Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by colbe


It isn't "nonsense, the KJV comes from the Textus Receptus (Antioch, Syria) Greek and the Catholic MSS comes from the Textus Vaticanus (Alexandria, Egypt).

What aspect of "I'm not arguing sola scriptura with you" can't you understand?

reply to post by colbe

Pope Damasus decided which writings or as you say "manuscripts" were divinely inspired.

That just means the older versions of the scripture before printing, where they had to hand copy everything.
NOTurTypical has this little spiel that he gives out when it seems convenient, where he claims you are using a bad version of the Bible, something he probably picked up from a YouTube video and is never able to back up with any actual scholarship.

Gnosticism is an early heresy, that's not what we're talking about.

Right, that is part of his "bad Bible" theory, ignoring the fact that the original gnostic writings were completely done away with, not the other way around like what his theory might make you think.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

It isn't "nonsense, the KJV comes from the Textus Receptus (Antioch, Syria) Greek and the Catholic MSS comes from the Textus Vaticanus (Alexandria, Egypt).

What aspect of "I'm not arguing sola scriptura with you" can't you understand?

edit on 16-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Hi,

You do not want to discuss, you mean you can't defend Sola Scriptura, you follow Martin Luther, it's his. You are smarter than him NTT. Sometimes when people discover something new and wonderful, they change. Sola Scriptura can't be true, you accept some of Christ's teachings not written in the Bible. Luther came up with
Sola Scriptura because he thought people wouldn't notice, he rejected the Church but made her book, the Bible
his new authority. Lamo....disconnect.

The Latin Vulgate IS the first Bible, you don't want to acknowledge, one day "soon" you may NTT. I know when
for sure, when Jesus shows you personally during the prophesied "awakening." I wish before brother.

Yeah, I just said revolting Martin Luther used the excuse to throw out 7 books of the Canon saying he followed the Palestinian Jews. They were the group who threw out the words Jesus and the Apostles quoted from most in the OT, the Septuagint. It was the Alexandrian Jews who kept the Septuagint.

Luther hated those 7 books, they contradicted his heresies. Luther even tried to get the book of James removed.

James 2:24 bothered him a lot, this verse cancels Sola Fide.



James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and NOT by faith only? www.drbo.org...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

Pope Damasus decided which writings or as you say "manuscripts" were divinely inspired.

That just means the older versions of the scripture before printing, where they had to hand copy everything.
NOTurTypical has this little spiel that he gives out when it seems convenient, where he claims you are using a bad version of the Bible, something he probably picked up from a YouTube video and is never able to back up with any actual scholarship.

Gnosticism is an early heresy, that's not what we're talking about.

Right, that is part of his "bad Bible" theory, ignoring the fact that the original gnostic writings were completely done away with, not the other way around like what his theory might make you think.

edit on 16-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Most Protestant ministers acknowledge the Bible is a Catholic book.

There had to be a FIRST Bible, we can know, it was the Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome translated the original
writings, the writings Pope Damasus decided for the Canon in 382 A.D. Where was Protestantism, oh yes, it
didn't come into being until the revolt in 1517, October 31, to be exact.

To this day, the Canon has not changed.

God inspired His chosen authority, Pope Damasus and inspired Jerome when he translated the Canon.
He humbly followed the Pope's decision.

Latin was decided for the first Bible because at the time, it was the common language.

Everything was hand written until the invention of the printing press centuries later.


God bless you Jim,


colbe

reply to post by colbe

There had to be a FIRST Bible . . .

The first official Catholic Bible would probably be those commissioned by Emperor Constantine, to be made by Eusebius.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

There had to be a FIRST Bible . . .

The first official Catholic Bible would probably be those commissioned by Emperor Constantine, to be made by Eusebius.

"Constantine"...

Oh that overused name again because you mention anyone else before 1517, they're all Catholics. Protestants
think they cover 15 centuries of history shouting one name. Oh my. Constantine's beloved mother found the real Cross.

The Latin Vulgate is the first Bible translated by St. Jerome from the original writings. Pope Damasus decided
the Canon in and requested Jerome to do the translation.

Who is Eusebius? I've never heard the name. Here, from biased Wikipedia:


Saint Jerome (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος; c. 347 – 30 September 420) was a Latin Christian priest, confessor, theologian and historian, who also became a Doctor of the Church. He was the son of Eusebius, of the city of Stridon, on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia. He is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), and his commentaries on the Gospel of the Hebrews. His list of writings is extensive.[1]

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure that Reckart has already written her out of the Bible in the version that he's putting together (and, lest TJ try and say that's not true, Reckart wrote on 2 August 2013 "After careful study of all the manuscripts before the KJV that existed before 1000AD, make corrections." Revise the Bible, based on errors you imagine to be in there. Absolute lunacy.)

What is lunacy is to be KJV only when Jesus and many others did/do not use the KJV.

They didn't speak english back then, we do. The entire reason for it being translated into over 1500 different languages was to spread the Gospel to the world as was commanded. A lot easier to translate the scripture and print copies, than it is to teach the entire world ancient Aramaic, we'd need a lot more than 2000 years to spread the message if we had to teach everyone past to present ancient Aramaic which had nearly become an extinct language. So we use Lexicons and Concordances if we want to back check what we read.

reply to post by colbe

The English translation of the first Bible is the Douay-Rheims Bible.

You mean like this one right here based on the Latin Vulgate?

Genesis 3:15 (Douay-Rheims 1899)

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Ever stop and wonder why you pray to and hail Mary and call her "co-redemptrix"? You should seriously do some research on Semiramis, Nimrod, Tammuz. Funny how it is that Mary can be the Spouse of God and his mother too.

Those "madonnas" of "Mary" and "baby Jesus" aren't Mary and Jesus, it's Cupid and Venus, a.k.a. Semiramis and Tammuz.

Mystery Babylon.

According to Strong's H1931 and H7779 woman's seed wasn't a she and her heel wasn't bruised. So if you wanted something closer to the Lord's words I wouldn't go looking in the Latin Vulgate or the D.R.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure that Reckart has already written her out of the Bible in the version that he's putting together (and, lest TJ try and say that's not true, Reckart wrote on 2 August 2013 "After careful study of all the manuscripts before the KJV that existed before 1000AD, make corrections." Revise the Bible, based on errors you imagine to be in there. Absolute lunacy.)

What is lunacy is to be KJV only when Jesus and many others did/do not use the KJV.

They didn't speak english back then, we do. The entire reason for it being translated into over 1500 different languages was to spread the Gospel to the world as was commanded. A lot easier to translate the scripture and print copies, than it is to teach the entire world ancient Aramaic, we'd need a lot more than 2000 years to spread the message if we had to teach everyone past to present ancient Aramaic which had nearly become an extinct language. So we use Lexicons and Concordances if we want to back check what we read.

I am not against the Bible being translated into English. I am against the idea that the KJV is perfect.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
We do not change things just because it doesn't agree with us. For example, The name "Jehovah" did not exist in the Septuagint, it therefore has been added to versions such as the KJV. We are simply restoring the scriptures by taking it back out.

The Septuagint has the Tetragrammaton in it, as we've shown you in the past, and I'm betting dollars to donuts that you're not putting that in there, so, no, you aren't "restoring" anything -- you're rewriting the Bible to suit your needs.

And please stop saying that you are translating it. One does not translate from English to English.

I was not speaking of the tetragrammaton. I was speaking of "jehovah" which is a guess name invented in 1270 AD.

When it comes to the tetragrammaton... Why you want to defend witchcraft surprises me.

It is also important to point out that the tetragrammaton was not in all copies of the Septuagint. Plus Jesus and the apostles who used the Septuagint did not use the tetragrammaton witchcraft name.

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

There had to be a FIRST Bible . . .

The first official Catholic Bible would probably be those commissioned by Emperor Constantine, to be made by Eusebius.

"Constantine"...

Oh that overused name again because you mention anyone else before 1517, they're all Catholics.

Technically, we're all still "catholic" (well, TJ isn't, and Dewey is teetering on falling out of the Christian tree) because catholic just means the universal church (little "c".) What you meant to say was that before the Reformation, they're all Roman Catholics, and that's not right, either -- the churches of the East left in 1054.

Constantine's beloved mother found the real Cross.

Highly unlikely. The Romans reused crosses, and Jesus' was back in circulation before it was notable (that not being the case until the resurrection) and it is improbable that anyone who thought it notable had the authority to confiscate Roman property, even if it could still have been tracked down.

What is important about the cross is the sacrifice that was made there, not the wood and not the nails.

Who is Eusebius? I've never heard the name.

Eusebius was a Christian apologist and historian in the time of Constantine. Most of what we know about the early church comes from his writings. He was a bit of a hothead, particularly as regards Arianism, which is why, even though he was a bishop and key leader of the church, he's not a saint.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by colbe

 

You should seriously do some research on Semiramis, Nimrod, Tammuz. Funny how it is that Mary can be the Spouse of God and his mother too.

They were the first trinity god. Together they were known as YHWH.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by colbe

 

You should seriously do some research on Semiramis, Nimrod, Tammuz. Funny how it is that Mary can be the Spouse of God and his mother too.

They were the first trinity god. Together they were known as YHWH.

Except YHWH/IEUE = Yod (hand, hand and arm) He (behold, see), Waw (nail, tent peg), He (behold, see).

If you read his name backwards, it would be "behold nail, behold hand (hand and arm)".

Reference to Jesus.

reply to post by adjensen

Highly unlikely. The Romans reused crosses, and Jesus' was back in circulation before it was notable (that not being the case until the resurrection) and it is improbable that anyone who thought it notable had the authority to confiscate Roman property, even if it could still have been tracked down.

In Christ's case his cross likely would have been broken down and made into a funeral bier to carry his body to Joseph's tomb. With the High Sabbath approaching he had to be in the ground before the Sabbath began or it would have been defiled. That's why the thieves' legs were broken, who were still alive after he died. If the shadow of a dead man had fallen on any jew they would have been unable to enter the temple because they would have been ritually impure. That's why Mary was watching his execution from a distance. The Roman's would have allowed them to use his cross as a bier simply on principle that they didn't want the jews to riot over having a defiled holiday. There was only 1 garrison in Jerusalem at the time and they were painfully aware of it.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by colbe

 

You should seriously do some research on Semiramis, Nimrod, Tammuz. Funny how it is that Mary can be the Spouse of God and his mother too.

They were the first trinity god. Together they were known as YHWH.

Except YHWH/IEUE = Yod (hand, hand and arm) He (behold, see), Waw (nail, tent peg), He (behold, see).

If you read his name backwards, it would be "behold nail, behold hand (hand and arm)".

Reference to Jesus.

Jesus and His apostles never used the name YHWH and even preached/taught against the use of witchcraft.

This is only a testimony. Not going to engage in a debate over the Catholic Church.

The "church" of Christ is the people, not the organizations, not the buildings, not the dogma. The biggest splits in the physical church on this Earth are usually over dogma. Most of the 8 on the list are dogma of the church, and are open to interpretation in many ways, hence the protestant movement. To me, each has claimed a certain amount of truth, but neither has a full claim on it all. We're all sinners, and we make mistakes, including various tenants of our religions.

There will be Catholics in Heaven. There will be Protestants. There will be many that we might not actually believe ever had a chance of going to Heaven, but the Father took them there anyway, despite our earthly protests.

So love one another, as the Father loves you. Forgive each other, as the Father forgives you. Seek the Father above all else, and thank Jesus every moment you have for the great sacrifice He made for all of us. Do what your religion requires of you, and give to your church as your church is giving back to you. Give others the same respect to do that as you would want yourself. Do your best to not lay stumbling blocks before each other, but uplift each other with respect and love.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by colbe

 

The English translation of the first Bible is the Douay-Rheims Bible.

You mean like this one right here based on the Latin Vulgate?

Genesis 3:15 (Douay-Rheims 1899)

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Ever stop and wonder why you pray to and hail Mary and call her "co-redemptrix"? You should seriously do some research on Semiramis, Nimrod, Tammuz. Funny how it is that Mary can be the Spouse of God and his mother too.

Those "madonnas" of "Mary" and "baby Jesus" aren't Mary and Jesus, it's Cupid and Venus, a.k.a. Semiramis and Tammuz.

Mystery Babylon.

According to Strong's H1931 and H7779 woman's seed wasn't a she and her heel wasn't bruised. So if you wanted something closer to the Lord's words I wouldn't go looking in the Latin Vulgate or the D.R.

God bless you lonewolf,

Your reply makes me sad. Where would anyone get it in their head that Our Lord wants the world
to ignore Mary? I tell you where this no need of and mock of Mary comes from, the evil one.

The Vulgate is correct, King James' wonderful fellas CHANGED Genesis 3:15, a lot. They have Our Lord being
called "it" in their changed version! Everything is from God, a fact. Read the footnotes of Genesis 3:15 in the Douay-Rheims. It is by God that Mary is part of the Trinity's plan of redemption. So are we, every time you pray or offer a suffering or sacrifice, you are a co-redeemer, and intercessor.

On the "one mediator" verse, Jesus mediates between us and the Father. Who mediates for us to Christ? Our
prayers and the saint's prayers mean nothing? That's not scriptural.

It is the Blessed Trinity's plan for Mary to crush the head of the serpent, the reason Satan despises Mary and laughs at non-Catholics no need of her. Do not believe Satan anymore, love the mother, love the Son. Jesus and Me is fine but Our Lord gave the world His mother from the Cross. Look at the benefit, it is Jesus and Mary and me. Our Lord couldn't refuse Mary's request at Cana. Remember... You can change, see her help as wonderful, speak to her in prayer. She loves you.

Co- means with. Mary cooperated WITH the Blessed Trinity's plan like no other human being. Her heart
was pierced in her solitude of suffering.

All the Dogmas are God's desire, they are God's Truth. The 5th Marian Dogma, when it is proclaimed will bring
down many graces.

On the "pagan" objection, cross if off your list. There are practices in Protestantism that can be compared
to paganism. Just because two things are similar does not make them the same.

The Latin Vulgate (383 A.D.) is the translation of the ORIGINAL writings. Strong's Concordance was published in 1890~!


colbe

King James Bible (KJV)
3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Douay-Rheims Bible
3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

[15] She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.

www.drbo.org...

Originally posted by MRSeeker
This is only a testimony. Not going to engage in a debate over the Catholic Church.

The "church" of Christ is the people, not the organizations, not the buildings, not the dogma. The biggest splits in the physical church on this Earth are usually over dogma. Most of the 8 on the list are dogma of the church, and are open to interpretation in many ways, hence the protestant movement. To me, each has claimed a certain amount of truth, but neither has a full claim on it all. We're all sinners, and we make mistakes, including various tenants of our religions.

There will be Catholics in Heaven. There will be Protestants. There will be many that we might not actually believe ever had a chance of going to Heaven, but the Father took them there anyway, despite our earthly protests.

So love one another, as the Father loves you. Forgive each other, as the Father forgives you. Seek the Father above all else, and thank Jesus every moment you have for the great sacrifice He made for all of us. Do what your religion requires of you, and give to your church as your church is giving back to you. Give others the same respect to do that as you would want yourself. Do your best to not lay stumbling blocks before each other, but uplift each other with respect and love.

People realize the "church" is not the building. Jesus said My "Church" in Matthew 16:18, no plural. He established one Church, the faith, it is Roman Catholicism.

Study Catholicism, ask Catholics here questions. Type in Catholic Apologetics first when you do a search.

God is going to show every person on the earth very "soon", Roman Catholicism is the faith. Per the saints of
old and modern prophecy (private revelation). In Scripture, read Rev 6:15-17, 1 Cor 3:13. We will wish the rocks
to fall on us, to hide, when God shows us our soul as He sees it.


God bless you,


colbe

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Of all the words of power employed in magic since the dawn of time, none is more mysterious and profound than the Ineffable Name of God with four Hebrew letters, IHVH, called by the Greeks Tetragrammaton.

One such Ba'al Shem was the great Jewish magician Rabbi Loew of Prague, who breathed life into lifeless clay by means of the power of the IHVH and with it created the dreaded Golem.

Source: The Power of the Word: The Secret Code of Creation by Donald Tyson... Introduction



Why do you want to defend a name used in witchcraft that Jesus did not come in? Jesus came in His Father's name which is Jesus.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

There had to be a FIRST Bible . . .

The first official Catholic Bible would probably be those commissioned by Emperor Constantine, to be made by Eusebius.

"Constantine"...

Oh that overused name again because you mention anyone else before 1517, they're all Catholics.

Technically, we're all still "catholic" (well, TJ isn't, and Dewey is teetering on falling out of the Christian tree) because catholic just means the universal church (little "c".) What you meant to say was that before the Reformation, they're all Roman Catholics, and that's not right, either -- the churches of the East left in 1054.

Constantine's beloved mother found the real Cross.

Highly unlikely. The Romans reused crosses, and Jesus' was back in circulation before it was notable (that not being the case until the resurrection) and it is improbable that anyone who thought it notable had the authority to confiscate Roman property, even if it could still have been tracked down.

What is important about the cross is the sacrifice that was made there, not the wood and not the nails.

Who is Eusebius? I've never heard the name.

Eusebius was a Christian apologist and historian in the time of Constantine. Most of what we know about the early church comes from his writings. He was a bit of a hothead, particularly as regards Arianism, which is why, even though he was a bishop and key leader of the church, he's not a saint.

I was talking about the constant mention of Constantine and no one else. He is their man mentioned in the usual Protestant one paragraph history covering 33 A.D. to 1517. I thought Constantine was an Orthodox saint, well, he is Roman Catholic now.

Helena found the true Cross. There are relics of it today, I've kissed a piece of it.

I stated I had never heard of Eusebius. I looked his name up, a search showed Wikipedia and I posted a quote.

Jim Dewey was objecting, saying it WASN'T St. Jerome who translated the original writings but this Eusebius. I looked some more, well, there is no need. History shows St. Jerome translated the original writings chosen by Pope Damasus, the Canon, into Latin, the common language back then. I found a Yahoo Q & A about did the Bible come from the Catholic Church.

First, someone said:

The famous historian, scholar, and teacher, Eusebius (Eusebius Hieronymus), translated 50 Greek Bibles for Constantine the Great.

That is not exactly accurate. Eusebius was **commissioned** by Constantine to produce 50 collections of Christian Scripture (the term "bible" was not used at that time). Whether he did or not is questionable. Many scholars believe that Codex Alexandrinus - which was not completed until the mid-5th century - is one of those 50.

A few decades later, Jerome (who named himself after Eusebius) was ordered by the Pope to translation into Latin. Jerome used the Greek manuscripts

It is well-attested by history that Jerome went to Jerusalem to study Hebrew and Aramaic so that he could translate from the original language documents as far as he was able to do so (not all of the originally Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures had been preserved in those languages). Of course, those Scriptures that were only available in Greek he translated from Greek.

answers.yahoo.com...