Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 207

Thread: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

  1. #1
    Marie Louise von Preussen's Avatar Reine
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,533
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    One of the most common things to be heard from Protestant sects - all of them, in fact - is the superficial belief in a superior, more faithful adherence to the Canons of the Old and New Testaments than that of the more traditional Catholic Churches - namely the Latin, the Coptic and the Eastern Orthodox.

    Modern scholarship, on the other hand, has shown in detail and beyond any superficiality & later insertion or commentary how much this propaganda piece, buzzed incessantly so long as to become a sort of 'popular truth' (in fact, another example of misguided popular mythology) - is as a matter of fact a lie. A lie, derived in great part thanks to the sectarian squabbles and the desire of Protestant reformers to create a new Christianity for themselves, as distant as possible from the Latin Christianity they broke from.

    Incidentally that very same fact means they have lost more than they have gained. They have lost the pillars of the Faith, they have lost the pillars of Tradition & its authority, they have lost the pillars of the Priesthood & Apostolic Succession, and they also have lost the accuracy of the same Scriptural texts they fervently hold to - more akin to a fetish than any true merit.

    The most marked example of how this is true - not only from the perspective of the Catholic Churches, but also from the perspective of historiography itself, is the dispute held between translations of the Old Testament based on the Masoretic Text (hereby referred to as 'MT') and the original, Septuagint based canons adopted by the Catholic Churches (referred commonly and further as 'LXX').

    The Protestant claim - from whatever opinions or sources dating all the way back to the Reformation - is that the MT is a far more trustworthy version of the Canon, less 'corrupted' by 'Byzantinisms', truer to the original, and in general (and that's where the main motivation for their worship of the MT comes from) less 'contaminated' with a 'Catholic Church' mentality. Bear in mind that this is not a summary of all the reasons they adopt the MT.

    This is exemplified, for instance, in this Protestant website:

    http://www.biblestudy.org/question/w...nuscripts.html

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Now as to what is the best English Bible translation to use as your primary study Bible. I would suggest one that uses the Masoretic text for its Old Testament translation base and the tried and true Textus Receptus (Received Text) manuscripts as the basis for its New Testament. Bibles based on these manuscripts include the King James Version Bible, New King James Version Bible Translation and Holy Bible in Its Original Order - A Faithful Version.


    The pro-LXX claim, however, is that the MT cannot ever serve as any basis for a reliable translation of the Old Testament. Bearing in mind here that the MT is a much later version, tainted by the bias of Rabbinical Judaism (as opposed to Ancient Judaism, from which the Church traces a direct lineage), tainted with an anti-Christian bias, tainted with invented and later meanings, and generally with a rabbinical mentality and outlook that are much later to the time of Christ and is medieval in character, and thus has nothing to do whatsoever with Christianity or indeed with the original Christian Scripture from the time of the Apostles.

    ======

    To show how the pro-LXX claim is true, let us merely point to a few facts.

    1 - The Septuagint OT Canon is broader and larger than the MT.
    2 - The Septuagint OT Canon is much earlier than the MT.
    3 - The Septuagint OT Canon was written with a Jewish audience in mind, originally, a long time before Christ.
    4 - The Septuagint OT Canon was the Scripture of Choice of most Jewish sects in Palestine until 106 AD, when it was abandoned for the sake of an earlier sectarian rabbinical compilation solely due to the political concern of trying to distance Rabbinical sects from Early Christianity - which employed the Septuagint exclusively.

    A few web sources will serve to condense this long, scholarly debate into a simple, readable and concise form.

    Observation 1: A Brilliant Summary of the Anti-MT Argument

    http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com...iginal-hebrew/

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew
    Posted on March 12, 2012

    The Masoretic Text is significantly different from the original Hebrew Scriptures.

    I used to believe the Masoretic Text was a perfect copy of the original Old Testament. I used to believe that the Masoretic Text was how God divinely preserved the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the ages.

    I was wrong.

    The oldest copies of the Masoretic Text only date back to the 10th century, nearly 1000 years after the time of Christ. And these texts differ from the originals in many specific ways. The Masoretic text is named after the Masoretes, who were scribes and Torah scholars who worked in the middle-east between the 7th and 11th centuries. The texts they received, and the edits they provided, ensured that the modern Jewish texts would manifest a notable departure from the original Hebrew Scriptures.

    Historical research reveals five significant ways in which the Masoretic Text is different from the original Old Testament:

    The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with.
    The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original.
    The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.
    The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures.
    The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine.
    We will consider each point in turn:

    Receiving Corrupted Texts

    Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe? Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text? Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?

    History says “no” . . .

    Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim

    Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.

    In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text.

    A stream cannot rise higher than its source. If the texts they started with were corrupted, then even a perfect transmission of those texts would only serve to preserve the mistakes. Even if the Masoretes demonstrated great care when copying the texts, their diligence would not bring about the correction of even one error.

    In addition to these intentional changes by Hebrew scribes, there also appear to be a number of accidental changes which they allowed to creep into the Hebrew text. For example, consider Psalm 145 . . .

    Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem. Each line of the Psalm starts with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Yet in the Masoretic Text, one of the lines is completely missing:


    Psalm 145 is an acrostic psalm where each verse begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Aleppo Codex the first verse begins with the letter aleph, the second with the beyt, the third with the gimel, and so on. Verse 13 begins with the letter מ (mem-top highlighted letter), the 13th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; the next verse begins with the letter ס (samech-bottom highlighted letter), the 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is no verse beginning with the 14th letter נ (nun).

    Yet the Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation of the Old Testament does include the missing verse. And when that verse is translated back into Hebrew, it starts with the Hebrew letter נ (nun) which was missing from the Masoretic Text.

    In the early 20th century, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in caves near Qumran. They revealed an ancient Hebrew textual tradition which differed from the tradition preserved by the Masoretes. Written in Hebrew, copies of Psalm 145 were found which include the missing verse:


    When we examine Psalm 145 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find between the verse beginning with the מ (mem-top) and the verse beginning with the ס (samech-bottom), the verse beginning with the letter נ (nun-center). This verse, missing from the Aleppo Codex, and missing from all modern Hebrew Bibles that are copied from this codex, but found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, says נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו (The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works).

    The missing verse reads, “The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works.” This verse can be found in the Orthodox Study Bible, which relies on the Septuagint. But this verse is absent from the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the Douay-Rheims, the Complete Jewish Bible, and every other translation which is based on the Masoretic Text.

    In this particular case, it is easy to demonstrate that the Masoretic Text is in error, for it is obvious that Psalm 145 was originally written as an acrostic Psalm. But what are we to make of the thousands of other locations where the Masoretic Text diverges from the Septuagint? If the Masoretic Text could completely erase an entire verse from one of the Psalms, how many other passages of Scripture have been edited? How many other verses have been erased?


    God's name is shown here in Paleo-Hebrew (top) and in modern Hebrew (bottom). Modern Hebrew letters would have been unrecognizable to Abraham, Moses, David, and most of the authors of the Old Testament.

    A Radically Different Alphabet

    If Moses were to see a copy of the Masoretic Text, he wouldn’t be able to read it.

    As discussed in this recent post, the original Old Testament scriptures were written in Paleo-Hebrew, a text closely related to the ancient Phonecian writing system.

    The Masoretic Text is written with an alphabet which was borrowed from Assyria (Persia) around the 6th-7th century B.C., and is almost 1000 years newer than the form of writing used by Moses, David, and most of the Old Testament authors.

    Adding Vowel Points

    For thousands of years, ancient Hebrew was only written with consonants, no vowels. When reading these texts, they had to supply all of the vowels from memory, based on oral tradition.

    In Hebrew, just like modern languages, vowels can make a big difference. The change of a single vowel can radically change the meaning of a word. An example in English is the difference between “SLAP” and “SLIP”. These words have very different definitions. Yet if our language was written without vowels, both of these words would be written “SLP”. Thus the vowels are very important.

    The most extensive change the Masoretes brought to the Hebrew text was the addition of vowel points. In an attempt to solidfy for all-time the “correct” readings of all the Hebrew Scriptures, the Masoretes added a series of dots to the text, identifying which vowel to use in any given location.

    Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Protestant scholar, demonstrates that the vowel-point system is actually a running commentary which was incorporated into the text itself.
    In the General Preface of his biblical commentary published in 1810, Clarke writes:

    “The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence.”

    Another early scholar who investigated this matter was Louis Cappel, who wrote during the early 17th century. An article in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica includes the following information regarding his research of the Masoretic Text:

    “As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable.”

    Many Protestants love the Masoretic Text, believing it to be a trustworthy representation of the original Hebrew text of Scripture. Yet, at the same time, most Protestants reject Orthodox Church Tradition as being untrustworthy. They believe that the Church’s oral tradition could not possibly preserve Truth over a long period of time.

    Therefore, the vowel points of the Masoretic Text put Protestants in a precarious position. If they believe that the Masoretic vowels are not trustworthy, then they call the Masoretic Text itself into question. But if they believe that the Masoretic vowels are trustworthy, then they are forced to believe that the Jews successfully preserved the vowels of Scripture for thousands of years, through oral tradition alone, until the Masoretes finally invented the vowel points hundreds of years after Christ. Either conclusion is at odds with mainstream Protestant thought.

    Either oral tradition can be trusted, or it can’t. If it can be trusted, then there is no reason to reject the Traditions of the Orthodox Church, which have been preserved for nearly 2000 years. But if traditions are always untrustworthy, then the Masoretic vowel points are also untrustworthy, and should be rejected.

    Excluding Books of Scripture from the Old Testament

    The Masoretic Text promotes a canon of the Old Testament which is significantly shorter than the canon represented by the Septuagint. Meanwhile, Orthodox Christians and Catholics have Bibles which incorporate the canon of the Septuagint. The books of Scripture found in the Septuagint, but not found in the Masoretic Text, are commonly called either the Deuterocanon or the anagignoskomena. While it is outside the scope of this article to perform an in-depth study of the canon of Scripture, a few points relevant to the Masoretic Text should be made here:

    With the exception of two books, the Deuterocanon was originally written in Hebrew.
    In three places, the Talmud explicitly refers to the book of Sirach as “Scripture”.
    Jesus celebrated Hanukkah, a feast which originates in the book of 1 Maccabees, and nowhere else in the Old Testament.
    The New Testament book of Hebrews recounts the stories of multiple Old Testament saints, including a reference to martyrs in the book of 2 Maccabees.
    The book of Wisdom includes a striking prophecy of Christ, and its fulfillment is recorded in Matthew 27.
    Numerous findings among the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest the existence of 1st century Jewish communities which accepted many of the Deuterocanonical books as authentic Scripture.
    Many thousands of 1st-century Christians were converts from Judaism. The early Church accepted the inspiration of the Deuterocanon, and frequently quoted authoritatively from books such as Wisdom, Sirach, and Tobit. This early Christian practice suggests that many Jews accepted these books, even prior to their conversion to Christianity.
    Ethiopian Jews preserved the ancient Jewish acceptance of the Septuagint, including much of its canon of Scripture. Sirach, Judith, Baruch, and Tobit are among the books included in the canon of the Ethiopian Jews.
    These reasons, among others, suggest the existence of a large 1st-century Jewish community which accepted the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture.

    Changes to Prophecy and Doctrine

    When compiling any given passage of Scripture, the Masoretes had to choose among multiple versions of the ancient Hebrew texts. In some cases the textual differences were relatively inconsequential. For example, two texts may differ over the spelling of a person’s name.

    However, in other cases they were presented with textual variants which made a considerable impact upon doctrine or prophecy. In cases like these, were the Masoretes completely objective? Or did their anti-Christian biases influence any of their editing decisions?

    In the 2nd century A.D., hundreds of years before the time of the Masoretes, Justin Martyr investigated a number of Old Testament texts in various Jewish synagogues.
    He ultimately concluded that the Jews who had rejected Christ had also rejected the Septuagint, and were now tampering with the Hebrew Scriptures themselves:

    “But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the [Septuagint] translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying” (~150 A.D., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXI)

    If Justin Martyr’s findings are correct, then it is likely that the Masoretes inherited a Hebrew textual tradition which had already been corrupted with an anti-Christian bias. And if we look at some of the most significant differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, that is precisely what we see. For example, consider the following comparisons:

    These are not random, inconsequential differences between the texts. Rather, these appear to be places where the Masoretes (or their forebears) had a varied selection of texts to consider, and their decisions were influenced by anti-Christian bias. Simply by choosing one Hebrew text over another, they were able to subvert the Incarnation, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His healing of the blind, His crucifixion, and His salvation of the Gentiles. The Jewish scribes were able to edit Jesus out of many important passages, simply by rejecting one Hebrew text, and selecting (or editing) another text instead.

    Thus, the Masoretic Text has not perfectly preserved the original Hebrew text of Scripture. The Masoretes received corrupted texts to begin with, they used an alphabet which was radically different from the original Hebrew, they added countless vowel points which did not exist in the original, they excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures, and they included a number of significant changes to prophecy and doctrine.

    It would seem that the Septuagint (LXX) translation is not only far more ancient than the Masoretic Text . . . the Septuagint is far more accurate as well. It is a more faithful representation of the original Hebrew Scriptures.

    Perhaps that is why Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from the Septuagint, and accorded it full authority as the inspired Word of God.


    This argument - short, concise and brilliantly written, is indeed the best refutation of Protestant Scholarship and claims ever since the Reformation.

    It not only destroys any claim for the 'superior accuracy' or 'incorruptibility' of the MT, it turns the Protties on their heads by accurately pointing out that the MT has been severely altered - not only for anti-Christian purposes - but has received its present form much later than the LXX, at the hands of a Tradition of Jewish Scribes who only got it all down DURING the Middle Ages.

    And here one of the most curious arguments against the Catholic Churches - namely that much of what they employ is a "Medieval invention" - instead has the opposite effect of discrediting the Protestant.

    While the Protestant was busy railing against Church Tradition, the very MT versions which they employed as the textual basis for their Bible translations -founded, of course, on mistaken philological assumption (which, unfortunately, St. Jerome had played a significant degree in inseminating the Western mentality with╣) and a sheer anti-Catholic bias - their very source for the so-called 'original texts' is a Late, Medieval version, formulated in a Medieval Jewish framework that a) had nothing do with Christianity, b) was at best hostile to Christianity and finally c) was itself based on centuries of its own rabbinical tradition of philological and textual scholarship, which impacted the MT version significantly.

    The result is that departing from a tarnished version of the Old Testament, Protestants who believed they had their hands in the most pure and accurate text did in fact invent a whole new and different Bible, without any historical grounding in early Christianity.

    Case in point, here is a detailed summary of the differences AND also a concise refutation of the 'MT was more agreeable' fable:

    http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/S.../spexecsum.htm

    ╣ This can be accurately subsumed in that a) Jerome based his Vulgate not entirely on the LXX, but also on later Hebrew compilations, on the mistaken assumption of a 'return to the original tongue'. b) This later gave origin to the misguided Medieval notion found in Dante, et all, that Hebrew was Adam's tongue, 'the most pure language', etc... which the Patristic commentaries explicitly and correctly disavowed.

    ============

    Observation 2: How Modern Scholarship Refutes the MT Protestant Fetish

    Again, a summary is presented, mostly based on the modern archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls - which are all compiled according to a tradition that is pre-Masoretic, pre-Christian, and indeed one of the most ancient samples of text that we have been able to lay our hands into.

    Here's a complete list of all the divergences where the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to the Septuagint than the MT:

    http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/S...nt/spindex.htm

    =============

    Case in point for TLR users:

    1 - The Protestant tradition is guilty of the very thing it accuses the Catholic and Orthodox Churches of: its understanding is centered exclusively on non-Christian, Medieval preconceptions.

    2 - The Protestant tradition, thus, uses an invalid version of Scripture and has no authority towards any sort of Biblical criticism or any claim to originality as long as it sticks to it.

    3 - "Christianity" is not "Christianity" - Ignoring of course a myriad of other issues through which the Protestant-Catholic/Orthodox analysis can lend further clarifications, such as the post-Scholastic, post-Renaissance bias of the whole Protestant tradition and its roots in long-refuted and disavowed Augustinian heterodoxy, we can say that the in-depth analysis of the lack of reliability of the MT and thus consequently of the whole Protestant biblical tradition buries the assertion that what is peddled in the pulpit of your average Reformed or Protestant Church consists represents "Christianity" at all, as opposed to mere Protestantism.

    It is a totally new religion, completely unrelated to Christianity with a capital C.

    4 - The recommendation, as always, is that CHURCH Traditions and CHURCH Scripture should be followed when seeking for Scriptural doctrine, and not the doctrines of Rabbinical, Pharisean Judaism or any of its late Medieval outgrowths, including Protestantism. There is far more kerygmatic, doctrinal and historico-critical evidence of the continuity between the Catholic Church and First and Second Temple Judaism than there is of continuity between Rabbinical Judaism and earlier Temple Judaism.

    5 - An interesting, in-depth and additional analysis of the superiority of the LXX over the MT in particular sections can be found here: Deciphering Zechariah 14:5.
    Last edited by Marie Louise von Preussen; April 22, 2012 at 11:24 PM.
    "Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."

    - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)

  2. #2
    basics's Avatar Auxiliarius
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    6,773
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Jean de la Valette,

    First of all I think it is necessary to substantiate the Jewish stand on our Old Testament. To do this I phoned the office of the Chief Rabbi for the UK quite a few years ago, unfortunately he wasn't available but I did have a longish conversation with the Assistant Chief Rabbi regarding the Old Covenant. ON those grounds he had no conflict with the KJV at all. But, just to make sure, being a reluctant Scot, I contacted a couple of synagogues for more confirmation by a different two Jewish Rabbis and both confirmed what the Assistant had to say. This I have over the years posted at least twice, this being the third time.

    That said, I do not understand what the Old Covenant has to do with the New Covenant in His blood? There is nothing traditional that can come out of the Old that does not authenticate Jesus Christ as Messias, to change what He brought in by the New. The Old substantiates that those who were never made righteous by God are still under the Old, but those that are righteous before God are so by their faith that Jesus Christ would die as He did, making them for whom He did die righteous before God. Therefore that certain people were separated Spiritually from the world.

    So what does being made righteous mean? It means being made perfect in the eyes of God. It means being born again, made regenerate by God. This David confirms in the Psalms where he says, " blessed is the man whose sins are covered," not by man but by God. By its tradition the Roman Catholic church displays a complete disregard for this by adopting a policy of conversion by water baptism, as do the Orthodox and many of the Protestant churches. It appears that the Baptist and Jesus Christ are not to be taken at their word. But let's look further into these traditions that overturn every word that comes from the mouth of God.

    Rome teaches that life is sacred. Jesus teaches that we are sinners by conception. Rome sprinkles water on what it regards as sacred to make it what? More sacred? Jesus Christ teaches by the Apostles that all fall short of the glory of God and so all need a Saviour if they are to return to God. Rome teaches that it is the word of God on earth. Jesus teaches that a man must be born again to see heaven and God whilst Rome and others think water is enough. Jesus by the Apostles teaches that all converts become priests under a better priesthood that is not of this earth, yet Rome establishes its own priesthood that is higher than any man.

    Jesus teaches by the Apostles that the heart must be renewed to change the nature of man from the very depths of its innermost soul. For Rome it assumes that change by sprinkling with water, confession and purgatory. Now the word purgatory comes from the same root as " to purge " meaning that those in that place needing purging were never born again in the first place. It doesn't accept that the work of Christ on the cross was enough to purge the sin from all that He died for, never needed to be enacted ever again. So we see that the very roots of one is as opposite from the other as one can get, and it says it speaks for God.

    If ever there was a church system that has idols, outside of the Orthodox, it is Rome. It talks of traditions within the Old Covenant but I fail to see where idols of any sort were acceptable to God that they could be carried on into the New Testament in His blood. The Law forbids idols and Jesus Christ and all that are His fulfill the Law without ever going back under it. The Temple and all its accoutrements have been removed for one very good reason but Rome and its cousins fail to see this. All converts by rebirth by aggregate are the Temple of the living God. It is an organic entity quite separate from this world and authenticated by God in the book to the Hebrews. That is the church. Were it not, I would gladly fling myself under the authority of Rome's priesthood never knowing whether that man was a paedophile or a homosexual.

    The thing that Rome and the Orthodox, as well as many Protestant organisations, never quite capture is that being born again is a personal matter between God and the recipient that He brings to that position. Jesus Christ is the go-between, the intercessor, the only One between God and that person. By revelation is that person brought before God in answer to the sin that is deep within him or her and when converted that person becomes a priest, a brother to Christ and a son of the Most High God. He is their Father, not any priest who defies Jesus' words that a disciple is not to call any man father but Him that is in heaven. The list is endless as one can probably see because Scripture and Rome are two quite incompatible things. I mean a Pope had the audacity to bring evolution and the church as being OK. What desperate measures to keep on board the thinking catholic. The problem he or she has is that being sprinkled by water God therefore has no affinity to them and so it is better not to have a God at all.

    My friend, I understand that you are sincere in your beliefs. That they are based solely on tradition of the system is no fault of yours. The thing is that you are sincerely wrong in my estimation, but if you can tell me how it was you were born again perhaps I would have to re-establish my thinking, why? Because if there is no change of life, there never was regeneration. If you are still in need of the confessional then heaven itself cannot help you never mind anything I put onto print.

  3. #3
    Sphere's Avatar Centurio Primus Pilus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,077
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    You are both wrong.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #4
    B. W.'s Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    711
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Catholics =iconography
    Protestants=Sole Fide

    It's pretty simple. Protestants came about because of all the corruption in the Catholic Church during the medival ages. There have always been religious arguments about christianity going back to the days after Christ was crucified, but the driving factor, the thing that was so apalling to so many people at the time was the corruption.

  5. #5
    Col. Tartleton's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Transleithania
    Posts
    12,165
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Protesting is lame. Screw that noise. The only reason to protest is to hit on stupid girls to end a drought.



    If the Catholic Church is corrupt try to get a cut. That's what I always say. Just look at me, I did okay. Sure I'm morally bankrupt, but I can levitate over water. I make Jesus look like a street magician...

    Last edited by Col. Tartleton; April 23, 2012 at 11:00 PM.
    Lurking at your bedside, watching you sleep.
    #Vampire Things

  6. #6
    Marie Louise von Preussen's Avatar Reine
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,533
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    @basics,

    Other than the fact that your argument is not related to my criticism of Scripture, your criticism of the Catholic Churches as being a sort of dead formalism is unwarranted.

    Being "born again" (although in a different sense from the Evangelical one), being in full communion with Church life, rites and kerygma, and in full praxis - is the heart of Christianity itself, and the only way it can raise above being an empty abstraction of the mind.

    Charismatic and pietistic sects have risen due to the all too real and all too problematic dry formalism of classic Catholic and Protestant life. They have tried to recapture the spirit of original Christianity by adding a volitive and emotional face that is simply absent from the dry Scholasticism and the rigid pharisaism of these Churches, but they have failed precisely because their approach is as reductive as the rivals they seek to oppose: distancing themselves from one pole of formalized ritualism and rationalism, they wound up sinking into the other extreme of lowly and anarchic sentimentalism.

    So, no, there is no true integration in them - despite your efforts to argue otherwise, and which are indeed admirable in a rather special sense.

    =====

    As for the rest, lol is the answer. When I actively begin to seek the opinions and the ramblings of the profane, ignorant manyfolk such as the ones expressed here, and value them as opposed to men of true intellectual stature - you can shoot me in the head. The sheer and blind irreverence of the atheist is the only thing that is larger in scope than his ignorance. And the blind cannot lead the blind.
    Last edited by Marie Louise von Preussen; April 24, 2012 at 02:11 AM.

  7. #7
    SLN445's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Aus
    Posts
    4,521
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean de la Valette View Post

    As for the rest, lol is the answer. When I actively begin to seek the opinions and the ramblings of the profane, ignorant manyfolk such as the ones expressed here, and value them as opposed to men of true intellectual stature - you can shoot me in the head. The sheer and blind irreverence of the atheist is the only thing that is larger in scope than his ignorance. And the blind cannot lead the blind.

    Im sorry if you deny Fred, but dont worry he still loves you.
    The sweet smell of burning engine oil in the morning.

  8. #8
    basics's Avatar Auxiliarius
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    6,773
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    " As for the rest, lol is the answer."

    Jean de la Valette,

    Let me put it this way, Protestants never made what we call the Bible. It came by way of the Old Covenant Scriptures being amalgamated with New Testament writings under the leading of the Holy Ghost wherein all in it had continuity and flow within its context concerning Jesus Christ the Messias, this being done when Protestants never existed.

    Now the question then is, if we stop and gather in what these Scriptures say at that point of time, before traditions of men became a factor, what we find is that these Scriptures have not altered in the core message. That message was quite simple. That no man can know God except by Jesus Christ. And, no man may know Him except the Father draws him to Jesus. That is the start of anyone coming to belief. The Baptist confirming that to the people of Israel.

    Once the drawing is initiated the next stage comes into being, that is the revelation of Jesus Christ's actions on the cross which bring to the recipient deep shame, conviction as it is called rightly, that this Man was on that cross actually paying for the sins of him or her to whom the revelation was given. Paul calls this circumcision of the heart and it is because it reveals to the recipient how deep his or her sin is and how hopeless he or she is to rid themselves of it.

    When God sees how broken that person is, how contrite their heart is at that moment as David wrote, that is when regeneration takes place. Then they are given faith and the indwelling of the Comforter as an inward sign that regeneration has taken place. The old nature has passed away and the new nature replaces it. So, as it is written, they have been saved by faith of Jesus Christ, His faith being imputed to them as they come to believe. As Paul puts it, from faith to faith.

    If we go all the way back to Abel, that is exactly what must have happened to him when God declared him to be righteous, why? Because no-one can come to the Father but by Jesus Christ. Therefore being accounted righteous, Abel had to have had the same revelation and conversion to make him righteous even on account. There was no denominations then, neither was there traditions, but there certainly was God and His prophecy about Messias for which Abel by faith was accounted righteous before God.

    This was the Gospel message in action right from the very beginning and that which was carried by many others throughout the Old Testament. It was what Jesus and the Disciples told of and what their successors still tell of so that men and women might be called sons and daughters of God. That is what Paul, Peter and the others stressed when they appealed to the believers that they adhere to obedience to the word, the word that was spoken of from the very beginning, why? Because by it and it alone were they saved.

    Now where I brought up Rome, that being because you tried to assert that it is the only church, I made what Rome does in comparison to what the Gospel tells, to show that that obedience to the word is not and hasn't been followed by not only that organisation but others too including many Protestant ones. The writers of the New Testament, almost to a man warned of this because the same Gospel was being messed around even in their days and could only get worse which it did.

    So, as the Bible is now in place as a finished work with claims that it is the power of God unto salvation, it follows that whatever is written therein is as Jesus Christ said, every word that cometh out of the mouth of God, then it is enough for salvation without tradition or any other factors. To me that is confirmed by the destruction of the Temple and the loss of any of its adornments. They are no longer needed because faith which always was, is and will be, is the foundation of belief, and has replaced these things by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who now reigns in the Glory.

    He never left a hierarchy like Popes or Cardinals nor did He leave instruction for paid men to run any church. What He did leave and according to the gifts bestowed at the will of the Holy Ghost was three main categories, them being firstly, Prophets, of which women were seen to participate. Secondly, Evangelists of which Peter made more important than being any bishop and thirdly, Teachers, men solid in the Scriptures of which no female was allowed to do in church but could do amongst other women.

    Notice that these three took precident over any other gifts because they were exclusively God centred offices around the preaching of the word of God. How many so-called churches have Prophets, especially female ones? How many have Evangelists and how many have Teachers who are obedient to the word of God as it is written? If any, not many, but they do have bishops by the pocketful, men who are now classed as princes of whatever organisation they belong to yet never instigated by God or His word. If I am being brutal here, it is for but one purpose and that is to return to obedience to the faith.

  9. #9
    TROLLSLAYER
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    11,892
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    So here we have one made-up belief claiming superiority over another made-up belief because it was supposedly made-up first.

  10. #10
    Marie Louise von Preussen's Avatar Reine
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,533
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    @basics,

    Hmm right, but meanwhile the Hexapla was collected by Origen based on a much earlier translation from the Hebrew dating from Ptolemaic Egypt, 3rd Century BC. This version itself predates rabbinical Judaism, and was the earliest time when the "Bible" came to fruition in its present collected form.

    Your arguments don't match, because as History and Tradition equally show, the Bible in its present form (including all the deuterocanonical books) comes from the Church, and not the Church from the Bible. The Church was present way long before there was a Bible, and the Church decided what was to be in the Bible. Jesus, when he bestowed the honour of priesthood upon the Apostles, said it should be a Church, one and undivided, over which they should preside. He didn't say it should be all "one 'Bible'", "for all ye to interpret freely as you wish".

    The dichotomy between the hand of the Church and Scripture in the Protestant tradition comes from the fact that Luther, with his poor knowledge of the Fathers, thought Tertullian was the first Father of the Church in the West and thus thought Patristics originated much later than the New Testament. That position in truth belongs to Clement, a bishop (surprise to you all antinomians) of Rome of the 1st century AD.

    =======
    =======

    So it's not just the Church, it is good ole historiography bringing ancient Protestant claims to rest and settling this schism, if not de facto, at least in the historical judgment.

    As for the rest of the inquirers, the moment I see a single coherent syllogism and a clear exposition of ideas as opposed to inane rambling motivated by total bias and unawareness of the subject at hand, I'll feel your queries are dignified enough to warrant a reply.
    Last edited by Marie Louise von Preussen; April 24, 2012 at 05:35 PM.

  11. #11
    Invictus XII's Avatar SOL INVICTVS
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,834
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Rome sprinkles water on what it regards as sacred to make it what? More sacred?
    Incorrect. Rome believes our lives are sacred, given to us by God, but we are born free sinners. Upon baptism, Latin Christians become followers of Christ, we are not born followers of Christ.

    Rome teaches that it is the word of God on earth
    Incorrect. Rome teaches that the Bible is the word of God on earth

    Jesus teaches that a man must be born again to see heaven and God whilst Rome and others think water is enough
    Incorrect. Rome teaches that it is almost impossible to enter heaven, as we are all sinners - We must commit to a baptismal promise made alongside the Baptismal waters to see "heaven and God" which are basic summaries of what the Bible requires us to do.

    Jesus by the Apostles teaches that all converts become priests under a better priesthood that is not of this earth, yet Rome establishes its own priesthood that is higher than any man.
    Incorrect assumption again. The church stands for total equality before God, some are more knowledgeable of God and his teachings than other, but all are equal. Any assumption like this is plain anti-Catholic bias. Any hierarchy is an invention of man, but let this not distract from the message being delivered. As in any faith, there is a hierarchy, yet these are man made attributes, decorations, things not related to the faith, and should not effect their teachings.
    Formally known as 'Marshal Beale' - The Creator the Napoleon TW mods - 'Napoleon Order of War' and 'Revolution Order of War'

  12. #12
    basics's Avatar Auxiliarius
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    6,773
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    " Your arguments don't match, because as History and Tradition equally show, the Bible in its present form (including all the deuterocanonical books) comes from the Church, and not the Church from the Bible. The Church was present way long before there was a Bible, and the Church decided what was to be in the Bible."

    Jean de la Valette,

    I can understand why you would want to believe that but it simply is quite wrong. The Bible Jesus referred to as did the disciples was the Old Testament which underline the Gospel. In the book to the Hebrews there is a list of saints who were accounted righteous before God and the point is regarding them that none, not one, could be that unless their sin was erazed by the same method on which any sin is erazed and that is only by the blood of Jesus Christ. God put that to their account, meaning until the blood was actually shed. The righteousness they had was because they believed that it would be done in time but done nonetheless.

    When the Baptist was baptising, in effect he was preparing the people for Jesus because His advent meant that accounts were soon to be settled for all the saints that had travelled before. We have two examples in Anna the prophetess and old Simeon both righteous before God, the one a prophet of God and the other promised that he would see the Lord's anointed before he died. To be righteous means to be spotless, sin free in the eyes of God, so their position was exactly the same as all them that went before.

    The New Testament was what was gathered into the Old as one Book. These were writings, letters, deemed to be of God and but for the leading of the Holy Ghost only those that adhered to the Gospel as commanded by Jesus to the disciples made it into the finished work. For sure the Vatican has tens of thousands of other writings but these, were they found suitably Godward, would have been inserted in Scripture. Why they weren't was because the books selected were deemed to be of God without error whereas the others were not. This shows that the church had nothing to do with making the Bible, rather just to gather what already was written from Pentecost on was added to the Old Covenant Scriptures.

    These writings preceded the Roman Catholic system by some hundreds of years so how could it make the Bible? Churches from Pentecost were circulating them almost from the moments they were written and they were written as the disciples began to realise how reliable and close all that transpired was already in the Old writings thus confirming the divinity of Jesus Christ. It's glaringly odd that you claim the church was long before the Bible since in Jesus' day the Old Testament was the Bible. Consider that Moses was commanded to put on parchment all that transpired even before his time shows that God was already building His church but the very important thing to understand about that is that God preceded any action by man.

    Of course Rome wants us all to see things different if only because it wants to hold the whip hand. The thing is that Scripture won't let it and doesn't let it. When Jesus said that He will build His church, He wasn't fooling because that process was already begun the day Able was accounted righteous before God. Now the important thing to notice is that Abel didn't announce his own righteousness. It was God. None of the writers in all the Bible did so off their own bat. No, they were inspired by the Holy Ghost who indwelt them that they just had to do it and so they did. From Genesis on to Revelation each book was written by men driven inescapably to do so, to tell of the wonders of God. Their hearts were fit to bursting with what God had done for them and they couldn't wait to tell of it.

    My friend, if indeed what you are claiming is true, why is it that this site is largely composed of Roman Catholics who are now atheist? Why has tradition and history not kept them in the fold? Does once a Roman Catholic always a Roman Catholic not apply anymore? Is it a thing of the past or could it really be that the system is quite wrong whilst still maintaining it is the original? I have no doubts that it is an idolatrous organisation by the measure of Scripture but I am not daft enough that you will accept that. I come from another system that too has lost the plot so I know a little of what it is to have traditions that are worthless. Now however is quite another thing because having experienced rebirth, I am given a daily dose of Scriptural understanding, something I never anticipated in my wildest dreams. In fact the dreams I have had since then have all come true, oh not all to my will but nonetheless to my advantage.

    Sorry to go on and on but when one speaks of God it is appropriate that nothing is left to the imagination, since the souls of men and women are at stake.

  13. #13
    Pinarius's Avatar Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Munich, Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    1,586
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Catholics =iconography
    Protestants=Sole Fide
    The iconoclasm of the protestants is very un-European.

  14. #14
    Manco's Avatar The Deathless King
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Curtrycke
    Posts
    14,932
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Hey look, it's that guy acting like that guy again
    Some day I'll actually write all the reviews I keep promising...

  15. #15
    Phier's Avatar Living in Gomorrah
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    21,546
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Quote Originally Posted by Astaroth View Post
    So here we have one made-up belief claiming superiority over another made-up belief because it was supposedly made-up first.
    Its kinda like Star Trek vrs Star Wars fans.
    Dumbpiphany: The realization that the reason the entire conversation has been difficult to follow is that you're talking to an idiot.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sumskilz again.
    My shameful truth.

  16. #16
    Portuguese Rebel's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts
    5,360
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Gonna remove myself before these papists and heretics start killing each other again over who is the very best christian.


    "Yes, I rather like this God fellow. He's very theatrical, you know,
    a pestilence here, a plague there... He's so deliciously evil."
    Stewie, Family Guy

  17. #17
    Carpathian Wolf's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,122
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Basics you've been handed irrefutable arguments against the bible you use and your response is to dance around it and sprinkle little catch phrases in order to distract.

    @ the atheists,

    Thank God you guys are here, us rligus types dunno where the sun goes at night. Can you guys make sure it comes back every morning? kthx
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  18. #18
    basics's Avatar Auxiliarius
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    6,773
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Valerio,

    " Incorrect. Rome believes our lives are sacred, given to us by God, but we are born free sinners. Upon baptism, Latin Christians become followers of Christ, we are not born followers of Christ."

    That is exactly my argument and Jesus' too. You are born, even conceived, in sin, so how can you be sacred? But you have to be born again to be a follower of Christ so what baptism made you one?

    " Incorrect. Rome teaches that the Bible is the word of God on earth"

    That being the case why doesn't it follow that word in obedience?

    " Incorrect. Rome teaches that it is almost impossible to enter heaven, as we are all sinners - We must commit to a baptismal promise made alongside the Baptismal waters to see "heaven and God" which are basic summaries of what the Bible requires us to do."

    What a load of rubbish. Read the book to the Hebrews and learn something. Explain why John says that God doesn't listen to the prayers of sinners and then explain to whom you are committing these things to if what John says is the word of God?

    " Incorrect assumption again. The church stands for total equality before God, some are more knowledgeable of God and his teachings than other, but all are equal. Any assumption like this is plain anti-Catholic bias. Any hierarchy is an invention of man, but let this not distract from the message being delivered. As in any faith, there is a hierarchy, yet these are man made attributes, decorations, things not related to the faith, and should not effect their teachings."

    If that is the case why is it that a bishop can only be dismissed by other bishops or higher up the chain of command? Of course it is anti-Catholic of the Roman type. The message that you think you know is in Jesus' words, " No man can come to the Father except by Me and no man can come to Me except the Father draws him." and " A man must be born again to enter heaven." What is it your system and you don't understand about that since these are the words of God, our Saviour?

    Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. That explains your hierarchy. But just to find out how equal you are when was the last time you took confession from a priest?

    Carpathian Wolf,

    Once more you show your ignorance of Scripture if you think that what these guys are saying is compatible to the word of God.
    Last edited by DimeBagHo; April 25, 2012 at 06:40 PM. Reason: Off-topic (personal)

  19. #19
    Carpathian Wolf's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,122
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Basics you never address the point. You just focus on your ad homs.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

  20. #20
    Matthias's Avatar Banzai jūden-ki
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,731
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Protestantism and the Bible - A Misguided Connection

    Quote Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf View Post
    @ the atheists,

    Thank God you guys are here, us rligus types dunno where the sun goes at night. Can you guys make sure it comes back every morning? kthx
    You don't know? Lemme get out my handy dandy 2,000 year old mythology book to tell you. Or do you want the 200 year old one? Or the 2? Variety is the spice of life they say.

    Hell, I don't even have to prove it to you. Just take it on faith, or face eternal damnation!!!!!

    I love mainstream Protestants. They applied critical thinking and pointed out in the first place and started the ball rolling on that front. As religious people go, they seem more reasonable and more liable to critically think, rather than making grand pronouncements of opinion as fact. Their evangelical brethren, sadly, do not do so as much.

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •