As a Catholic, i appreciate you reviewing a Catholic bible. Thank you.

This is good to know. I work at a Catholic University by day and am a Protestant Bible study leader at night. It’s great to see you going over this. Very informative for me. Thank you for going through this! - Rebecca

@KW-mz4pn

3 ай бұрын

What?

The Little Rock Catholic Study Bible is wayy better than this one here. I would definitely look into that one for a future vid. The Great Adventure Bible is a fun one too. And thank you for your great and honest review, as always! God Bless.

@kriskoletar9500

3 ай бұрын

I would love to see a Dojo review of Little Rock. I’ve been considering picking it up but don’t have much in the way of reviews to go by.

@sharondavidson7412

3 ай бұрын

I've heard nothing but bad things about the Little Rock study Bible. I guess it depends who you ask. I've never seen it, so I have no opinion.

I've been reading through "The Word on Fire" Bible. They have released the first three volumes(out of seven). The fourth volume should be out this Summer. They contain a lot of commentary and art. I think that it would be an interesting review. Jim

I am Protestant but have a few Catholic Bibles. Word on Fire Gospels, (beautiful) Great adventure Bible, Saint Joseph (very underrated Bible in my opinion. Very helpful notes and the translation is readable.) But the best and my favourite study Bible, Catholic or non Catholic is the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament, RSV translation by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. I started buying a lot of Study Bibles when my brother passed away, and this is by far the Study Bible that has helped me the most with my grief and my faith. The notes, topical essays and word studies are substantial for dealing with people who want to believe but have questions or issues with what they are reading in the Bible and want notes that blend scholarship with devotion.

@carlose4314

3 ай бұрын

There are two translations used by the St. Joseph Bible, NCB and NABRE.

@baudelaire2984

3 ай бұрын

The NCB translation is the Bible I have.@@carlose4314

I'd like to add that the notes and the introductions that are after the reading guide are actually part of the NABRE translation itself and are required in all editions of the NABRE. There's one called the Didache Bible where they had to cram their notes alongside the NABRE's notes. Sometimes the notes of the two sources would even contradict each other.

@DiscipleDojo

3 ай бұрын

Interesting. I've not seen any other editions of the NABRE, so thank you for sharing that info.

@edwardbell9795

3 ай бұрын

The Didache Bible published by Ignatius Press is the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition. It doesn't include the NABRE notes but commentary linked to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The NABRE notes - which to me read like mainstream or even liberal Protestant commentary - are not part of the translation but they are always included. The translation is authorised by the US Catholic Bishops but the notes, as I understand it, are not.

@3ggshe11s

3 ай бұрын

There are two versions of the Didache Bible: One with the NABRE text, and one with the RSV2CE. The latter is by far the superior choice. It's a better overall translation, and the NAB study notes are absent.

@3ggshe11s

3 ай бұрын

@@edwardbell9795 - the bishops approved it all, text and notes.

@edwardbell9795

3 ай бұрын

Goodness! I wonder how many actually read the notes!​@3ggshe11s

​​Excellent review, love all the attention to textual details.

The Ignatius Study Bible is theologically conservative and much better. Only the New Testament has been released in a single volume so far. Most of the Old Testament is finished but has only been published in booklets for individual books.

@carlose4314

3 ай бұрын

I like the individual books because there is space for notes.

@bradk7310

3 ай бұрын

I believe the OT Ignatius just came out with the NT. I don’t believe it will be separate.

@carlose4314

3 ай бұрын

@@bradk7310 Fall 2024

Very nice. I definitely need to get one of these.

I have the second edition of this bible, the notes, the commentary, and the translations are great. I was studying Northrop Frye's The Great Code, so the additional books found in the Catholic bible was a must. I highly recommend this to those studying the bible, Catholic or not.

Thank you for this in-depth explanation. I don't know any prominent Catholic teachers who use the NAB-RE. In America, we're locked into it because the bishops require it to be used in the liturgy with some adaptations. There is a Catholic Bible that has remained my favorite for decades: The New Jerusalem Bible. (Ignore the more recent Revised New Jerusalem Bible. It is a new translation without the study guides. What's the point?) The NJB has excellent footnotes and introductory notes. The typesetting is great with easy to find footnotes and cross-references in the margins. When reading the OT, the footnotes help to make sense of what would otherwise be a confusing scripture passage. It shows how dependent Revelation is upon OT symbolism. [Don't hate the messenger: I prefer it to the NIV Archeological Bible -- sorry, I know that's your favorite.] The second Bible you could review is the Didache Bible which uses the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition. It's become a favorite for many Catholics because it collaborates the footnotes with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Liturgical cycle.

@johnpope401

3 ай бұрын

The New Jerusalem Bible is a translation from the french translation of the Bible. The focus when translating this was readability verse literal translation. J. R. R. Tolkien was involved with the translation! One other interesting point concerning the NJB is that Saint Therese of Lisieux called her spiritual path, “The little way,” which comes from the French translation of the Bible. There are 2 passages in NJB that refer to the little way but I don’t have my NJB with me and I can’t find a concordance so you’ll have to look it up on your own.

@OneStepToday

2 ай бұрын

The New Catholic Bible 2019 is more literal than NJB, and far better than NABRE, it is a religious sane version of the NABRE. You should try that. I hate the NABRE translation, and the whole point of of my enthusiasm over NAB was its amazing page setup with 3 column notes, and amazing section headings which are definitely the best among all. But it falls on translation big time, check my main comment for details. NCB is a great translation, and it has also amazing helpful notes. NJB is quite paraphrase.

Terrific, in-depth, honest review of the NABRE Catholic Study Bible. I used the older NAB Catholic Study Bible and the Jewish Study Bible during my four years at the Catholic Biblical School and found them very good for the type of Biblical study we did back then (1995-1999), which was heavily academic. Nowadays I find the NET Bible and the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible a bit more useful and informative, but I keep 22 Bibles at my desk and I use all of them from time to time, including French and Spanish Bibles that provide insights not found in the English language Bibles. For the type of work I'm doing now, I find increasingly I have to delve into the primary literature (peer-reviewed journal articles) to satisfy my need to understand foundational or pivotal concepts, such as John Walton's functional interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I guess I'd still favor the NABRE over the NRSV, if only because the NRSV seems a bit more 'lukewarm' on theology than the NABRE. I respect your conclusion that the NABRE Catholic Study Bible ought not be a student's first choice. I would recommend the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible for Catholics and probably the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible for Protestants, but the NET, the ESV, and even the old RSV would be good choices, too. For those of your subscribers who speak Spanish, the new Biblia de la Iglesia en America is fantastic. PM 2024

Good review, as usual. Observations: I believe the NAB NT (1986) and OT (2011) have different prefaces because they were done at substantially different times. The Reading Guide is separated from the scripture text because the Catholic Magisterium does not want to mix unofficial commentary (Reading Guide) and official commentary (the NABRE footnotes). Both reflect scholarly views as promoted by Vatican II dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum, and the earlier encyclical Divno Aflante Spiritu (Pius XII, 1943). I think one of the key differences between Protestantism and Catholicism is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that only the Church Magisterium can properly interpret scripture, while Protestantism of course allows for individual interpretation through the Holy Spirit.

5:59 Actually, the New Testament canon differs between churches. The Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches have additional books (the Sinodos, 1 & 2 Clement, Didascalia, etc.). And the Assyrian Church of the East excludes 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

@carlose4314

3 ай бұрын

Ethiopian bibles split Proverbs into two books, Jeremiah includes Baruch and Lamentations, a history of the Jewish people from Adam to Titus (not considered scripture by them), and include church canons after Revelation. Some of these books are not considered scripture by them as it would be like a Catholic including a papal encyclical or and Reformed Anglican including the Westminster confession, basically a study bible.

@XaaviWillow

3 ай бұрын

@@carlose4314 I've never heard Josippon or the post-Revelation books be called non-canoical. These books are categorized within whats called the Broader Canon. From what I've read, the differences between Narrow and Broad canons comes from issues of copying/printing. What I do know is, the Fetha Nagast (a book of church order), mndates the Tewahedo Bible consist of 81 books, but never gives a list of which books count and how they're divided. Admittedly, these books are hard to find outside Ethiopia and Eritrea, and a full Tewahedo Bible has yet to be published in English.

@carlose4314

3 ай бұрын

@@XaaviWillow Eastern Christians have a much broader view of the canon to mean, books read during the liturgy.

I have heard bad reviews about this Bible. It will be great to do a review on the Didache Bible, pronounced diake.

Do you worry that the skepticism in the notes either lesd to people becoming atheists or serve as gotcha quotes for atheists to discredit the bible?

@DiscipleDojo

3 ай бұрын

I definitely wouldn't recommend this to someone who doesn't apready have a solid grasp of Scripture and is able to ferret out the liberal theoligical assumptions and biases.

@OneStepToday

2 ай бұрын

Their agenda is to fight american fundamentalism. I see absolutely no chance to become athiest after learning top notch academic scholarship, it only increases my faith. But, the weak faith people may definitely fall away if their foundation of idols is destroyed, sadly.

great video

It would be interesting to see the introductions to 2 Corinthians and Philippians and whether they mention the common scholarly approach that they each include more than one letter.

@3ggshe11s

3 ай бұрын

The introduction to Philippians acknowledges the possibility that it's a combination of three letters. Likewise, the intro for 2 Corinthians says some scholars believe it to be a compilation of several smaller letters.

@nendwr

3 ай бұрын

@@3ggshe11s Interesting. Better and worse than the SBL Study Bible (where my main gripe beyond the physical awfulness of the paper is its unevenness) -- that one explains the 5-letter view of 2 Corinthians in some detail, but takes such a unitarian view of Philippians that a casual reader would never know that the 3-letter approach has had scholarly adherents for decades.

Interesting to learn that Catholics exclude 3 and 4 Maccabees for a lot of the same reasons Protestants exclude all Maccabees.

The NAB is actually a good fit for that study Bible, since both of them take a critical approach to scripture. The weird thing is that the NAB is the "official" Bible of the Catholic church in America, approved by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops. You'll find a lot of Catholics who take issue with the fact that this is the Bible given to catechumens and to young Catholics at their confirmation. You'd expect the annotations to support a faithful understanding of scripture and Catholic teaching, but instead you get notes that could pose a crisis of faith for anyone struggling with their belief. It's really kind of mind-boggling that the NAB(RE) is the Bible the church embraces and promotes, and I unfortunately think it says a lot about the mindset of the people who run the church. The translation isn't really all that great, either. It's pretty flat and lacking in literary grace. Catholics don't have a lot of great options when it comes to true study Bibles. A good one is the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, which uses the RSV-Second Catholic Edition, a far superior translation to the NAB(RE). So far there's only a New Testament. The Old Testament is being released bit by bit in separate booklets but remains incomplete. If the entire Bible ever gets finished, it will be an excellent study resource for Catholics. There's also the Didache Bible, which also uses the RSV-2CE translation. (There's an NABRE Didache, but it's best avoided.) The study notes draw on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so you really get a good sense of how Catholics understand and relate to scripture. There are also a lot of apologetical articles spread throughout the book. As of right now, this is probably the best complete Catholic study Bible out there. As for Catholic Bibles that have good and abundant annotations, but aren't necessarily study Bibles, there's the New Catholic Bible, which only came out about five years ago and is a pretty solid translation, and the old 1966 Jerusalem Bible. I personally love the JB. It's a fairly dynamic translation, but it reads beautifully, and the copious and very insightful notes do a good job of balancing historical criticism with theological analysis. Its successors, the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) and the Revised NJB (2019), tended more literal but also employed gender-inclusive language, and the RNJB has markedly fewer notes. There are some old Douay-Rheims Bibles that are heavily annotated, but the antiquated language makes the D-R hard to recommend. Thanks for the review. I'm a bit of a Bible nerd, raised Catholic, and always enjoy seeing discussion of Catholic Bibles.

@nogracias8560

3 ай бұрын

Catholics in Latín America and Spain are so much better served: More than 10 different catholic translation s from the original languages into spanish.

Just watching now, much of those beginning essays have a very modernist bent though. Much of the stuff they claim is debated has been authoritatively taught on by the Magisterium. Very critical leaning.

Just started at a Catholic school as there IT guy so might pick this up b/c i am a Bible Nerd #biblenerd

The NABRE notes and introductions placed before each book are published in all editions of NABRE and are not unique to or specifically part of the Oxford Catholic Study Bible. The notes (as well as the introductions placed before each book) and reading guides are not by the same scholars. The notes and the introductions placed before each book are not, therefore, condensed versions of the reading guides. The prefaces, introductions, footnotes and cross references - as well as the biblical text - are from the Confraternity for Christian Doctrine, and are published with every NABRE, whereas the reading guides, unique to the Oxford Catholic Study Bible, are by the scholars listed at the start and in the table of contents.

@OneStepToday

2 ай бұрын

do you know of any Bible with apocrypha, that has fully integrated apocrypha and possibly even greater level of cross-references? The bibles like NABRE has very selected rare apocrypha references mainly in the apocrypha books alone.

Please review the New Jerusalem Bible. Thank you. God bless you.

@richardvoogd705

26 күн бұрын

Fun fact: J R R Tolkien (author of the Lord of the Rings books) reputedly provided the translation of Jonah in the original Jerusalem Bible.

If you would not recommend this as a good Catholic study bible what would you recommend, I liked video none the less,

@DiscipleDojo

2 ай бұрын

I don't know. This is the only Catholic Study Bible I've reviewed.

@jamesmcnichol3908

2 ай бұрын

Thanks

@IoannesVI

Ай бұрын

Ignatius Press Ignatius Study Bible by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. The New Testament is available. They are working on the Old Testament. For now, A Catholic Introduction to the Bible The Old Testament by John Bergsma and Brant Pitre.

I have to say that the notes of this Bible sadly follow modernism (it was condamned by pope Pius X), at 13:15 you can see that they date the Gospels after the year 70aD (which is false since we know there's a fragment of Mark dated before the year 68aD). The best catholic Bible I founs is the Navarra version (very hard to find) and for myself I use the Ricciotti one (very famous italian Bible that was reprinted several times)

Mediocre study bible. I prefer the Navarre bible or Scott Hahn's Ignatius Study bible.

Awesome review just fantastic. My NABRE St Joseph is great in the NT notes and about 60 years behind on OT, totally dated JDEP source data, like looking at a dated cassette tape in the age of digital. My church history professor saw me lugging around a Jerusalem Bible and called me out in class and made everybody laugh at my Catholic obsession. He said Rome has the best NT scholars and the worst church history. Only Rome sees itself as the oldest of the 7 sees instead of the youngest. My rule is every time a RC claims a church father as Catholic, it’s usually Orthodox, except on Augustine the EO are like “yup, he’s all yours!”

As a Catholic, I now stay away from Donald Senior and his modern "scholarly" presumptions. If you can ignore the articles and a few crazy notes within, this is not a bad study bible. But I would not use this if you are a new Christian, it might convince you to doubt the supernatural. Reading about how John put words into Jesus' mouth based on the community thoughts 70 years later isn't helpful. I have the 1990 edition and the articles rely heavily upon modern historical criticism - which is theoretical - and ignores ancient tradition. For example, a few of the Church Fathers state that Matthew was written in Hebrew first before the Greek and so there would be no reason to consider that Mark is the source of Matthew and Luke. Here is a quote from the Matthew article: "the ancient tradition that the author was...Matthew... is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark..." Is this special pleading or what? Just accept that the Two Source is true and forget about Matthew writing a gospel based on what he remembered. Luke "HAD" to copy from Mark - despite the very fact that Luke HIMSELF in the first 2 verses states "MANY have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events..." I have never heard that TWO previous narratives (Mark and Q) as called MANY.... but that's what "Biblical scholars" tell us in the 2-source gospel theory... So this is the problem with historical criticism. It presumes something, as "clearly", the apostles wouldn't remember anything that they witnessed to write down a narrative of the most important person of their lives, backed by the promptings of the Holy Spirit. And people 75 years from the time of Christ are not to be trusted as historical witnesses of who wrote what. Another issue with these "scholars" to be careful is that the dating of Luke and Mark "must" be after 70 AD because the Temple was destroyed then and who could possibly predict that? Supernatural? WHAT? I suppose to remain within "academia" in bible studies, you can't write articles that state that Jesus is God, belief in the supernatural, the predicted the fall of Jerusalem or that Jesus performed miracles without being "black-listed" or subject to peer criticism. Sorry about the ramblings but beware of Bible studies that go far astray with modern presumptions based on theory. This particular study bible has many, if Mr. Senior is still editing it. There are a number of Bible studies MUCH better that consider the Bible as God's Word and miracles are indeed possible - such as the Haydock Bible, (haydockcommentary.com/) which is online for free. It is based on the DR. Even better is the Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture by Bernard Orchard (circa 1950, archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.325859/mode/2up). It has outstanding notes, but the scanning is not very good, some pages are unreadable. Also, hard to get around to a specific passage, you just have a slider for the entire bible at the bottom of the page. The Navarre Bible is not bad, especially the NT individual study books, using more modern translations. The volumes that cover several books in one volume are not as good - much of the pages are devoted to the English and Latin translation, with less room for commentary. The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scriptures series is very good. It's also over $300 for the series. Only NT so far (except for Ezekiel and Wisdom, I think). I haven't tried the St. Ignatius NT study bible by Scott Hahn, I might check that out. They've been talking about an OT book for years but nothing yet. I have also heard about the ESV study bible, so if I can work around some of the theological presumptions within, I may try that. I have Bishop Barron's Word on Fire Gospels coming next week. We'll see how that goes, but I have read that it is more for meditation and less a commentary like the above.

Thank you for this review, this Bible is the most underrated. I disagree with your analysis that the essays show an anti supernatural apriori bias; they are merely stating the conclusions of scholars through literary and historical studies that they the ancient narratives are more literary than historical, they don't assume any bias against supernaturalism. . They only say that it must not be taken the way fundamentalists present it, and they don't entertain the various sectarian interpretations as an encyclopedia, which would be unnecessary. You didn't touch the point of various places in essays where it shows that its academic agenda is to fight fundamentalism, which are American mainstream religion (represented as American Niagra council in 19th century), without a doubt, as mentioned in the Pontifical Interpretation decree of 1993. The essay on Bible in catholic life mentions the dangers of fundamentalism. It's best to just buy or download for free the ebook on anas archiv, and you should've used the physical beautiful format of the NABRE in which red letter headings and 3 column footnotes, which is perfect for reading with notes on same page and the best section headings; that maybe another video for the translation review. It is quite amazing, and this is why I loved it bec it has nothing to do with catholicism; no commentary and unnecessary info as we see in other ones like Oxford and ESV; though I was disappointed that they did lean towards faith alone error in their notes, quite embarrassingly, note on Gal 3:19 also says "so that righteousness comes by faith and promise, not by human works of the law.", as if "faith" is involuntary, or itself a gift, and that they are confusing works of the law with "human efforts" as the protestants teach. Also, the early edition of NAB stated in notes in Luke 2, how the virgin birth narrative was retrospectively added due to midrashic expectations, though they had to remove it in later edition. The footnotes are the best, they are far better than Oxford Annotated which gives details like a hardcore study bible, but this one gives key informations without unnecessary details, with good interpretation. Though I hate its translation which is full of absurd oddities. They have "- oracle of the Lord" in all the places of "thus says the Lord", and some other unintelligible gibberish like 7 "I AMs" in John, straight from Raymond Brown's imaginations and 76 AMEN transliterations. On Luke 24:26 the note says "“The idea of a suffering Messiah is not found in the Old Testament or in other Jewish literature prior to the New Testament period.” thereby throwing the prophetic usage under the bus, or calling the Gospel authors liars, or showing zero knowledge about any Jewish prophecies of the sufering Messiah son of Joseph. There are countless other weird renderings which I hate, so I am hoping unless they do a radical change and follow the traditional ESV/RSV like classical traditional in the upcoming edition, or it will not gain popularity. It even has , 1 Chronicles 5:26 “Tilgath-pilneser [sic]” in translation. One pleasant thing is that they corrected the gender of the Spirit in John 14:17, 16:7-8, and Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself bears witness. The best feature is the notes, which are definitely best among all study bibles.

@DiscipleDojo

2 ай бұрын

Strongly disagree, but appreciate the comment.

I think it's fair for it to claim Justin Martyr, Jerome, Augustine, etc. As Catholic just as it's fair for the Orthodox to claim them. Anybody before the schism of 1054 is fair game as it's a common heritage.

I don't have the Jewish Study Bible. I agree that the other two are similar in their approach. You used the term "hermeneutic of suspicion". As I see it, this is the problem with much of mainline Christianity today. They do not approach Scripture with a hermeneutic of trust. Nor do they respect it's authority. The Bible, in their eyes, is not the Church's book for the Church, but one more collection of literature to be dissected and deconstructed. The only authority is the so-called "biblical scholar" who may not even be a person of faith. Please tell me what good can come from this?

@DiscipleDojo

3 ай бұрын

I don't want to say that secular/mainline scholars don't have anything to contribute. They DO see things in the text that conservative and traditionalist readers often miss. But their valuable observations are often *in spite of* their hermeneutic, not a result of it, I would argue.

As I catholic I agree with most of your comments, but you did not say: 1) The catholic lectionary has 3 readings: One from the Old Testament (or other part of the Bible) one Psalm and the Gospel. If a catholic goes to Mass everyday (as my sister does among others) he has heard almost 100 % of the whole Bible in 3 years) with your average "evangelical" church this can not happen, my other sister has read the whole Bible twice. She is also catholic. 2) The worst of this study Bible is what has been imported from protestant liberalism. It was not the case that the XIX catholic biblical scholars were liberals with a naturalistic reading of the Bible who influenced perfectly orthodox german protestant Bible scholars, it was the other way around and it has been proved without any shadow of a doubt, as you said at the end of you video the Catholic Study Bible is very like the protestant liberal study Bible what you did not say is that this is because german protestant scholars of the XX centuries influenced catholic biblical scholars. 3) Regarding the Church fathers you are wrong: You must remember that the eastern schism was in the 1,100s the Church fathers belong to the UNDIVIDED CHURCH, they are our common heritage (I mean catholics and orthodox we use them to refute protestantism) one thing that they were not was protestants, they did not believe in Sola Scriptura nor in salvation by faith alone and both facts are accepted by protestant scholars. The Catholic Study Bible lacks quotes from the Church Fathers. A huge omission from a catholic view point. Thank you for your reply I have the Catholic Study Bible I do not use it much because my Bible library is really good (TDNT 10 volumes, 15 TDOT volumes, 10 commentaries per each book of the NT and the list goes on some 700? books to study God`s Word seriously). 4) Let`s face it after 500 years of protestantism: Sola Scriptura really means "What I firmly believe the Bible says" and with over a thousand protestant denominations contradicting on important points, we know that Sola Scriptura is pretty good to divide christians and the Church. May Jesus bless you more, and I would be blind not to acknowledge that so many people are in heaven through the work of protestants with holy life and sincere love for Him and so many people are in hell because they were taught by protestants that good works are not necessary to enter into Heaven. Thanks for your work and may Jesus bless you more.

@akcenat

3 ай бұрын

Aye, aye (for no. 3)! Unfortunately, some (a lot of) Protestants act as if the first 1100 years of the church didn't exist or are not important

@carlose4314

3 ай бұрын

3 readings on weekdays 4 on Sunday Psalms are not really considered readings though.

I think that you demonstrate a tremendous lack of respect by talking about 'apocryphal' books despite the fact that catholics recognize them as inspired word of God

@DiscipleDojo

24 күн бұрын

That's the language used in scholarship and I'm not Roman Catholic...so... 🤷

NABRE is the worst translation in Catholicism in the the US and since its the baby of the USCCB its not going away anytime soon. if you wanna do a review of a loved version do The Great Adventure Bible or The Ignatius Bible. Catholicism doesnt have the abundace of study bibles as everyone else has but these two resources do make up for the lack of diversity and absolutely stack up with the best of em such as ESV/CSB/NLT study bibles which are highly praised my ever so many.

They do not include “apocrypha” books. The Deuterocanonical books have been there for 1500 years until Martin Luther and British Bible Society removed them form the original Bible for economic purpose lol

@DiscipleDojo

3 ай бұрын

Luther included the apochrypha in his German translation.

@nogracias8560

3 ай бұрын

And he took out 4 books of the NT and put them without numbers at the end like the so called OT "apocryphal" Books.

The Church Fathers are called Catholic because they called themselves Catholic. 😂 They didn't call themselves Orthodox.

@DiscipleDojo

3 ай бұрын

Can you cite some primary source examples?

@tabandken8562

3 ай бұрын

@@DiscipleDojo See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 110]). And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem]. 👈👈👈The Orthodox would have a problem with this statement. He then listed the succession of Bishops for Rome (the Popes). Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 18 par26 (315-386 ad) And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 18 par 25 (315-386 ad) Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

@3ggshe11s

3 ай бұрын

Fun fact: The official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

@Christ__is__King

3 ай бұрын

​@@DiscipleDojo St. Ignatius of Antioch “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

@silveriorebelo2920

24 күн бұрын

no, most of the time, they did call them orthodox or catholic interchangeably

Protestants do not believe in scripture only. That's a mischaracterisation of Sola Scriptura. All that Sola Scriptura insists and commits us to is that our final authority is scripture, that only Scripture is Infallible. We can and all do trust and embrace the features of our traditions but these are prone to development and error, and should be treated as subordinate to scripture. People can err but scripture cannot. Also, don't misunderstand me, when I say infallible I mean in terms of God's purposes for scripture. That is not to be confused with our interpretations, which are always fallible.

@edwardbell9795

3 ай бұрын

The Catholic perspective is set out in Dei Verbum: www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

@bretryder8401

3 ай бұрын

@user-tx3ht2te1t Calling the bible a Catholic book is uncharitable. Protestants don't consider themselves schismatics, we consider ourselves as cleansers of the temple so to speak. As JM pointed out, if you asked an Orthodox Christian they would say that the bible was an Orthodox book. It gets us nowhere. As to holding fast to the tradition that is precisely what protestants believe they are doing. It is the Catholics, we believe, who have departed from the tradition of Peter, Paul, James and the church fathers over the centuries. The Orthodox church would join Protestants in condemning the acretions and overreach of Rome. Also, on apostolic succession, the vast majority of the major figures of the reformation were part of that succession. They continued those unbroken lines through most of the main branches of Protestantism. Their line is only broken if you already assume Rome was right. No protestant would grant that. The argument about Protestant division doesn't really cut through. 99.9999% of protestant churches you step into will affirm the Apostles, Nicaea 1 & 2, the Chalcedonian and Athanasian creeds. The actual differences between the various traditions are minor. Mentioning Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons is again uncharitable. In no sense are these groups protestant. Both are rightly considered cults who do not affirm the councils or our shared canon or even affirm Christ's divinity. Catholicism is hardly unified on doctrine either. There is a range of views on many issues. So much more could be said about this. You say that there can only be one legalised interpretation but on what grounds? Comparing the church the United States Supreme Court I think illustrates one of the key categorical disagreements between Rome and Protestantism. Rome sees the church as an institution and protestants see the church as the universal brother and sisterhood of Christians who love each other, encourage each other, support each other, when necessary rebuke each other but also respect each others local, cultural and historical particulars.

@chancylvania

3 ай бұрын

⁠@user-tx3ht2te1t1. It’s not a catholic book. It’s a distinctly Jewish book. Even modern Jews recognize it. 2. Like was mentioned, we have no problem saying tradition has given us the final New Testament cannon (as Old Testament cannon comes from the Jews, not the church) 3. With regards to “authoritative interpretations,” can you point me to a source which authoritatively interprets the end of exodus 4(with all those hes and hims used of who’s being sought to be killed or circumcised), or the hard to understand parts of the prophets, or what happened when Philip was suddenly sucked back to Jerusalem after the Eunic? For a tradition that claims “authoritative interpretation,” you haven’t interpreted much. 4. Polycarp says in his letter to the Philippians “knowing that by grace you have been saved, not by works, but the will of God through Jesus Christ” (1.3)

@chancylvania

3 ай бұрын

@user-tx3ht2te1t 1. The apostles were Jewish, they believed the faith they had to be the culmination of Judaism. And the never stopped being Jewish even while being Christian. 2. I didn’t say Jews get to decide the New Testament. I said they get to decide the Old Testament, as they are the ones who carried it for 1500 years and knew which ones to accept and which ones to reject. 3. That doesn’t refute the point that you don’t have an authoritative interpretation for 100% of the Bible. You only have pieces of it at best. 4. Then how do you account for what polycarp says? How do you reconcile Paul saying “you were saved by grace through faith, and this is not of yourself, it is a gift from God, so that no man may boast”? And Protestants shouldn’t be denying the works that show our faith to be real. They should be doing them, not because it saves them, but because our faith changes us to be like Christ.

@chancylvania

3 ай бұрын

@user-tx3ht2te1t 4 cont. on top of that…you said sola fide was completely unknown before Protestants. Then why, in the only letter we have from polycarp, does he explicitly lay out sola fide? Right at the beginning as well?