I am still studying Catholicism, but haven't yet made a decision whether to join. My overall feelings are positive, however. I find Mass to be very spiritual.
There are 68 times writers of the New Testament quote from those seven books. Jesus quotes from them. Paul quotes from them. John quotes fro them. To say those books are wrong, you would have to admit Jesus is wrong for quoting from them. Is that a stance anyone would want to take? I don't think so. Since I know no one will take my word for it, here are a few of those verses and the books they are quoting from. Matthew 6:19-20 Jesus' statement about laying up treasure in Heaven follows Sirach 29:11Matthew 16:18 Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13Matthew 24:15 The "desolating sacrifice" Jesus refers to is taken from 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 2 Maccabees 8:17Mark 4:5, 16-17 Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15Mark 9:48 Jesus' description of hell where "worm does not die and fire is not quenched," references Judith 16:17Luke 21:24 Jesus' words "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18Acts 17:29 Paul's description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10James 1:19 James' instruction that every man should be "quick to hear and slow to respond" follows Sirach 5:11Romans 9:21 Paul's reference to the potter and the clay making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7James 5:3 James' teaching about silver that rusts and laying up one's true treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11There you go my protestant brothers, 10 of the 68. Let's put this nonsense to bed and admit the seven books that Luther took out should be in your Bible. After all, they were part of the Bible for 1,500 years before Luther. Jesus quotes from them, that's good enough for me. You better have some really good reason it's not good enough for you.
I have noticed mistranslations in Protestant Bibles which ignore the original Greek texts, which I believe were made to accommodate Protestant views that oppose Catholic beliefs. I consider the Ignatius Study Bible the best among all modern Catholic versions along with the DRB for their translations and commentaries.
1 Corinthians 4:3-5 "...I do not even judge myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God."
I like the Douay-Rheims version of the Holy Bible, preferably in modern English. In particular, the language of the Book of Genesis is so dignified. I think Protesants are loosing out with their reduced versions.
Catholic Bibles before Vatican II such as the Douay Rheims version are faithful to St. Jerome's 4th century Latin Vulgate translation. In St. Luke's Gospel 1:28 in the Latin Vulgate,the Archangel Gabriel addressed the Blessed Virgin Mary as 'Gratia Plena' (Full of GRACE), not "highly favoured" as in the Protestant King James version and the modern "Catholic" translations. I love the Douay Rheims version.
Had Luther had his way, he would've targeted other OT and some NT books as well. He considered James an epistle if straw because it contradicted his notion of salvation by faith alone, that last phrase never appearing in the Bible until he added the word "alone." He also wanted to hack out Revelation because he didn't believe Christ was taught or revealed in it, as well as Jude because it quotes from the Book of Enoch.
Protestants your New Testament is same as Catholic scripture where do you think you got the Bible from? The Catholic Church first apostles monks wrote from first letters did first Bibles long time ago. Not Luther. 7 books in Old you don't have yours is incomplete.
The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see www.newadvent.org/bible). The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7). Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9). Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).
Basically Luther's theology took the 7 Books out of The Protestant Cannon; leaving 66 Books. I think they actually took part of Daniel out also because it didn't agree with their theology. The saddest part when I meet anti-Catholic (Universal) Church of Jesus Christ persons; they don't say what The Catholic Church teaches from The Catholic Church's Scriptural reasons. They put a deceptive spin on it and claim that is what the Catholic Church teaches. One glaring example is that The Catholic Church of Jesus Christ teaches that a person has to work their way to Heaven. Extremely false. I get along well with other Bible believing Christians who do not espouse anti-Catholic teachings. We sometimes work together Ecumenically with compassion for others. I know Jesus Christ is pleased with this. Working together on what we agree on. No Salvation apart from Jesus. He judges those outside the Church, we do not. We are all unprofitable servants relying on God's Mercy. We are to bear fruits like charity, joy, and peace. We are to care for the poor. We should ban together as Christian soldiers; for the world, who actually teaches love of money & power & pleasure (three of their false gods) many times using playing at heart strings false compassion to justify evil things as good; ... they have taken over the media for the most part. Public education teaches many things with subtlety that are worldly. Education, media, & politics need more Christian soldiers to work together to be a compassionate sign of contradiction to the world. The media more and more not only put forth the false idea that The Church has very little relevance; but are trying to do things like make it a hate crime to teach parts of The Bible. Those who are relying on, Jesus is Coming for His Church, like Thessalonians with their heads in the clouds ignoring God's Grace of bringing about moral laws by the powers 'We The People' are given by His Grace may be in for a big surprise. Well meaning 'End Times' persons disagree on many things regarding what we will have to endure before His Return. ... Let us join hands in The Holy Name of Jesus Christ our Savior to light His Lamp on the hillside to give Glory to our Heavenly Father. Gathering, rather than scattering. One phrase that describes our common enemy is 'progressive' moral relativist secular humanists. Many are even denying the 'natural law,' that God imprinted on us. So many young people are taken in by their false compassion. That God, Jesus The Light, Shines in the darkness. Peace and God Bless.
+ella hope Although, if you get the original edition of the KJB you will get the deuterocanonical writings in it (though separated out and put at the end of the OT). It's a fine translation. I like to use the KJB when refuting Protestant errors because then they can't deflect my argument by claiming I'm using a "corrupt" Catholic translation.
Which would be a good Bible for Catholics? I want a good bible that explains what each verse tells us.. I love being Catholic! ❤️❤️🙌🏻 Lord of heaven, I ask you to please bring me friends which belong to catholic faith. Amen.
Scott Hahn is right because the Catholic Bible is the actual original Bible in its entire truth, not a Luther Abbreviated, sanitized version missing the books Luther the heretic didn't care for. The Magisterium of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church authorized the Catholic Bible because it is that Magisterium of the church Christ gave the wisdom and power to be His One true Church. Satan wants the true church hated and despised, the Bible, chopped up, added to by idiots, revised by Liars like the Jehovah's Witnesses who even Deny the Divinity of Christ, and made a malleable unreliable compilation of men rather than what it is, the inspired Word of God as assembled and approved by Christ's One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church. Jesus founded His ONE true church on Saint Peter so it would save souls from hell. Satan despises it and wants you to despise it. If you do, you are doing satan's will.
+Eric Perrault Luther was a very strong individual ....I would love to go to Germany for the celebration in two years time..we had a great conference here in Maynooth (Ireland) earlier this year.
It is the "hope' to which we are called. The same hope that the apostles had. I have known 2 Protestants who both told me they were positively going to heaven, regardless of sin, because they had been to the altar, and were saved. They justified the fact that they stole things they wanted, and one lived a very sexually amoral life. I told them they would not get into heaven if they continued in this. I do believe that. You bet you know "where your going" if you continue in serious sin.
It has everything to do with what you just said. Salvation is an ongoing process, one by which only the Lord Jesus Christ will decide on. I suggest reading our tract "Assurance of Salvation?" on our web site (catholic dot com). Also, none of you comments have anything at all to do with the posted video.
After St. Peter denied Christ 3x do you think he thought he was headed for heaven? This is well after he was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven following his declaration of the Messiahship of Jesus. That passage in St. Matthew's gospel always comes back to bite the Protestants and in ways they never anticipate.
I know that Mother Angelica reads from the New Jerusalem Bible on EWTN. Scott Hahn has said that he reads from the Revised Standard Version. It is a wonderful bible with the full 73 books and in easy to understand language. I just picked one up.
l greatly respect Dr Hahn, but I believe he missed it on this one. If someone hands you a copy of the Gospel of John should you not read it because it is missing 72 books? I believe a better response is "A Protestant Bible is the Word of God, but it is missing 7 books. Yes, you can read a Protestant Bible because it is the Word of God, but remember, you will be missing some of the Word of God by reading a Protestant Bible."
Who is commiting the sin of idolatry? No one is worshiping a false god in this discusion or advocating idolatry. Idolatry is a serious accusation. Let us love one another as he has loved us. By the say, Dr Hahn never stated and wouls never state that a Protestant Bible is not the Word of God. The KJV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, etc, are the Word of God.
Brendan Case Sure brother, but our brother here 'nhendrych' just proclaimed all bible-Christians are bound for the hellfire on account of our not observing various works of heresy as the works of Nail-scarred hands. And for the record as an independent fundamentalist Baptist I am not a protestant nor were we ever, we can draw our lineage all the way back to the days of Christ. Idolatry is indeed a terrible sin, and one I am made well wary of, It is also one of the chiefest and most popular sins of our time, but God will not be mocked, whether a man worships graven-images, relics of dead-saints, the clink of his coinpurse, various traditions of man or his own worldliness sin and Godforsaken desires he will give an account to God for it in the day to come.
It's important to know two things about Bibles. 1. how many books does it have. if it is missing 7 it isn't Catholic. 2. It is very important to know the reliability of translations. I trust the RSV the most because it is an excellent translation. Many protestant translations will be affected by their theology, they don't believe in purgatory their translation will be influenced by that. I'm guessing Catholics can be guilty of that too, but we have a 2000 year history to back up what we say. But what I hear from the biblical scholars I know the RSV (CE for catholics) is the best version for both protestants and catholics. There are some bibles that use an exact translation of the greek, which are good but not great for reading. When it comes to translation for academic purposes formal equivalence is the best, because it sticks as close to the original language as possible while still making it readable for the average person.
Before Vatican II most Popes and many Church Fathers followed the Dogma that one must be a Roman Catholic to be saved and anyone outside the Church was lost. It was taught that worshipping with none Catholics or even reading a Bible that the Church hadn't approved held grave consequences. Has this dogma been changed?
Hmm... I never knew of this law, I'm currently reading a protestant NAS. I'm reading John MacArthur's NAS for the protestant commentary as I've been wondering how they understand the Bible. I must say its been quite edifying as a Catholic to see the many inconsistencies in logic and theology implored by protestants to reach their conclusions. Generally too regarding commentary and theology it is not about what they say or interpret, but what they will avoid interpreting and will leave out.
" It is better to read a Bible than to not read any at all. "-Linda Is in total agreement. "faints and hits the floor from shock ...for once i actually agreed with a Catholic, lol The world MUST be coming to an end!! Years ago i used to be roommates with my sister-n-law and she kept her big Catholic Bible on the coffee table, she never opened it, it just sat there and well..one day i just couldn't resist, It was too beautiful NOT to open........ i got out my Geneva Bible and started to compare the two and she came home and caught me....she got so upset with me she took her Bible and hid it. She scolded me telling me a Protestant isn't allowed to read a Catholic Bible. I asked her why? was there some special knowledge in there and if so whats is it? i just had to know!!! she wouldn't answer me, so i kept bugging and bugging her and finally she told me that she didn't know because she wasn't allowed to read it on her own!! ...Around that same time i was attending a Bible study group on the book of Revelation and she informed me that we wernt allowed to read Revelation...guess that makes me a rebel, cus i read it anyways!!!..she got even more upset with me one Halloween when i dressed up as Madonna and wore her rosary beads as part of my costume, i swear i thought she was gonna beat me up!!!!.( she finally forgave me after i baked her a chocolate cake) .. That was about 25 years ago and i'm still scratching my head over her comments!! Why would her priest discourage his congregation from God's holy word? I'm guessing that same priest wasn't too thrilled either when she married my big redneck Baptist brother........i am still very close with her, but we don't discuss our faiths as she gets easily irritated with me and all of my questions...she still has her unread Bible on her coffee table...........i guess i just don't "get it"..i love my bible very dearly and the only way anyone is taking it away from is when they pry it out of my cold dead hands!!!
***** Maybe that was a good thing, lol lest you be corrupted into Mormonism !!! i bought that book Satanic Verses By Rushdie just because of all the death threats against the author. When told you CAN'T just makes ya wanna do it even more!!
Sally Brown I read that book too and could not see what all the fuss was about. But now I know it was because Muslims are embarassed when the cover-up of those verses is exposed.
I still read the same bible that my protestant ancestors brought with them to America from the early to mid 1600's...The Geneva bible predates the KJV by about 50 years. It was the only bible in America for about 100 years... the so called "missing books" were The Apocrypha...they are in my Bible in a separate section between the old and new testaments
in england, a serial killer called king henry the eight founded the anglican/protestant religion. 1500 years earlier, a jewish man called jesus from nazareth founded christianity, or what we call catholicism today. now, which religion would YOU follow? i am not being rude, i promise, to any religion, word of honour. it is just we need to know our origins. then we can make up our minds what to follow. but read up on martin luther first.
I too have a question about the Jerusalem Bible. I bought one from E.W.T.N and it doesn't seem to have the marking of approval that the others do. Also to the person who said we put more books in, we did not the Protestants took out 7 books to fit their teaching. The Catholic Monks first put the bible to script form.
It was revised in the 18th Century and that is the one we used until the NAB. Technically the NAB is better, but I don’t see how it improves on the older Bible for clarity.
A Protestant KJV differs in SO many texts it is a constant battle when they are quoting on yahoo--I have to have both books open then--& I see the profound heresies everywhere! Look for a KJV dated 1611 (hard to find) & do some comparing. A shift in just a few words gets rid of Catholic Doctrine & lets them go the wrong direction--& then they try to claim the "bible says so." But it really doesn't. They do not know their bible was "composed" in 1611 nor that the D-R was completed in 382 A.D.
Oh and when you read Ephesians 2 make sure you don't stop at verse 9. Might want to go at least through v 10. That will help you understand these things.
As an English Catholic I seem to have a number of bibles around the house - a Jerusalem Bible for study purposes an RSV 'Common' bible which states it is acceptable to Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox and points out which books are accepted by whom as canonical. And I have a King James. There was a massive celebration of the latter in the UK in 2011. But in principle it was celebrated for its language style as well as its cultural significance in England post 1611
The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings For example, The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7). Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9). Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).
The king’s attendants answered him, “Haman is waiting in the court.” The king said, “Let him come in.” When Haman entered, the king said to him, “What should be done for the man whom the king wishes to reward?” Now Haman thought to himself, “Whom would the king wish to honor more than me?” So he replied to the king: “For the man whom the king wishes to honor there should be brought the royal robe the king wore and the horse the king rode with the royal crest placed on its head. - Tobit 6:5-8 Where is the command to use magic? 'Almsgiving is a worthy offering in the sight of the Most High for all who practice it.' Tobit 4:11. 'Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.' - 1 Peter 4, 8. Acts of charity in God's grace heal us of sin by bringing out the goodness in which God created us. We do not possess a sin nature as Protestants falsely believe. '... for almsgiving saves from death, and purges all sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life, but those who commit sin and do evil are their own worst enemies. - Tobit 12:9-10. The good works we do in charity and divine grace sanctify the soul. It is God's sanctifying grace that purges and cleanses the soul of sin. This sanctifying grace essentially justifies the person before God and is concomitant with the grace of forgiveness. Purgation is not forgiveness, but comes with it. The souls in Purgatory, for instance, are saved and bound for Heaven, but first they must be purged of all uncleanliness that still stains them. We read in Revelation that nothing impure can enter Heaven. Your misunderstanding of Tobit is rooted in the heretical Protestant belief that we are justified by having Christ's alien righteousness imputed to our account. But it is God's sanctifying grace that actually makes us intrinsically righteous and just. Hence, good works done in charity and grace are necessary for our salvation. Jesus and his Apostles do teach us this truth. Salvation by simply putting one's faith in the merits of Christ is a false doctrine that originated with Luther in the 16th century. It was unheard of in Christendom until then. 'And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.' - 2 Maccabees 12:43-46. "Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy; either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance, or might have repented of their sin at least at their death." (Challoner). "It is also worthy of notice that Judas, who acted thus charitably, was the high priest and defender of the true faith; and that the Jews still pray for the dead, as the book Mahzor, published by Genebrard, 1569, evinces. There they say, "Let him rest in peace," and "ye angels of peace come forth to meet him." But this is acknowledged by Munster and Fagius, (in Deuteronomy xiv.) and by Whitaker. --- Sins. Go to 1 Machabees vi. 18. (Worthington). [cf. Haydock Commentary. Protestants reject this book because they have erroneously rejected the Catholic dogma of Purgatory. Protestants deny the canonicity of the Maccabean books but, their historical value cannot be denied. Even Jewish prayer books today contain such prayers. If the doctrine of purgatory had been invented by the Jews, undoubtedly, it would have been condemned by Jesus Christ. Christ’s death on the Cross sufficed to redeem humanity and free us from the eternal damnation of hell, but it did not free us from the need to undergo temporal punishments for sin. Humanity is still subject to the temporal punishments of labor, pain, sickness and death (effects of original sin) even though we have now been redeemed. The Bible makes it clear that in the past there has existed more than just the two places of heaven and hell in the next world. St. Peter tells us (1 Pet. 3, 19) that after His death Jesus preached His redemption "to the spirits in prison." Therefore, the concept of another temporary, intermediate place such as purgatory is not totally out of the question. Jesus himself says: "I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny" (St. Luke 12, 59); "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the World to come" (St. Matt. 12, 32). Sins can be forgiven in the next life. Now this cannot be done in Heaven or Hell, but only in another state which the Catholic Church calls Purgatory.
Wait,...what? You're more influenced by protestant thought, but believe Catholicism is better? I'm confused. Are you saying that you're more inclined to agree with Protestant beliefs? You mean the secular progressive protestant faith?
I would hold the original "Revised Standard" (1946/51) with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha added in 1971 as the best. That was one of the few Bibles that was accepted in Roman Catholic, Anglo Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches. And in Protestant circles, it was the 1st Bible to seriously challenge the "King James" (1611). And the famous Catholic scholar Father Raymond E. Brown said the RSV was the version he used the most. (Also to teach with.)
how can anyone justify leaving out the full history of the Israelites ? As the Protestants do leave out , lets say the Maccabees ? The Israelites do not but yes outside the Torah but they have even more books they study alone side of the Torah taken as inspired but less so inspired therefore how can Protestant justify not studying all there is!? Simple; it works against them !
I implore some of you to look into serious manuscript studies on the veracity of the deuterocanonical texts. For example, The New Testament authors never gave them a nod that would consign their inspiration. If during the intertestamental period virtually no Jew saw it as such, since Christ never gave a chapter and verse quotation from the Apochrypha, and their were multiple lines of transmission of the New Testament that affirm the early doctrine of the earliest Christians, who is your main authority?
I received a NIV as a gift and many of the verses that I have casually viewed do not match the NAB or even the KJV that I have. (I have the KJV as a scholarly reference, for comparison.)
What I like to do is use the Protestant Bible to confirm Catholic theology. not from a traditional apologetic quote way (ex. read Matthew 16), but thru typology. Mary as the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, and the New Rahab. That the Church is the New Israel. The the pope is the New King of Israel. That our bishop's apostolic sucession is the new holy lineage. So on, and so forth.
I was reading at one point that the Jews organized the Old Testament in such a way that the number of books added up to a multiple of seven, and that if you added the New Testament under that same structure, it would've come out to 49 books I think (seven being the number of God). However, the Catholics changed this and the number became 66 (six being the antichrist/satan), so I was wondering how do Catholics or how would a Catholic respond to this?
I don't know, but the Catholic Bible has 73 books not 66. Protestant Bibles have 66 books. The 49 being a multiple of 7 thing might have been a justification for the Jews to remove those 7 books to make 49.
God promised he would preserve his word and he did I believe this was the originals found in caves not the translations we have but I do agree some translations are better than others. One book that is still not in most bible is the book of Enoch and it was even quoted from scriptures and does not contradict scripture either. but with that said the book of Enoch says itself its for the later days.AMEN
The New English Bible of 1970 is another good one. And there is also the Jewish Publication Society's TaNaKh of 1985; which has the virtue of being a purely Jewish "Old Testament". IMO there is no really good Cath. Bible in English - they are often let down by the poverty & forgettableness of the English, like most modern Bibles. The 1970 NAB & the 1966 Jerusalem Bible are the next best thing to the Cath. edition of the RSV. The 1941 Confraternity NT is good, apart from being from the Latin.
I have a Protestant Bible with the Apocrypha included. English Standard Version. I'm am not Catholic but have been investigating the Catholic Church.
+Sara K I;ve also been investigating the RCC. What have you come up with?
The Bible teaches both faith and works. Check out the Books of James and Revelation.
I am still studying Catholicism, but haven't yet made a decision whether to join. My overall feelings are positive, however. I find Mass to be very spiritual.
I have seen a lot of scripture on works in the Bible. I'm reading the Bible and making judgements for myself.
There are 68 times writers of the New Testament quote from those seven books. Jesus quotes from them. Paul quotes from them. John quotes fro them. To say those books are wrong, you would have to admit Jesus is wrong for quoting from them. Is that a stance anyone would want to take? I don't think so. Since I know no one will take my word for it, here are a few of those verses and the books they are quoting from. Matthew 6:19-20 Jesus' statement about laying up treasure in Heaven follows Sirach 29:11Matthew 16:18 Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13Matthew 24:15 The "desolating sacrifice" Jesus refers to is taken from 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 2 Maccabees 8:17Mark 4:5, 16-17 Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15Mark 9:48 Jesus' description of hell where "worm does not die and fire is not quenched," references Judith 16:17Luke 21:24 Jesus' words "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18Acts 17:29 Paul's description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10James 1:19 James' instruction that every man should be "quick to hear and slow to respond" follows Sirach 5:11Romans 9:21 Paul's reference to the potter and the clay making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7James 5:3 James' teaching about silver that rusts and laying up one's true treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11There you go my protestant brothers, 10 of the 68. Let's put this nonsense to bed and admit the seven books that Luther took out should be in your Bible. After all, they were part of the Bible for 1,500 years before Luther. Jesus quotes from them, that's good enough for me. You better have some really good reason it's not good enough for you.
I have noticed mistranslations in Protestant Bibles which ignore the original Greek texts, which I believe were made to accommodate Protestant views that oppose Catholic beliefs. I consider the Ignatius Study Bible the best among all modern Catholic versions along with the DRB for their translations and commentaries.
1 Corinthians 4:3-5 "...I do not even judge myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God."
I like the Douay-Rheims version of the Holy Bible, preferably in modern English. In particular, the language of the Book of Genesis is so dignified. I think Protesants are loosing out with their reduced versions.
Catholic Bibles before Vatican II such as the Douay Rheims version are faithful to St. Jerome's 4th century Latin Vulgate translation. In St. Luke's Gospel 1:28 in the Latin Vulgate,the Archangel Gabriel addressed the Blessed Virgin Mary as 'Gratia Plena' (Full of GRACE), not "highly favoured" as in the Protestant King James version and the modern "Catholic" translations. I love the Douay Rheims version.
Had Luther had his way, he would've targeted other OT and some NT books as well. He considered James an epistle if straw because it contradicted his notion of salvation by faith alone, that last phrase never appearing in the Bible until he added the word "alone." He also wanted to hack out Revelation because he didn't believe Christ was taught or revealed in it, as well as Jude because it quotes from the Book of Enoch.
Protestants your New Testament is same as Catholic scripture where do you think you got the Bible from? The Catholic Church first apostles monks wrote from first letters did first Bibles long time ago. Not Luther. 7 books in Old you don't have yours is incomplete.
The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see www.newadvent.org/bible).
The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9).
Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).
No where does the Bible teach Once Saved Always Saved.
Basically Luther's theology took the 7 Books out of The Protestant Cannon; leaving
66 Books. I think they actually took part of Daniel out also because it didn't agree with their theology. The saddest part when I meet anti-Catholic (Universal) Church of Jesus Christ persons; they don't say what The Catholic Church teaches from The Catholic Church's Scriptural reasons. They put a deceptive spin on it and claim that is what the Catholic Church teaches. One glaring example is that The Catholic Church of Jesus Christ teaches that a person has to work their way to Heaven. Extremely false.
I get along well with other Bible believing Christians who do not espouse anti-Catholic teachings. We sometimes work together Ecumenically with compassion for others. I know Jesus Christ is pleased with this. Working together on what we agree on. No Salvation apart from Jesus. He judges those outside the Church, we do not. We are all unprofitable servants relying on God's Mercy. We are to bear fruits like charity, joy, and peace. We are to care for the poor. We should ban together as Christian soldiers; for the world, who actually teaches love of money & power & pleasure (three of their false gods) many times using playing at heart strings false compassion to justify evil things as good; ... they have taken over the media for the most part. Public education teaches many things with subtlety that are worldly. Education, media, & politics need more Christian soldiers to work together to be a compassionate sign of contradiction to the world. The media more and more not only put forth the false idea that The Church has very little relevance; but are trying to do things like make it a hate crime to teach parts of The Bible. Those who are relying on, Jesus is Coming for His Church, like Thessalonians with their heads in the clouds ignoring God's Grace of bringing about moral laws by the powers 'We The People' are given by His Grace may be in for a big surprise. Well meaning 'End Times' persons disagree on many things regarding what we will have to endure before His Return.
...
Let us join hands in The Holy Name of Jesus Christ our Savior to light His Lamp on the hillside to give Glory to our Heavenly Father. Gathering, rather than scattering. One phrase that describes our common enemy is 'progressive' moral relativist secular humanists. Many are even denying the 'natural law,' that God imprinted on us. So many young people are taken in by their false compassion. That God, Jesus The Light, Shines in the darkness. Peace and God Bless.
Buy a Catholic Bible it is the whole scripture not KJB.
+ella hope Although, if you get the original edition of the KJB you will get the deuterocanonical writings in it (though separated out and put at the end of the OT). It's a fine translation. I like to use the KJB when refuting Protestant errors because then they can't deflect my argument by claiming I'm using a "corrupt" Catholic translation.
Which would be a good Bible for Catholics? I want a good bible that explains what each verse tells us..
I love being Catholic! ❤️❤️🙌🏻
Lord of heaven, I ask you to please bring me friends which belong to catholic faith. Amen.
You Rock Dr. Hahn!
Scott Hahn is right because the Catholic Bible is the actual original Bible in its entire truth, not a Luther Abbreviated, sanitized version missing the books Luther the heretic didn't care for. The Magisterium of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church authorized the Catholic Bible because it is that Magisterium of the church Christ gave the wisdom and power to be His One true Church. Satan wants the true church hated and despised, the Bible, chopped up, added to by idiots, revised by Liars like the Jehovah's Witnesses who even Deny the Divinity of Christ, and made a malleable unreliable compilation of men rather than what it is, the inspired Word of God as assembled and approved by Christ's One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church. Jesus founded His ONE true church on Saint Peter so it would save souls from hell. Satan despises it and wants you to despise it. If you do, you are doing satan's will.
+Eric Perrault Luther was a very strong individual ....I would love to go to Germany for the celebration in two years time..we had a great conference here in Maynooth (Ireland) earlier this year.
It is the "hope' to which we are called. The same hope that the apostles had. I have known 2 Protestants who both told me they were positively going to heaven, regardless of sin, because they had been to the altar, and were saved. They justified the fact that they stole things they wanted, and one lived a very sexually amoral life. I told them they would not get into heaven if they continued in this. I do believe that. You bet you know "where your going" if you continue in serious sin.
It has everything to do with what you just said. Salvation is an ongoing process, one by which only the Lord Jesus Christ will decide on. I suggest reading our tract "Assurance of Salvation?" on our web site (catholic dot com). Also, none of you comments have anything at all to do with the posted video.
After St. Peter denied Christ 3x do you think he thought he was headed for heaven? This is well after he was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven following his declaration of the Messiahship of Jesus.
That passage in St. Matthew's gospel always comes back to bite the Protestants and in ways they never anticipate.
I know that Mother Angelica reads from the New Jerusalem Bible on EWTN. Scott Hahn has said that he reads from the Revised Standard Version. It is a wonderful bible with the full 73 books and in easy to understand language. I just picked one up.
i like his voice.
Douay Rheims ! ! !
That's the true Catholic bible if you go back further Latin vulgate. Also never forget St Jerome who translated everything
l greatly respect Dr Hahn, but I believe he missed it on this one. If someone hands you a copy of the Gospel of John should you not read it because it is missing 72 books? I believe a better response is
"A Protestant Bible is the Word of God, but it is missing 7 books. Yes, you can read a Protestant Bible because it is the Word of God, but remember, you will be missing some of the Word of God by reading a Protestant Bible."
Martin Luther's changes were remitted in his life time. The Bible our brothers and sisters use today is the Word of God, yet missing seven books.
nhendrych
Idolatry is a sin my friend.
Who is commiting the sin of idolatry? No one is worshiping a false god in this discusion or advocating idolatry. Idolatry is a serious accusation. Let us love one another as he has loved us.
By the say, Dr Hahn never stated and wouls never state that a Protestant Bible is not the Word of God. The KJV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, etc, are the Word of God.
Brendan Case
Sure brother, but our brother here 'nhendrych' just proclaimed all bible-Christians are bound for the hellfire on account of our not observing various works of heresy as the works of Nail-scarred hands.
And for the record as an independent fundamentalist Baptist I am not a protestant nor were we ever, we can draw our lineage all the way back to the days of Christ.
Idolatry is indeed a terrible sin, and one I am made well wary of, It is also one of the chiefest and most popular sins of our time, but God will not be mocked, whether a man worships graven-images, relics of dead-saints, the clink of his coinpurse, various traditions of man or his own worldliness sin and Godforsaken desires he will give an account to God for it in the day to come.
It's important to know two things about Bibles.
1. how many books does it have. if it is missing 7 it isn't Catholic.
2. It is very important to know the reliability of translations. I trust the RSV the most because it is an excellent translation. Many protestant translations will be affected by their theology, they don't believe in purgatory their translation will be influenced by that. I'm guessing Catholics can be guilty of that too, but we have a 2000 year history to back up what we say. But what I hear from the biblical scholars I know the RSV (CE for catholics) is the best version for both protestants and catholics. There are some bibles that use an exact translation of the greek, which are good but not great for reading. When it comes to translation for academic purposes formal equivalence is the best, because it sticks as close to the original language as possible while still making it readable for the average person.
Before Vatican II most Popes and many Church Fathers followed the Dogma that one must be a Roman Catholic to be saved and anyone outside the Church was lost. It was taught that worshipping with none Catholics or even reading a Bible that the Church hadn't approved held grave consequences. Has this dogma been changed?
Hmm... I never knew of this law, I'm currently reading a protestant NAS. I'm reading John MacArthur's NAS for the protestant commentary as I've been wondering how they understand the Bible. I must say its been quite edifying as a Catholic to see the many inconsistencies in logic and theology implored by protestants to reach their conclusions. Generally too regarding commentary and theology it is not about what they say or interpret, but what they will avoid interpreting and will leave out.
I love Scott Hahn, btw
" It is better to read a Bible than to not read any at all. "-Linda Is in total agreement. "faints and hits the floor from shock ...for once i actually agreed with a Catholic, lol The world MUST be coming to an end!! Years ago i used to be roommates with my sister-n-law and she kept her big Catholic Bible on the coffee table, she never opened it, it just sat there and well..one day i just couldn't resist, It was too beautiful NOT to open........ i got out my Geneva Bible and started to compare the two and she came home and caught me....she got so upset with me she took her Bible and hid it. She scolded me telling me a Protestant isn't allowed to read a Catholic Bible. I asked her why? was there some special knowledge in there and if so whats is it? i just had to know!!! she wouldn't answer me, so i kept bugging and bugging her and finally she told me that she didn't know because she wasn't allowed to read it on her own!! ...Around that same time i was attending a Bible study group on the book of Revelation and she informed me that we wernt allowed to read Revelation...guess that makes me a rebel, cus i read it anyways!!!..she got even more upset with me one Halloween when i dressed up as Madonna and wore her rosary beads as part of my costume, i swear i thought she was gonna beat me up!!!!.( she finally forgave me after i baked her a chocolate cake) .. That was about 25 years ago and i'm still scratching my head over her comments!! Why would her priest discourage his congregation from God's holy word? I'm guessing that same priest wasn't too thrilled either when she married my big redneck Baptist brother........i am still very close with her, but we don't discuss our faiths as she gets easily irritated with me and all of my questions...she still has her unread Bible on her coffee table...........i guess i just don't "get it"..i love my bible very dearly and the only way anyone is taking it away from is when they pry it out of my cold dead hands!!!
Compare Mathew 1:25 in a Protestant bible and the Catholic bible.
***** Maybe that was a good thing, lol lest you be corrupted into Mormonism !!! i bought that book Satanic Verses By Rushdie just because of all the death threats against the author. When told you CAN'T just makes ya wanna do it even more!!
Sally Brown I read that book too and could not see what all the fuss was about. But now I know it was because Muslims are embarassed when the cover-up of those verses is exposed.
lol same here!!!!!
Hahn makes sense here.
The bible was made in the catholic church and the one that is is readen in the protestant church is missing 7 books.
I still read the same bible that my protestant ancestors brought with them to America from the early to mid 1600's...The Geneva bible predates the KJV by about 50 years. It was the only bible in America for about 100 years... the so called "missing books" were The Apocrypha...they are in my Bible in a separate section between the old and new testaments
in england, a serial killer called king henry the eight founded the anglican/protestant religion. 1500 years earlier, a jewish man called jesus from nazareth founded christianity, or what we call catholicism today. now, which religion would YOU follow? i am not being rude, i promise, to any religion, word of honour. it is just we need to know our origins. then we can make up our minds what to follow. but read up on martin luther first.
Please cite that reference.
@catholiccom I thought sactification was an ongoing process not salvation??!
I too have a question about the Jerusalem Bible. I bought one from E.W.T.N and it doesn't seem to have the marking of approval that the others do. Also to the person who said we put more books in, we did not the Protestants took out 7 books to fit their teaching. The Catholic Monks first put the bible to script form.
It was revised in the 18th Century and that is the one we used until the NAB. Technically the NAB is better, but I don’t see how it improves on the older Bible for clarity.
A Protestant KJV differs in SO many texts it is a constant battle when they are quoting on yahoo--I have to have both books open then--& I see the profound heresies everywhere! Look for a KJV dated 1611 (hard to find) & do some comparing. A shift in just a few words gets rid of Catholic Doctrine & lets them go the wrong direction--& then they try to claim the "bible says so." But it really doesn't. They do not know their bible was "composed" in 1611 nor that the D-R was completed in 382 A.D.
Thank you!
Oh and when you read Ephesians 2 make sure you don't stop at verse 9. Might want to go at least through v 10. That will help you understand these things.
As an English Catholic I seem to have a number of bibles around the house - a Jerusalem Bible for study purposes an RSV 'Common' bible which states it is acceptable to Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox and points out which books are accepted by whom as canonical. And I have a King James. There was a massive celebration of the latter in the UK in 2011. But in principle it was celebrated for its language style as well as its cultural significance in England post 1611
The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings
For example,
The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9).
Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).
+Eddie Morales Tobit 6 isn't talking about magic and your other two citations are a begging-the-question fallacy.
+YOUMUST BEBORNAGAIN TOBIT 6:5-7 isn't talking about magic at all. What kind of a cheesy Bible are your reading from?
What is Tobit 6 talking about J Law?
Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart when burned drives away evil spirits? If yes, confirm it please
The king’s attendants answered him, “Haman is waiting in the court.” The king said, “Let him come in.”
When Haman entered, the king said to him, “What should be done for the man whom the king wishes to reward?” Now Haman thought to himself, “Whom would the king wish to honor more than me?” So he replied to the king: “For the man whom the king wishes to honor there should be brought the royal robe the king wore and the horse the king rode with the royal crest placed on its head. - Tobit 6:5-8 Where is the command to use magic? 'Almsgiving is a worthy offering in the sight of the Most High for all who practice it.' Tobit 4:11. 'Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.' - 1 Peter 4, 8. Acts of charity in God's grace heal us of sin by bringing out the goodness in which God created us. We do not possess a sin nature as Protestants falsely believe. '... for almsgiving saves from death, and purges all sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life, but those who commit sin and do evil are their own worst enemies. - Tobit 12:9-10. The good works we do in charity and divine grace sanctify the soul. It is God's sanctifying grace that purges and cleanses the soul of sin. This sanctifying grace essentially justifies the person before God and is concomitant with the grace of forgiveness. Purgation is not forgiveness, but comes with it. The souls in Purgatory, for instance, are saved and bound for Heaven, but first they must be purged of all uncleanliness that still stains them. We read in Revelation that nothing impure can enter Heaven. Your misunderstanding of Tobit is rooted in the heretical Protestant belief that we are justified by having Christ's alien righteousness imputed to our account. But it is God's sanctifying grace that actually makes us intrinsically righteous and just. Hence, good works done in charity and grace are necessary for our salvation. Jesus and his Apostles do teach us this truth. Salvation by simply putting one's faith in the merits of Christ is a false doctrine that originated with Luther in the 16th century. It was unheard of in Christendom until then. 'And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.' - 2 Maccabees 12:43-46. "Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy; either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance, or might have repented of their sin at least at their death." (Challoner). "It is also worthy of notice that Judas, who acted thus charitably, was the high priest and defender of the true faith; and that the Jews still pray for the dead, as the book Mahzor, published by Genebrard, 1569, evinces. There they say, "Let him rest in peace," and "ye angels of peace come forth to meet him." But this is acknowledged by Munster and Fagius, (in Deuteronomy xiv.) and by Whitaker. --- Sins. Go to 1 Machabees vi. 18. (Worthington). [cf. Haydock Commentary. Protestants reject this book because they have erroneously rejected the Catholic dogma of Purgatory. Protestants deny the canonicity of the Maccabean books but, their historical value cannot be denied. Even Jewish prayer books today contain such prayers. If the doctrine of purgatory had been invented by the Jews, undoubtedly, it would have been condemned by Jesus Christ. Christ’s death on the Cross sufficed to redeem humanity and free us from the eternal damnation of hell, but it did not free us from the need to undergo temporal punishments for sin. Humanity is still subject to the temporal punishments of labor, pain, sickness and death (effects of original sin) even though we have now been redeemed. The Bible makes it clear that in the past there has existed more than just the two places of heaven and hell in the next world. St. Peter tells us (1 Pet. 3, 19) that after His death Jesus preached His redemption "to the spirits in prison." Therefore, the concept of another temporary, intermediate place such as purgatory is not totally out of the question. Jesus himself says: "I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny" (St. Luke 12, 59); "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the World to come" (St. Matt. 12, 32). Sins can be forgiven in the next life. Now this cannot be done in Heaven or Hell, but only in another state which the Catholic Church calls Purgatory.
so is it a yes or no? i am not an evangelist. i think this is pertinent to laymembers.
personally im more influenced by protestant thought when it comes to Christianity although I think catholic is better
Wait,...what? You're more influenced by protestant thought, but believe Catholicism is better? I'm confused. Are you saying that you're more inclined to agree with Protestant beliefs? You mean the secular progressive protestant faith?
Thamac15 no im more influenced by protestant through their scholars then I am with catholic but I think catholic is better
I would hold the original "Revised Standard" (1946/51) with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha added in 1971 as the best.
That was one of the few Bibles that was accepted in Roman Catholic, Anglo Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches. And in Protestant circles, it was the 1st Bible to seriously challenge the "King James" (1611).
And the famous Catholic scholar Father Raymond E. Brown said the RSV was the version he used the most. (Also to teach with.)
how can anyone justify leaving out the full history of the Israelites ? As the Protestants do leave out , lets say the Maccabees ? The Israelites do not but yes outside the Torah but they have even more books they study alone side of the Torah taken as inspired but less so inspired therefore how can Protestant justify not studying all there is!? Simple; it works against them !
I'm looking into reading the New Jerusalem Bible next, is it approved by the church?
I implore some of you to look into serious manuscript studies on the veracity of the deuterocanonical texts. For example, The New Testament authors never gave them a nod that would consign their inspiration. If during the intertestamental period virtually no Jew saw it as such, since Christ never gave a chapter and verse quotation from the Apochrypha, and their were multiple lines of transmission of the New Testament that affirm the early doctrine of the earliest Christians, who is your main authority?
I received a NIV as a gift and many of the verses that I have casually viewed do not match the NAB or even the KJV that I have. (I have the KJV as a scholarly reference, for comparison.)
Hebrews references 2 Maccabees. take that fundies!
Both Hebrew scriptures and New Testament had mainly Jewish authors .
Is there a translation from Hebrew into English ?
What I like to do is use the Protestant Bible to confirm Catholic theology. not from a traditional apologetic quote way (ex. read Matthew 16), but thru typology. Mary as the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, and the New Rahab. That the Church is the New Israel. The the pope is the New King of Israel. That our bishop's apostolic sucession is the new holy lineage. So on, and so forth.
I was reading at one point that the Jews organized the Old Testament in such a way that the number of books added up to a multiple of seven, and that if you added the New Testament under that same structure, it would've come out to 49 books I think (seven being the number of God). However, the Catholics changed this and the number became 66 (six being the antichrist/satan), so I was wondering how do Catholics or how would a Catholic respond to this?
I don't know, but the Catholic Bible has 73 books not 66. Protestant Bibles have 66 books. The 49 being a multiple of 7 thing might have been a justification for the Jews to remove those 7 books to make 49.
I always thought Jesus and the others in NT quoted from the Hebrew scriptures because that's what they had at the time. Am I wrong in this?
God promised he would preserve his word and he did I believe this was the originals found in caves not the translations we have but I do agree some translations are better than others. One book that is still not in most bible is the book of Enoch and it was even quoted from scriptures and does not contradict scripture either.
but with that said the book of Enoch says itself its for the later days.AMEN
Absolutely not. Why fix something that's not broken.
There is no such thing as a protestant bible.
There was one Bible and the Catholic Church gave it to us. All the protestants did was rip a few books out and called it their own.
There is no such thing as a Catholic Bible either Sergio.
The New English Bible of 1970 is another good one. And there is also the Jewish Publication Society's TaNaKh of 1985; which has the virtue of being a purely Jewish "Old Testament". IMO there is no really good Cath. Bible in English - they are often let down by the poverty & forgettableness of the English, like most modern Bibles. The 1970 NAB & the 1966 Jerusalem Bible are the next best thing to the Cath. edition of the RSV. The 1941 Confraternity NT is good, apart from being from the Latin.
Nonsense, point out one example where our Lord quoted your heresy-prints.
Well said. :-)