Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Actually it is MORE likely (and historically accurate) that such rejection of the Bible in favor of speculations from atheists

Bob,
I was speaking of the Christian POV.
I have seen on this very website different Christian groups debating over the age of the earth and if Genesis is a literal six day or not. </font>[/QUOTE]The myth that the Bible is not true regarding origins -- but the speculation of atheist story telling IS true -- is simply another sad case of Christians being duped by non-Christian story telling. In this case duped into dumping Scripture.

As the Atheist Collin Patterson said about this atheist system of story telling "These are STORIES easy enough to TELL but they are NOT science!!"

If EVEN THE ATHEIST can admit to this - why not the confused and befuddled Chrsitians that have swallowed those "stories" instead of accepting the Word of God??!!

Your point that Christians have become so weak on their acceptance of the Word of God that they would EVEN cling to what ATHEISTS THEMSELVES call "STORIES NOT SCIENCE" in place of God's Word - is simply PROOF beyond a DOUBT that there are Christians out there that are barely in the faith at all!!

A "thinking" person should NOT be surprised that ATHEISTS NEED another story for "origins" other than the Bible's "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD CREATED the heavens and the EARTH the SEA and ALL THAT IS IN THEM". And of course that fact that it is in Bible HISTORY - "THE ACCOUNT of the creation of the earth" in Gen 1-2 AND ALSO in the SPOKEN LAW of God in Exodus 20 would not bother an ATHEIST one single bit.

But where is the "reason" in the CHristian's compromise with Atheism?? Nowhere!

Notice that when this subject is brought up and the BIBLE is the text of review EVEN THE CHRISTIAN evolutionists FLEE THE BUILDING!!

Time after time this has been demonstrated on this very forum!! THe Christian evolutionists FEAR and AVOID any discussion on a BIBLE Basis when it comes to their support of the ATHEIST view of ORIGINS instead of the Bible view!!

The PATTERN of dumping God's Word with every wind of "Story telling" from tradition or atheism is all too common among some groups!!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[Living4Him]

The Hebrew Old Testament Canon was completed in 400 B.C. and you say that Daniel was written in 165 B.C. This really is absurd. It is a denial of the authorship of Daniel. It is a denial of the words of Christ. It is a denial of the facts of history. It is borne out of a denial of a belief in the supernatural.

DHK,

You had posted links to the Jewish encyclopedia. Reading the Jewish encyclopedia, they also conclude that Daniel was written in the year 165BC.

While Sirach (see § 6) knew and made use of most of the books of the Hagiographa, his chapters contain no allusion whatever to Ecclesiastes, Esther, or Daniel. It does not follow from this that he did not know these books, but that he simply did not consider them Holy Writings; moreover, it is certain that in 200 B.C. the canon of the Hagiographa did not exist in its present form. A second foundation for this theory would be the date of the Book of Daniel, which in its present form, and with its allusion to Antiochus Epiphanes, was not known before 165.

 

[Living4Him]

Yet "another lie"???

Is there no end to the lies that have been accepted as "truth" by our befuddled brethren??

I truly feel sorry for a group so steeped in myth and lies that it can not tell the truth when it sees it!!

How sad that a "Christian" should deny the historic account of Daniel - though CHRIST HIMSELF endorses it!!

Bob,
TP is not speaking a lie or saying that he doesn't believe Daniel.

The point that he is trying to make is that DHK states the canon of scripture was closed in 400 BC, but that can't be correct if Daniel wasn't written until 165 BC

 

[BobRyan]

Daniel lived during the time of the Babylonians (Nebuchadnezzar) and the early Persian empire - that was LONG before 165 BC (Which was the end of the Greek empire and start of the Roman Empire)!!

The reason I am so livid about that - (if I can be livid) is that the ONLY reason to abuse the Word of God in that way is because Daniel made such ACCURATE historic statements about the world empires that would FOLLOW Medo-Persia.

Our agnostic and atheist friends could not think of a way to discredit the Bible on this point - so they "make up" the idea that Daniel DID NOT WRITE DANIEL. They turn it into a bogus history book PRETENDING to have prophecy!!

The fact that the RC posters here would swallow that line of balloney as fast as they take in evolutionism, purgatory, prayers to the dead etc should probably not be a big surprise -- I just could not refrain from commenting on the absurdity and "pattern" they are establishing for themselves!

I also don't think it is accidental that a religion that NEEDS to down play scripture and raise tradition of man to par with God's Word -- would JUMP at the chance to discredit Gen 1-2 and even the book of Daniel. The MORE UNTRUSTWORTHY the Bible is said to be - the more NECESSARY some other anchor point -- like the myths and traditions of the Catholic magesterium for example.

In the dark ages their "ploy" was that only THEY could read the Bible - now the ploy is that the Bible can not be trusted if you simply READ IT -- you would need THEM to tell you WHEN it is really TRUE!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is a lie of history. How much plainer can I be.

Judith is a parable - a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle, a spiritual truth. History doesn't have to be accurate in a parable. People do not have to be real and factual historical figures in a parable.

According to Haper's Bible Dictionary parables can be either historical or fictional, and the fictional ones may be either possible or impossible. </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus told a story about the rich man and Lazarus. Everything he said about Abraham was true and factual. Jesus would never tell any untruths or lies about the characters in his parables or stories. Even in a parable, Jesus wouldn't lie. He would still have the facts straight. If I write a story about you, use your name, call you a rapist, a murderrer and a sex offender, and then say it was just a parable, what would you think??
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

You keep saying: No, it is not error. The Jews would not allow any book written after the date of 400 B.C. to even be considered as canonical.

Response: what happened in 400 BC. There was no council, there was no king or leadership who made this decision. There is no document saying or listing the canon. It is as if you picked this date out of the air. The Rabbinic Canon was NOT set until Jamnia at the end of the FIRST CENTURY AD. The Priest of the Temple Never Accepted Any of the books other than the first 5.

peace

No, there was Jesus, whom I have already quoted to you. If you fail to take his word, whose word will you take? Jesus said that the Jews had killed ALL the prophets from ABEL to ZECHARIAS (the first to the last). From shortly after Creation to the fifth century B.C. The next prophet that Christ refers to is John the Baptist, whom they also took and killed. The inference there is as clear as crystal. Between Zecharias and John, God did not speak to any prophet. There was a period of about 400 years silence. God broke that silence when he spoke to a priest "Zecharias," telling him that his wife Elizabeth would have a son (Luke 1:5-25).
Between that time there was a period of 400 and some years when God was silent. The major part of the Apocrypha was written then. That is one of the major reasons we know that it is a forgery, and uninispired. Jesus attests to who the prophets were: the last Zecharias, and the next John. There were none inbetween. But the RCC claims to have 14 "prophets" or books written during that time. BTW, according to Peter all the OT was written by "prophets." Can we hold the Apocrypha up to that standard as well? All the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Not the Apocrypha. All the Old Testament was written before 400 B.C. I hold you to this fact. You cannot point to one book that was written after this date. The Jews would not allow it. If what I say is false, point to one book that was written after 400 B.C. as evidence.
DHK

 

[Living4Him]

400 B.C. I hold you to this fact. You cannot point to one book that was written after this date. The Jews would not allow it. If what I say is false, point to one book that was written after 400 B.C. as evidence.

Why does that Jewish Encyclopedia state that Daniel was written around 165 BC ?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />400 B.C. I hold you to this fact. You cannot point to one book that was written after this date. The Jews would not allow it. If what I say is false, point to one book that was written after 400 B.C. as evidence.

Why does that Jewish Encyclopedia state that Daniel was written around 165 BC ? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know that it does. If it does it is because it is liberal and has accpeted a liberal theology. Here are some others that are more conservative and have not fallen prey to the liberal higher criticism.

The notes that preface the Book of Daniel in my Bible.
Survey of the Old Testament--Gleason Archer
Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament
MacDonald's Believer's Bible Commentary
--Almost every source I look at agrees that the Book of Daniel was written near the end of the 6th century B.C.
Why?
The answer is obvius. Daniel was carried off into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the first deportation 603 B.C. Daniel was the author of the Book of Daniel. Unless you are an apostate, an unbeliever, a modernistic liberal who denies the words of Jesus and has one sole purpose of discrediting the Bible as the Word of God, you will have to agree that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel as he said he did.

Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.

The exile is the historical basis of Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel implies in the first chapter, which commences with the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the captivity (Da 1:1,21; compare Da 9:1-2). A new stage in the theocracy begins with the captivity. Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Judah. The first under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the theocracy to the Babylonian world power. The second (598 B.C.) was that in which Jehoiachin and Ezekiel were carried away. In the third (588 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah.

(Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)

Daniel 1:6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:

Daniel 1:8-9 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.

Daniel 1:21 And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.

Daniel 2:48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.

Daniel 4:27-28 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity. All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.
--Daniel is speaking. It is his prophecy. And his prophecy comes true.

Throughout the book Daniel narrates it. Daniel speaks with the first person singular. Daniel writes it from his perspective. Is there any reason not to believe that Daniel didn't write the book that bears his name?

If you suggest a date of 165 B.C., and Daniel was already a teen-ager, at the youngest 15 years, when he was deported into Babylon in 603, then in 165, he would be 438 years old when he wrote this book. Is this what you believe?
DHK

 

[DHK]

"Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?"

This is the original title of this thread. If the affirmative would be true, then discussions surrounding the Bible would be more than welcome by Catholics, True? Two of our young people went out to speak to others about Christ. They met a Catholic, and to the best of my memory, here is how they related the conversation to me:

We were out witnessing on Tuesday evening. We came across one cantankerous Catholic.
"Do you know for sure that you are saved and going to heaven," they asked.
"Yes, I know I am saved," he answered.
"How do you know?" they asked.
"Because I have given money to the Catholic Church," was the answer.
I guess he answered that not only had he given money to the Catholic Church, but when he goes to heaven, he expects to take his own money with him as well.
"Why are you out doing this," he asked?
"Because the Bible commands us to," one of them answered, and then quoted the Great Commission. "You are just following a guy," he said.
"No, we are following our Saviour."

He said that their time would be more valuably spent out mowing lawns than doing this. They had no right to come and bother him during his supper hour telling him he needed to be saved. During the conversation this Catholic man had no qualms about cussing and swearing. And in the end of the conversation he told them, or even threatened them not to come back again or he would call the police for trespassing.

This is one of many typical Catholic conversations. Catholics don't have any interest in discussing the Bible. Their confidence is in the RCC to get them to Heaven. Beyond that they can live like the devil, do what they want, and get away with murder. The Catholic Church will take care of every thing else. Pity isn't it?
DHK

 

[TP]

Greetings,

You said: This is one of many typical Catholic conversations. Catholics don't have any interest in discussing the Bible.

Response: In my parish you would NOT have had that conversion. In fact, many of my parishioners would have been the ones bringing up their faith in Jesus Christ with YOU.

I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky. He was a police officer who was to drive me around all day. I had a tee-shirt with a quote about the Eucharist. When He asked what it meant: I said, "The Lord's supper"-- After further discussion this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story. I suppose I should write off all baptists because of this experience. Generally, my experience of baptists are pretty ignorant of scriptures. However, personal exerience is NOT a good indicator of the reality of the total situation.

Generally, I have found Lutheran to be very bible proficient, moreso than some other protestant denominations.

peace

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by TP:
Greetings,

You said: This is one of many typical Catholic conversations. Catholics don't have any interest in discussing the Bible.

Response: In my parish you would NOT have had that conversion. In fact, many of my parishioners would have been the ones bringing up their faith in Jesus Christ with YOU.

I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky. He was a police officer who was to drive me around all day. I had a tee-shirt with a quote about the Eucharist. When He asked what it meant: I said, "The Lord's supper"-- After further discussion this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story. I suppose I should write off all baptists because of this experience. Generally, my experience of baptists are pretty ignorant of scriptures. However, personal exerience is NOT a good indicator of the reality of the total situation.

Generally, I have found Lutheran to be very bible proficient, moreso than some other protestant denominations.

peace

Your church may be an exception to the rule, largely due to your own personal influence. Location also has much to do with it. You live in Wisconsin. I used to live there for a while. It used to be known as a graveyard for Baptist churches. But that was some years ago. Either way you look at it, Wisconsin has comparatively few Baptist churches when compared to the southern states.

As for where I live, I live in a nation that is predominately Catholic. Half of our nation is Catholic. That percentage is greater than any one denomination in the U.S. I have talked personally with priests, and other Catholic leaders. All of them seem to be relatively ignorant of the Bible. Where you got your knowledge of the Bible, I don't know. But there is a dearth of Bible knowledge among Catholics here, even a hatred of it. "I don't want to talk about the Bible" is the prevailing attitude among Catholics here. And why should they? They have the church to instruct them, and it isn't out of the Bible.
DHK

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by TP:
I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky...this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story.

I have to agree TP, in my fundamentalist church of almost 450 members; only 75 attend Sunday school, which only lasts for 35 minutes. We read responsively on average 8 verses of Scripture and then we get to hear a sermon on why Bush is such a great president (which I’m not denying) and why the KJV was preserved by God and then the finale, an altar call.

I, being raised a Fundamentalist, actually attended 4 years of Disciple classes at a United Methodist Church in order to get a good study of God’s Word.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TP:
I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky...this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story.

I have to agree TP, in my fundamentalist church of almost 450 members; only 75 attend Sunday school, which only lasts for 35 minutes. We read responsively on average 8 verses of Scripture and then we get to hear a sermon on why Bush is such a great president (which I’m not denying) and why the KJV was preserved by God and then the finale, an altar call.

I, being raised a Fundamentalist, actually attended 4 years of Disciple classes at a United Methodist Church in order to get a good study of God’s Word. </font>[/QUOTE]I am surprised you call yourself IFB, or are even a member of one. If you disagree so much with an IFB churhc, such as the one that you are a member of, then why don't you join a church that is more in line with what you believe instead of bashing IFB churches. That doesn't give you any brownie points here.
DHK

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TP:
I also had a conversation with a baptist in Lexington Kentucky...this baptist had NO idea about the last supper, washing of the feet or any of that story.

I have to agree TP, in my fundamentalist church of almost 450 members; only 75 attend Sunday school, which only lasts for 35 minutes. We read responsively on average 8 verses of Scripture and then we get to hear a sermon on why Bush is such a great president (which I’m not denying) and why the KJV was preserved by God and then the finale, an altar call.

I, being raised a Fundamentalist, actually attended 4 years of Disciple classes at a United Methodist Church in order to get a good study of God’s Word. </font>[/QUOTE]I am surprised you call yourself IFB, or are even a member of one. If you disagree so much with an IFB churhc, such as the one that you are a member of, then why don't you join a church that is more in line with what you believe instead of bashing IFB churches. That doesn't give you any brownie points here.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I’m not bashing IFB churches, not all are the same, but I get tired of hearing the same ‘ol, same ‘ol about other denominations and some are in error and as I am slowly finding out, some aren’t as I once perceived. My dad will go so far to say “if you ain’t a fundamentalist Baptist, you’re Hell bound.” Being raised and indoctrinated in fundamentalism, and then converting my wife to fundamentalism, it’s not that easy to just leave. I do feel I am on a spiritual journey and I am excited about where the Lord is leading me.

 

[violet]

They had no right to come and bother him during his supper hour telling him he needed to be saved.

You know, most people DON'T like to be bothered during their dinner and/or family time and will pretty much say anything to anyone to get them to shut up and go away. I once told a door to door security systems salesman that yes, I would like someone to come rob my house just so that he would end his schpeel and move on...

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by DHK:
I am surprised you call yourself IFB, or are even a member of one. If you disagree so much with an IFB churhc, such as the one that you are a member of, then why don't you join a church that is more in line with what you believe

I am going to go out on a limb here and make a "prediction about the past" -- John 6 already DID THAT!

He USED to be IFB - before becoming Catholic. The whole point of the argument John6 makes is to show that the IFB Upbringing that he had did not prepare him to withstand the myths and fables of Catholicism!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />400 B.C. I hold you to this fact. You cannot point to one book that was written after this date. The Jews would not allow it. If what I say is false, point to one book that was written after 400 B.C. as evidence.

Why does that Jewish Encyclopedia state that Daniel was written around 165 BC ? </font>[/QUOTE]The Jewish encylcopedia claims that Satan is a GOOD ANGEL!

It claims that evolution is true.

It buys into liberal historical critical methods that are "Designed" to unseat faith in scripture - because the Reformed and Liberal branches of Judaism have no interest in the Bible being accurate at all.

Orthodox Judaism has some interest in it - but even they claim that TRADITION is the REAL "standard" of reliability NOT the trustworthy nature of scripture.

The REASON for placing Danile OUTSIDE of the 6 century B.C (when he actually LIVED) is because of the NEED of liberal scholars to DENY that prophecy actually EXISTS!

This is well known.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I am surprised you call yourself IFB, or are even a member of one. If you disagree so much with an IFB churhc, such as the one that you are a member of, then why don't you join a church that is more in line with what you believe

I am going to go out on a limb here and make a "prediction about the past" -- John 6 already DID THAT!

He USED to be IFB - before becoming Catholic. The whole point of the argument John6 makes is to show that the IFB Upbringing that he had did not prepare him to withstand the myths and fables of Catholicism!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Bob, but you are again wrong. I am still technically an IFB, still on the role; still attending Sunday school, and every service thereof.

My IFB upbringing did more that prepare me to withstand, as you say, “myths and fables of Catholicism.” Trust me, you should see my collection of books. My IFB upbringing also prepared me how to recognize cults, and NO IFB church I had ever been a member of referred to Catholics as being cultic, unlike your religious preference, the Seventh Day Adventist, which were lumped together with the JWs and Mormons all being cults.

My IFB upbringing taught me that the Baptist Church was the Church established by Christ. The book Trail of blood was my Baptist history book.

My IFB upbringing taught me that God preserved the KJV and all other versions were counterfeit.

One morning on a cold Indiana winter day this past January, sitting in my car waiting for a training class to begin, I was reading the Gospel of John for the umpteenth time in my life and there John 6 hit me like a ton of bricks. I read John 6 three times. What was so different this time? I had always thought John 6 to be metaphoric, but as I was reading John 6 and reading the reactions of the Jews and Jesus’ disciples, I could no longer attribute John 6 to mere metaphoric. It scared me to death! I went home and asked my wife to read John 6 and we discussed it through tears. I called my associate Pastor, desperately seeking an explanation, I called friends of mine in previous bible study classes, looking, searching. I prayed, fasted and finally I just had to accept it, John 6, was more than just metaphoric.

Were do I go now? What else have I been taught in my IFB upbringing that is wrong or in error? I have never been to a Catholic Mass and never spoken with a Catholic Priest, but I have made a point to objectively study the Catholic Church and her doctrines, no longer am I going to be judgmental and read one-sided material. I blast the Liberal media for doing that and here I was doing the exact same thing!

Right now my goal is to improve my relationship with Christ, that my relationship with Christ can be more intimate. I am getting board of the fire and brimstone preaching, week in and week out. I am 34 years old and all I want to do now is glorify and praise God in worship! And if being a Catholic will get me to that level of intimacy, then the Lord will lead me to her. In the mean time I am waiting patiently on the Lord and He’s hearing my cry and I am slowly emerging from the grip the IFB church has had on me over the years.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by violet:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They had no right to come and bother him during his supper hour telling him he needed to be saved.

You know, most people DON'T like to be bothered during their dinner and/or family time and will pretty much say anything to anyone to get them to shut up and go away. I once told a door to door security systems salesman that yes, I would like someone to come rob my house just so that he would end his schpeel and move on... </font>[/QUOTE]Your right they don't. And most Christians (sad to say) are more gutless than the J.W.'s when it comes to evangelization. Jesus gave a command. It is called the Great Commission. Are you involved in carrying it out?
DHK

 

[violet]

Of course. I just don't go door to door...