) Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. ( Cf. 1 Cor 5:6-8; 10:1-11.) As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.( 1 Cor 15:28)[CCC 129]​

JoeT

You mean like when some catholic here (cough Joe) calls the bible BOOK thats an endearing term? Because its used primarily when responding to our views of the bible. Or when you corrupt Gods word with 7 uninspired works and then claim they came from God. Thats not belittling His word?

Your use of BOOK;

- Lenten observances

Ric said: I don't understand being compulsory required to fast every Friday can be good for the soul when God himself wants you to do this in your own free will. I can only think of two things God wants us to do compulsory after Salvation, and what the RCC wants you to do is far different than...

forums.carm.org

 

[JoeT]

Oh give us all a break RCs are doing it all the time. I mean they say things like it is not a manual, it is not the originals, how do you it is God's word etc. But the op is about this one particular devaluing by saying the NT is an add and therefore that means it is not scripture.

The Catholic Church doesn't devalue the Scriptures, either New or Old. They say things like "Scripture is not a manual" because it is not a manual, nor is it a "how to book". When you read Scripture you are reading the Divine teachings of the Catholic Church. Perverting the meaning to one's own subjective will perverts the will of God. When one protests what you read one is protesting Christ and is also protesting the One who sent Christ.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

You mean like when some catholic here (cough Joe) calls the bible BOOK thats an endearing term?

The word bible comes from the Greek Ta Biblia as early as c. 223, meaning "book". It is a collection of different manuscripts each with a different author and genre to reveal God. It is not a thing to be worshiped, instead we worship God.

BIBLE: The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men. It is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament to distinguish between the Jewish tradition and the Christian. In the New Testament, the Old is generally spoken of as "the Scriptures" or "the sacred writings" (Matthew 21:42). Gradually the word has been used in the singular and "Scripture" has become a synonym for the Bible (Acts 8:32). "Testament" has the meaning of "covenant" with reference to the two covenants God established with his people in each period of human history. [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary]​

Because its used primarily when responding to our views of the bible. Or when you corrupt Gods word with 7 uninspired works and then claim they came from God. That's not belittling His word?

EDITED--PROTESTANTS DO NOT WORSHIP THE BIBLE--RULE 22

JoeT

 

[SPOKENWORD]

The word bible comes from the Greek Ta Biblia as early as c. 223, meaning "book". It is a collection of different manuscripts each with a different author and genre to reveal God. It is not a thing to be worshiped, instead we worship God.

BIBLE: The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men. It is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament to distinguish between the Jewish tradition and the Christian. In the New Testament, the Old is generally spoken of as "the Scriptures" or "the sacred writings" (Matthew 21:42). Gradually the word has been used in the singular and "Scripture" has become a synonym for the Bible (Acts 8:32). "Testament" has the meaning of "covenant" with reference to the two covenants God established with his people in each period of human history. [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary]​

Only because the Protestant view is one in which the "BOOK" is the object of worship, which is not the honor due God alone.

JoeT

Instead of the reading the Scripture you have to allow the Scripture read you.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

Here you go, post no. 208:

- Mother Mary

No, your church has no authority to teach anything since it popped up 1500 years too late. Your institution has no authority as it fails EVERY scriptural tests and its fruit prove it is the bad tree.

forums.carm.org

I responded to it.

BTW--Luther didn't "tear" out books of the Bible or add words that change the meaning and teachings of the Bible.

Yes, Luther did remove books from the Bible. He removed the 7 deuterocanonical books from his German Bible. He wanted to remove more than that, but his followers dissuaded him.

He considered Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation to be "disputed books", which he included in his translation but placed separately at the end in his New Testament published in 1522. James in particular he hated and called it an "epistle of straw", because of verses like this: "Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?", which contradict his heresy of Sola Fide.

Also, Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 to make it conform to his novel teachings. Even his followers were astounded at his temerity and when they asked him what should they say if someone asks about how he could change holy scripture, Luther replied; "Tell them Dr. Luther will have it so", thereby claiming the authority he denied the Catholic Church and the popes. Later editions took out the added word "alone."

Luther became his own pope and even claimed authority to change scripture itself.

BTW, I am not responsible for what anyone else posts on this forum. I do not read every post by every so called "Catholic" on this forum. Anyone can see by my post total that I am not that active on this forum. I do not have thousands and thousands of posts on this forum.

Thank you.

 

[Nondenom40]

The word bible comes from the Greek Ta Biblia as early as c. 223, meaning "book". It is a collection of different manuscripts each with a different author and genre to reveal God. It is not a thing to be worshiped, instead we worship God.

BIBLE: The collection of books accepted by Christian churches as the authentic, inspired record of the revelations made to mankind by God about himself and his will for men. It is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament to distinguish between the Jewish tradition and the Christian. In the New Testament, the Old is generally spoken of as "the Scriptures" or "the sacred writings" (Matthew 21:42). Gradually the word has been used in the singular and "Scripture" has become a synonym for the Bible (Acts 8:32). "Testament" has the meaning of "covenant" with reference to the two covenants God established with his people in each period of human history. [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary]​

Only because the Protestant view is one in which the "BOOK" is the object of worship, which is not the honor due God alone.

JoeT

Actually bible can be found in the bible.

Rev 5
Rev 5:1 και ειδον επι την δεξιαν του καθημενου επι του θρονου βιβλιον γεγραμμενον εσωθεν και οπισθεν κατεσφραγισμενον σφραγισιν επτα

It also refers to another book.

Rev 13
Rev 13:8 και προσκυνησουσιν αυτω παντες οι κατοικουντες επι της γης ων ου γεγραπται τα ονοματα εν τη βιβλω της ζωης του αρνιου εσφαγμενου απο καταβολης κοσμου

This is the book where our names are written in it. Is yours there Joe? How do you know?

And link us to someone that has ever said the bible is our object of worship. Catholics love to gas light. Prove your claim or retract it.

Only because the Protestant view is one in which the "BOOK" is the object of worship, which is not the honor due God alone.

 

[JoeT]

Instead of the reading the Scripture you have to allow the Scripture read you.

Yes indeed. It's why I remain today a Catholic. When reading Scripture we read in the light of the Church, viewed this way the light comes on. As you know when a bright light shines in the dark of the night dark shadows are formed, this is where I find Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and reformist.

Come out of the shadows.

JoeT

 

[Nondenom40]

Yes, Luther did remove books from the Bible. He removed the 7 deuterocanonical books from his German Bible. He wanted to remove more than that, but his followers dissuaded him.

He considered Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation to be "disputed books", which he included in his translation but placed separately at the end in his New Testament published in 1522. James in particular he hated and called it an "epistle of straw", because of verses like this: "Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?", which contradict his heresy of Sola Fide.

Also, Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 to make it conform to his novel teachings. Even his followers were astounded at his temerity and when they asked him what should they say if someone asks about how he could change holy scripture, Luther replied; "Tell them Dr. Luther will have it so", thereby claiming the authority he denied the Catholic Church and the popes. Later editions took out the added word "alone."

Luther became his own pope and even claimed authority to change scripture itself.

BTW, I am not responsible for what anyone else posts on this forum. I do not read every post by every so called "Catholic" on this forum. Anyone can see by my post total that I am not that active on this forum. I do not have thousands and thousands of posts on this forum.

Thank you.

Yes, Luther did remove books from the Bible. He removed the 7 deuterocanonical books from his German Bible.

I asked you elsewhere to back up this claim with something other than your opinion. Are you going to do that?

Also, Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 to make it conform to his novel teachings.

Uh huh. More un-informed a-historical opinion. Did he add the word 'alone', yes. Did he do it to conform to his novel teachings? No. And fwiw, i know you know the truth here but your blind rage against Luther is the only thing propelling your speech here. In his Open Letter on Translating he says this;

"In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer brings grain and no (kein) money", but the words "kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helps the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete German expression."

And if Luther wanted to sow sola fide into the n.t. why did he stop at one verse? There are tons of verses he could have done that very same thing with and he didn't. Half of Heb 11 is; by faith David, by faith Gideon...Why not by faith 'alone'? Your argument doesn't stand up to the least amount of scrutiny.

Now wheres the proof he removed the apocrypha?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Yes indeed. It's why I remain today a Catholic. When reading Scripture we read in the light of the Church, viewed this way the light comes on. As you know when a bright light shines in the dark of the night dark shadows are formed, this is where I find Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and reformist.

Come out of the shadows.

JoeT

Its the Light of Christ who is the head of the church not any institution like the RCC.

Psalm 119:105-110

​

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

 

[Nondenom40]

Its the Light of Christ who is the head of the church not any institution like the RCC.

Psalm 119:105-110

​

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Love Ps 119. Just had to get that in there

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Come out of the shadows.

JoeT

Praying in front of all those candles in your church will keep you under the shadows.

 

[A new day]

Rc's throw a hissy fit, because we won't accept the marian worship, saint worship, angel worship, and dead people worship doctrines. Neither do we kowtow to priests, and popes.

No mere human can remove the stain and guilt of sin from themselves or another person's heart. Only Jesus can do that. The promise of eternal life can only be given to us by faith in Jesus ALONE. No one else.

Only Jesus died on the cross for us. No one else. Salvation is found in no one else, but Jesus. We don't need to join the Rcc to learn this.