Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

While this may be true, its not a very good working definition, especially for this type of discussion. I believe that I fit that description, but you don't seem to think that I am a "true christian" since I accept that the earth is very old and the the diversity of life we see today can best be explained by the theory of evolution. So it seems you have broader range of criteria for being a "true christian" than just simply "saved by grace."In addition, how can you recognize who is "saved by grace?" I say I am ... is that good enough for you to consider me a "true christian?"I would suggest that a Christian is someone who forsakes his/her former way of life and follows Christ and his teachings as related by the apostles, are part of a Christian community and participates in Christian rites. Acts 2:42HBD

I think those are all good answers. I just wish you came across that way in discussions. You come across as having many, many more criteria for a "true Christian" than simply "saved by faith."HBD

Remember that old Bill Cosby skit (I think it was titled "Himself") where he decides what various groups should be eliminated until finally it comes down to the only one left is himself. I see fundies operating much the same way. I come from a Baptist background but started attending a Church of the Nazarene about 15 years ago. One main difference is that Baptists believe in eternal security and the Nazarenes say that it is possible to lose your salvation. I struggled with that for a while, but one of the things I have realized more recently is that you cannot simply "BE" a Christian you must "DO" Christianity. This is the whole point of the sheep and the goats story. I would agree with these definitions. I think they fall under the category: "follows Jesus and his teachings as related by the apostles." Yea, and many divisions are based on much sillier things. It's really the sad thing about the church and honestly one of the major things that turns people off to institutionalized Christianity.HBD

Hey, Archer O. I appreciate your perspective on this. I think a lot of our modern perspective on this issue (and others as well) come from our Western philosophy of pluralism that is based on Socratic thinking. We tend to separate things into distinct categories and disconnect them from each other; work and home, sacred and secular, church and state, faith and works. I don't think the authors of the Bible had these distinctions in mind when they wrote the scriptures. This is a more recent imposition on the texts.As far as faith and works, I think the apostle James makes it most clear:

quote:

---

"Wasn't [Abraham] shown to be righteous through his actions... See his faith was at work along with his actions. In fact, his faith was made complete by his faithful actions. So you see a person is shown to be righteous through faithful actions and not through faith alone... As the lifeless body is dead, so faith without actions is dead." James 2:21-26 CEV

---

You can't separate the two without destroying them both.It's funny how these same "sects" as you put it, would accept that Jesus was fully man and fully God, but can't accept that the answer to "Is it faith or works that saves?" is "Yes." Agreed. However, in practice, it is easy to fall into the trap of keeping a checklist of our works; go to church - check; give money to charity - check; say a few "Our Fathers" and "Hail Marys" - check; as if somehow these things will earn us favor with God.IMO, the protestants had some legitimate things to challenge the Catholic church on. However, the pendulum may have swung too far the other way. I like what you said sometime back (I think it was you) something about representing the stages in the evolution of the Church, and I like that. The Church has always been changing, and I believe, trying to find the right way, but always managing to botch it up. Starting with good intentions, but allowing human motivations to get in the way. I have always said the Churches would be great if it wasn't for the people But I also think that the Church is on another correcting course right now, trying to steer closer to what was intended from the beginning. Fundamentalists are the group that is resisting that change, thinking they have it all figured out and their way of thinking is as close to perfect as possible. Thus the emphasis on exclusionary terms.HBD

The term "free gift" does appear in Romans 5:15 and 5:16 in the ASV, CEB and the NASB and in Romans 6:23 in the ASV and NASB. All translations I trust to be faithful to the oldest transcripts we have and they come from a different source text than KJV. As to whether the word was in the original texts, I have no idea, the originals don't exist.However, I agree with your basic premise that "free gift" is over emphasized as the end all of discussion. It is clear we must DO something. That "free gift" is intended to imply "get out of hell free" is completely missing the point. (I am not saying this is Faith's position, but it is an unintended corollary of the "free gift" emphasis)The point Paul was emphasizing in Romans is that God's grace is not something we earn, but something he gives to us, even though we don't deserve it.ABE: I should also add that the Protestants emphasized this "free gift" aspect in direct confrontation to the Catholic Church's practice of purchasing grace, whether through indulgences or through worship, rituals and traditions. As I mention in my other reply to you, perhaps they swung the pendulum too far the other direction.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : add paragraph

Agreed. I really should have said "Protestant Reformers" instead of just Protestants. The reformers themselves did place a huge emphasis on "free gift" of grace just as they did on the elimination of icons. They had to push back hard against what they saw as wrongs of the Catholic Church because Catholic tradition was so ingrained and powerful in Medieval society. Some of the Protestant movements didn't go as far as others and some self-corrected at a later time, but these issues were emphasized very strongly during the Reformation. They were pretty much the driving force of the Reformation.Another issue like this would be "Scripture Only." This too was a strong reaction to the Catholic Church's doctrine that the Pope was the final authority on earth. The Pope was above the law and the Reformers thought that even the Pope should be subject to an authority, and therefore, the Bible should be the final authority.HBD

I am really not much of a translator, I have to rely on scholars to do that for me. I don't rely on a single translation, but look at several that I trust and compare them to try and get an adequate picture of what the author is saying. I think Archer O. was saying that "free" was not used in conjunction with "gift" in the original, nor in translations other than KJV. I pointed out that it does appear in NASB, ASV and CEB which I consider to be reliable translations. I wouldn't take the word "gift" to mean something you earn. When I work, my boss doesn't give me my paycheck as a "gift" (although sometimes he thinks it is )... I have earned it, it is owed to me. Gifts are given because you love someone, or you want to show appreciation or you want to honor them (although you could argue that appreciation and honor are earned - although not obliged).The word "free" is to emphasize this aspect of the gift being unearned. However, I think part of the problem is our understanding of the word "free." We take it to mean "with no obligation" or "with absolutely no cost involved," which is clearly not the case. Jesus said that unless we "take up our cross" we are not worthy to be his disciple. And he admonished us to "consider the cost" of following him. Clearly the gift is not "free" in the sense of "no obligation or cost."So arguments about whether it is a "free gift" or simply a "gift" kinda miss the point. I will be interested to hear what you find out. Personally, I have completely abandoned the KJV. The only time I use it is in discussions with people who see other translations as "corrupt." It is as meaningless to my understanding of the Bible as a German or Japanese translation. HBD

But, you should care about this argument. Isn't your position that modern translations of the Bible are corrupt based on the idea that they were translated from bogus/forged documents, including the Sinaiticus? Or does it not even matter that it probably is genuine?HBD

Here is a review of Tares Among the Wheat

quote:

---

Now, for the person who is all into Jesuit conspiracies and is emotionally manipulated by scary horn sounds and dark shadowy images in a film, I can see how he or she can be easily persuaded to believe what Pinto is saying here. I’m guessing he is banking on the hope no one will actually go to the computer and double-check his claim, because if anyone were to do so, ...

---

quote:

---

Pinto is something of an obscure documentarian who makes strange films on conspiracy theories. See for instance his two films playing on the UFOTV.COM youtube channel [UFO TV people!], the Secrets of the Dollar Bill and Riddles in Stone, in which he lays out the influence Free Masons and the Illuminati have had upon the history of the United States.

---

quote:

---

The documentary format provides Pinto the ability to dramatize key characters and sequences in his convoluted conspiracy theory. That allows him the opportunity to stage how he wants his viewers to perceive the principal individuals central to his thesis.

​

Tischendorf is portrayed as angry and brooding Simonides, is portrayed as a handsome, swashbuckling scholar, like some heroic Indiana Jones character, who sadly met his early death going up against the sinister scheming of Tischendorf and the massive Jesuit machine.

​

The dramatizations are so absurd that they would be comical if it weren’t for the fact that what Pinto is trying to convey to his audience wasn’t so profoundly in error.

---

Thanks for your work on this Mod (and Dr. A too). I was really skeptical of this whole "Bible Hoax of 1881" stuff and it seems pretty clear it is nothing more than a nonsense conspiracy theory.HBD

Bruce Metzger mentions that in his The Text of the New Testament, 1st & 2nd Editions

quote:

---

Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found - or made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition

---

but later retracts the statement as a footnote on the 3rd edition and removed it all together in 4th edition.

quote:

---

What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. De Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion; see his "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi (1980), pp. 381-9

---

While Erasmus did suspect that MS61 (Codex Bntannicus) was influenced by the Vulgate, there is no evidence he thought it was created intentionally to force him to include the Comma Johanneum. De Jonge concludes that

quote:

---

The real reason which induced Erasmus to include the Comma Johanneum was thus clearly his care for his good name and for the success of his Novum Testamentum.

---

Leaving out the Comma Johanneum was considered a dangerous doctrinal omission and it was this pressure that prompted him to include it in later editions of his work.

quote:

---

It should be borne in mind that Lee had written that the omission of the Comma Johanneum brought with it the danger of a new revival of Arianism. This was of course a very serious insinuation. Erasmus had reason to fear that if he were suspected of heretical sympathies, his Novum Testamentum would miss its exalted goal.

---

Source: Erasmus and the Comma JohanneumThe inclusion of the Comma Johanneum is very rare in Greek manuscripts and only appears in late, Medieval manuscripts. From www.bible.ca:

quote:

---

In the time since Erasmus, among all the Greek manuscripts that have been examined, only three more, all of late date, have been found which include the passage, and it apparently comes to these from the Vulgate, not from earlier Greek exemplars. These three include one sixteenth century manuscript, one manuscript which is said to be from either the fourteenth or sixteenth century, and one twelfth century manuscript which has the passage added in the margin by a seventeenth century hand. In spite of the obvious lack of authenticity this passage, which probably originated as an attempt to augment the case for trinitarianism, is today included in the King James Version as if it were part of the inspired word.

---

A good example of doctrine compelling translation rather than the other way around.HBD

But Dr. A brings up a legitimate point. If these gnostics set out to undermine the credibility of the deity of Christ, then why did they leave ANY references that support it? The funny thing is, I have grown up in churches that exclusively use modern translations and have never had a problem with this doctrine. Modern translations make the divinity of Christ perfectly clear. In fact, there are several verses besides John 1:18 where the modern versions do a better job of clarifying this doctrine. Rom 9:15
KJV "whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."NIV "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."NASB "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." Col 2:9
KJV "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."NIV "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,"NASB "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," Titus 2:13
KJV "looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"NIV "while we wait for the blessed hopethe appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"NASB "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," 2 Peter 1:1
KJV "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"NIV "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:"NASB "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:"So, why did the gnostics corrupt the text into a reading that better supported the deity of Christ? But that is a doctrinal interpretation not completely clear from a literal reading. I think the NASB is much clearer support for the Trinity based on a straight, literal reading.These so called "doctrinal perversions" that modern Bibles supposedly are guilty of is really just non-sense. It is interpretation based on our own perversions, our own biases, not from the corruption of modern translations. Are not churches who "handle snakes" KJV-only? Did not those who continued to justify slavery in the US because of African inferiority also rely on KJV texts? What about extremists cults like the Branch Davidians? They were also strict KJV-onliers. Should we blame the KJV for these "doctrinal perversions?"------------------In fact, its worse than all that. If you don't read the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) you are reading a version that has been corrupted by evil, secular publishers. Tracy over at Jesus-is-Lord.com, who has a "firm grasp of the truth" provides a test to see if your Bible can pass the test of being pure and uncorrupted. How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James BibleCriteria:

quote:

---

1. "or Sheba" not "and Sheba" in Joshua 19:2
2. "sin" not "sins" in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. "Spirit of God" not "spirit of God" in Job 33:4
4. "whom ye" not "whom he" in Jeremiah 34:16
5. "Spirit of God" not "spirit of God" in Ezekiel 11:24
6. "flieth" not "fleeth" in Nahum 3:16
7. "Spirit" not "spirit" in Matthew 4:1
8. "further" not "farther" in Matthew 26:39
9. "bewrayeth" not "betrayeth" in Matthew 26:73
10. "Spirit" not "spirit" in Mark 1:12
11. "spirit" not "Spirit" in Acts 11:28
12. "spirit" not "Spirit" in 1 John 5:8

---

Are you reading the "correct" version of the Bible, or do you have a corrupt KJV?How about this

quote:

---

Here are some other ploys that some of these other worldly publishing companies are pulling on an unaware publick. One thing a lot of them do is change the spelling of words that end with the letters o-u-r to the more modern American spelling of o-r. For example armour becomes armor... Well Brother Nic what's wrong with that? Remember what we said about the warning labels? Remember what the scripture said about a little leaven leaventh the whole lump?

​

Now the very worst of this battle of o-u-r vs. o-r comes when dealing with the only begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The modern day counterfeiters have changed Saviour to Savior. They have given us a six-letter Savior in place of a seven-letter Saviour. In Bible numerics seven is the number of completeness, purity, and spiritual perfection. On the other hand six is the number of man which is earthly not heavenly. Every one has heard of 666. It has a bad connotation and is not highly esteemed in Bible numerics.

​

The seven-letter Saviour is the only begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. The six-letter Savior is the son of perdition, the anti christ. He wants to be like the most High (Isaiah 14:14,) but not in a good way, but in an evil way. He is not a follower. He's a counterfeiter. Therefore his final destination is the lake of fire. The new versions, along with the new age movement, and some of the King James Bible counterfeits are preparing the way for this six-letter so called Savior. That's the way he will spell his name, S-a-v-i-o-r not S-a-v-i-o-u-r. No thank you Satan. I'm sticking with the seven-letter Saviour as portrayed in the old black Book that I inherited from my forefathers.

---

Seriously? Those are the things we are fighting about? Those are corruptions?HBD

Yea, I saw that and was going to bring it up but my post got kinda long and I needed to wrap it up and so forgot.Actually, maybe that would be a good test all by itself. Throw the Bible in question into the fire and if it burns up - then it was a fake."What do we do with witches?"
"BURN THEM!"
"Ah. But what do you burn apart from witches?"
"MORE WITCHES!"-----------------It's like you said in Message 797But a fair and even-handed treatment is just not a possibility for fundamentalists - they have to drive it all the way to crazy town. It makes it hard to get behind anything they claim, even if there is some kernel of truth to it.HBD

Did you read the whole of my post? Did you even check my source? Here's another summary:Erasmus left it out of his new Greek Testament because it appeared in no known Greek manuscripts - no known mss. When he was finally presented with a Greek mss that had the phrase in it, he included it in his next revision even though he suspected that the mss. had been influenced by the Vulgate. Part of what influenced him was the pressure of being considered to having heretical sympathies. How does that make it authentic? It's not a question of being late or early, its a question of doctrine determining translation. You do know that the "church" that protected and kept these manuscripts safe from mutilation was the Catholic Church. You do realize that Erasmus dedicated his Greek New Testament to the Pope - who you say is the Anti-Christ. I'm not sure how you think that these texts being in the hands of the evil Roman Catholic Church for ~1000 years could keep them pure. Good How is this evidence in favor of leaving it in? It seems to have been taken from the Vulgate. Do you accept the Vulgate as uncorrupted? But doctrine should not inform translation. The text needs to define doctrine. This is the problem with KJV-only sites, they judge the correctness of the text by doctrine taken from the KJV. The ideal would be to know what the original authors actually said and that is what should define doctrine. You could make this same argument for the modern versions. As I said before, the doctrines are still sound, so what's the problem?Besides, you stated in Message 840But somehow you overlooked Rev 22:18 which states:

quote:

---

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;

---

So by your own standards, adding the Comma when it doesn't belong there is just as bad as what you claim the Alexandrian mss have done. Why the double standard?HBD

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Faith. Did Metzger believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died on the cross and rose again on the third day? You went to great lengths earlier in this very thread to support the "faith only" doctrine. Now you have added the criteria that one must accept the traditional dating of the Bible. Those quotes you provided by Metzger say nothing about his faith in Christ, or his acceptance of the truth of the Bible or the inspiration of its original authors. For instance, he suggests that 2 Peter may not have been written by the apostle Peter, but by a disciple of his. But does he suggest that this unnamed disciple was not inspired by the Holy Spirit?Additionally, provide a quote where Metzger states that he does not believe in prophecy, otherwise it is just an unmerited assertion.I found what appears to be your source for your Metzger quotes (which shame on you for not providing a source on such an extended quotation). Here is something else the editor says ...

quote:

---

Bruce Metzger is a Liberal. He piously claims on one hand
that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; but out of the other
side of the mouth he claims the Bible is filled with myth and lies.
He denies the Bible's history, its miracles, and its authorship,
while, in true liberal style, declaring that this denial does not
do injustice to the Word of God, for the Bible is not "written for
history but for religion" and is not to be read "with a dull
prosaic and literalistic mind"!

---

He "claims the Bible is the inspired Word of God!" Where does Metzger say the Bible contains lies? He doesn't say that. Myths and legends doesn't mean that the stories are not based on truth. He doesn't deny the Bible's history, but only states that it wasn't written FOR history. It was written FOR religion - so that people would know who God is. Which quote denies miracles? He questions (or denies) traditional authorship of some books, but is there no way tradition could be wrong? (remember the evil Catholic Church had control over traditions for ~ 1000 years)Do you suppose that Moses had never heard the stories of Joseph or the other patriarchs or the creation? Do you suppose that there was no written or oral accounts of the stories of history? Do you think that God one day came to him and said "Hey Moses, write this down." and then dictated the whole of Genesis to him? No, that's not likely. It's more likely that God inspired Moses to take the stories and documents that he had available and compile them into a single document or series of documents that could then be passed on through the generations. Did the Bible come about by magic or did it come about as God inspired different people to write down their stories and stories about God?So it looks as if we need to add another criteria to salvation... You have to believe the Bible came about by supernatural means, not by any human, natural means - ie. people writing down stories.It seems that you think that Metzger's attitude that the Bible "is not to be read 'with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind' " is heretical. Its as if faith should mean "believing without thinking." Oh wait ...Faith, all this nonsense about modern Bible translations is nothing but a 20th century witch hunt."She's a witch!"
"How do you know she's a witch?"
"Well, she looks like a witch."HBD

There are many fundamentalists as well, who are heretics and will burn in hell.