striktlymi:

Dude, the men that wrote the Bible are prophets of God. Early christians only compiled the words of God. God reveals all his secrets to his servants the prophets( Amos 3:7)
Or do you expect God to come down to this sin ful world to give you his message direct ? Noo cuz we're not perfect to stand before God

striktlymi:


Sacred scriptures go beyond just being a collection of books written by men through the inspiration of the Spirit. Sacred scriptures contains God's word which is both Alive and Active. God's word is the author of creation and yes, it is Jesus.

Truth and nothing but the truth. God bless you for this.

striktlymi:

Who is God's word? The person of Jesus or the Man Jesus?

#The Bible is not a Catholic book.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us.

striktlymi:



Your chants are just like saying...

The Church is not Christ!!!

The Church is not Christ!!!

The Church is not Christ!!!

Of course the Bible will not be Christ if you see it as just another book...
It will not be Christ if you see it as a collection of papers with ink on them...
Just like the Church will not be Christ if we look at it as a mere building where Christians go to worship God.

Sacred scriptures go beyond just being a collection of books written by men through the inspiration of the Spirit. Sacred scriptures contains God's word which is both Alive and Active. God's word is the author of creation and yes, it is Jesus.

Can you also put the bold the other way round by saying, "The Bible is the author of creation, yes it is Jesus"?
#Just curious

SalC: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us.

The above is in agreement with my position.

striktlymi:

The above is in agreement with my position.

And it is not different from what am saying too. When we talk about the existence of Jesus, it is in two phases,

His Spiritual existence and his Physical existence.
His Spiritual existence Preceded the existence of the Jews while the Jewish existence was there before his physical existence. Infact Physically he existed as a jew so it isn't wrong to say he was a jew and that doesn't make him any less what he is.

I think that's clear enough

striktlymi:

The above is in agreement with my position.

No, no it isn't. We (catholics) apparently understand that sentence VERY differently from how you seem to. I am deeply disturbed that it seems you actually believe the bible to be Jesus.
Where did Jesus ever teach this? Where did the apostles ever teach this? Can you say aloud while holding a bible ;"This bible in my hand is Jesus," and LISTEN to yourself. Can you pray to your bible? Talk about idolatory...

Mobjective has asked a very ntelligent question which it seems strictlymi has side stepped-For obvious reasons if I may add.

MOBJECTIVE:

No, no it isn't. We (catholics) apparently understand that sentence VERY differently from how you seem to. I am deeply disturbed that it seems you actually believe the bible to be Jesus.
Where did Jesus ever teach this? Where did the apostles ever teach this? Can you say aloud while holding a bible ;"This bible in my hand is Jesus," and LISTEN to yourself. Can you pray to your bible? Talk about idolatory...

Now this is the ish here.
Can anyone who believe the first emboldened confidently Profess the second emboldened?

If yes, we won't be wrong to say "Jesus of the said person is a book, No?

If he can't profess the second, the first is probably wrong.

SalC: Can you also put the bold the other way round by saying, "The Bible is the author of creation, yes it is Jesus"?
#Just curious

Let me see how best I can explain this. Think of an individual who dictates his words to a secretary and the sceretary writes same in a book. Do we say the words are less his because they were written down? Or do we dissociate the written words from the words vocalized?

Sacred scriptures is what it is because of its contents and the author of the contents. Without the 'author' (God) and the contents (His word), it would be just another book. God's word is active and alive irrespective of whether it is put down in writing, vocalized or takes human form.

Just like you rightly pointed out, the word became flesh and dwelth amongst us through the Power of the Holy Spirit. We don't know how God transformed his word to take on flesh but it happened and we believe because his words are forever TRUE. This fact did not make his word any less potent just like it does not lose its potency when it is put down in writing.

SalC: Now this is the ish here.
Can anyone who believe the first emboldened confidently Profess the second emboldened?

If yes, we won't be wrong to say "Jesus of the said person is a book, No?

If he can't profess the second, the first is probably wrong.

I agree. If I may extrapolate, if the idea that the bible is Jesus can be abandoned, then the bible can once again become the book which it is, and we can all agree that the first "institution" to compile this book was the catholic one. This is known fact, so I wonder why there is an issue about it.
#this theology that the bible is Jesus so one can claim "ownership" (as if anyone did) over it, is really not necessary.

Tombilly: The Bible Is A Catholic Book– Did you ever wonder how the Bible came into being? A little known, but easily documented fact is that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church. For many years after Christ ascended into Heaven, there was debate about which scriptural writings were inspired by God. The canon of Scripture (the books of the Bible) was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382. This decision was upheld at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today’s Catholic Bibles were declared to be inspired by God. As a side note, approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament. As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing these 7 books.
So for those calling the catholic church satanic are completely wrong and ignorant, because if you are sensible you will ask or do research before you criticize. Thanks

Sharrap there.

The Law and the prophets is scripture, it is the word of God, that brings light.

Paul's writings are writings. The apocrypha is also scripture, why some banned it later is beyond me.

Catholicism/christianity is the religion of the devil.

Keep the law and commandments. That is the duty of mankind.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man

Shalom

SalC: And it is not different from what am saying too. When we talk about the existence of Jesus, it is in two phases,

His Spiritual existence and his Physical existence.
His Spiritual existence Preceded the existence of the Jews while the Jewish existence was there before his physical existence. Infact Physically he existed as a jew so it isn't wrong to say he was a jew and that doesn't make him any less what he is.

I think that's clear enough

I don't think I have argued that Jesus did not come through the instrumentality of the Jewish people. Matter of factly, as I have mentioned before, the Jews were chosen specially and used as a point of contact to reaching out to the entire world. This by no means makes Jesus 'theirs'. Jesus is for ALL...both believers and unbelievers.

Now to the item in bold: I am not sure what you tried to explain there but I don't think it would be appropriate to separate the existence of the Person of Jesus to both a spiritual existence and a material one. The person of Jesus has always existed. There was no time his existence took a break from 'spiritual' to 'material' (if this is what you mean).

The person of Jesus has always been the second person in the most Blessed Trinity. The fact that he took flesh did nothing to His person. No time did he stop being the Word, even after taken flesh. Yes, then we could feel him physically but he has always retained his divinity.

Protestants will always protest!!! Imagine quoting our (Catholics) bible to tell us that it is not ours. If we did not select and compile the books and verses of the bible what would they be using to argue?

striktlymi:
Actually, you are the one 'side stepping'. The crux of the argument was on who 'owns' the Bible; but you seem to have moved from that to who the New testament was addressed to.

if i read correctly the argument is actually around the topic "the bible is a catholic book", a topic which you disagree with.

Even at that, it would not be entirely correct to say that the New testament was addressed to the Church in the manner in which you may mean it.

The core message of the New testament is the Gospel which is the message of hope. Christ died so that we may have life and rose from the dead in fulfillment of Sacred scriptures.

It is in propagating this message of hope to the entire world that pockets of the Church were set up here and there, notably by Paul. A section of those who came to believe the Gospel and as a result became Christians were not part of the 'known' Church before their conversion.

If the New testament was addressed to the Church in the way I think you mean then the message will not be applicable to the Gentiles. This is not correct. The core message of the New testament was addressed first to the Jews then the rest of the world.

please explain how is it that addressing the new testament to the chuch makes it inapplicable to the gentiles.



And still on the topic, if a A&B coporation (group of people) wrote a book, compiled it and transmitted it-even if it is labeled "for yhe benefit of all humanity", the book is clearly A and B cooperation book.

If it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it behaves like a duck and walk like a duck then it is a duck.


The bible is still a catholic book cos it was written by the founders of the church, compiled by her bishops, transmitted by her. I don't see how you can get around that by argueing that because it about all of humanity is isn't catholic.

SalC: Ummm for all I know, the question of Jesus and Jews who existed first can not have a yes or no answer without the context of the word "existence" clearly defined.

Does Jesus exist before the Jews? Yes!

Does the man Jesus exist before the Jews? No

Therefore Jesus pre-existed the Jews while the Jews pre-existed the man Jesus.
Again does any man knew Jesus before his human existence? No. So at the point in which we know Jesus was at the point of his Physical existence and at that point, He is a Jew.
Therefore one cannot give a yes or no answer here without falling into the error of a hasty conclusion.

In thesame line, I can say the Bible is a Catholic book yet the scriptures are not all Catholic books.

as i said earlier, the question is a big door to sematics.

striktlymi:

Who is God's word? The person of Jesus or the Man Jesus?

#The Bible is not a Catholic book.

right now the Word is the God-man Jesus.

More and more sematics.

PastorAIO:

The Bible and the Christians, who existed first.




Did Sacred scriptures pre-exist the human race? Was it there with God from the Beginning?

and more sematics

SalC, I sight you in HD

striktlymi:



Your chants are just like saying...

The Church is not Christ!!!

The Church is not Christ!!!

The Church is not Christ!!!

Of course the Bible will not be Christ if you see it as just another book...
It will not be Christ if you see it as a collection of papers with ink on them...
Just like the Church will not be Christ if we look at it as a mere building where Christians go to worship God.

Sacred scriptures go beyond just being a collection of books written by men through the inspiration of the Spirit. Sacred scriptures contains God's word which is both Alive and Active. God's word is the author of creation and yes, it is Jesus.

this just became very interesting.


So Jesus is the bible and the bible is Jesus.


Now i don't even know what to say!

MOBJECTIVE: I wasn't going to join in, in this thread, simply to avoid proselytizing but I became very intrigued with striktlymi's understanding of the bible. It seems as if you (striktlymi) understand the bible to be Jesus, could you explain why? Because I doubt Martin Luther would support this view since he was the one who removed books from the bible, which, if i view the bible as you do, would amount to amputating Jesus in some divine manner.

this is funny!

Amputation ke?

SalC: Can you also put the bold the other way round by saying, "The Bible is the author of creation, yes it is Jesus"?
#Just curious

hmmm

MOBJECTIVE:

No, no it isn't. We (catholics) apparently understand that sentence VERY differently from how you seem to. I am deeply disturbed that it seems you actually believe the bible to be Jesus.
Where did Jesus ever teach this? Where did the apostles ever teach this? Can you say aloud while holding a bible ;"This bible in my hand is Jesus," and LISTEN to yourself. Can you pray to your bible? Talk about idolatory...

maybe he means something different, i don't yet get the cruz of the matter but i believe he means different.

rapins: Protestants will always protest!!! Imagine quoting our (Catholics) bible to tell us that it is not ours. If we did not select and compile the books and verses of the bible what would they be using to argue?

I try to ignore comments that make very little meaning to me but yours takes d height. Does the above make any sense to you? "Quoting our Catholic Bible"

striktlymi:

I don't think I have argued that Jesus did not come through the instrumentality of the Jewish people. Matter of factly, as I have mentioned before, the Jews were chosen specially and used as a point of contact to reaching out to the entire world. This by no means makes Jesus 'theirs'. Jesus is for ALL...both believers and unbelievers.

you are still trying to avoid saying Jesus came to earth as a jew! I think it sounds like the defense for nestorianism, (they refused to call mary mother of God because -they said-Jesus pre-existed). His preexistence doesn't stop him from been a jew, or having a jewish mother.

Now to the item in bold: I am not sure what you tried to explain there but I don't think it would be appropriate to separate the existence of the Person of Jesus to both a spiritual existence and a material one. The person of Jesus has always existed. There was no time his existence took a break from 'spiritual' to 'material' (if this is what you mean).

The person of Jesus has always been the second person in the most Blessed Trinity. The fact that he took flesh did nothing to His person. No time did he stop being the Word, even after taken flesh. Yes, then we could feel him physically but he has always retained his divinity.

i think you know her point was talkin about the person of Jesus as God (before the incarnation) and as God and man (after the incarnation).

JesusisLord85:

Sharrap there.

The Law and the prophets is scripture, it is the word of God, that brings light.

Paul's writings are writings. The apocrypha is also scripture, why some banned it later is beyond me.

Catholicism/christianity is the religion of the devil.

Keep the law and commandments. That is the duty of mankind.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man

Shalom

would you like to explain the bolded?

Peace.

striktlymi:

Let me see how best I can explain this. Think of an individual who dictates his words to a secretary and the sceretary writes same in a book. Do we say the words are less his because they were written down? Or do we dissociate the written words from the words vocalized?

Sacred scriptures is what it is because of its contents and the author of the contents. Without the 'author' (God) and the contents (His word), it would be just another book. God's word is active and alive irrespective of whether it is put down in writing, vocalized or takes human form.

Just like you rightly pointed out, the word became flesh and dwelth amongst us through the Power of the Holy Spirit. We don't know how God transformed his word to take on flesh but it happened and we believe because his words are forever TRUE. This fact did not make his word any less potent just like it does not lose its potency when it is put down in writing.

are you sure you aren't confusing his substantial Word a person, with his revelation/command?

striktlymi:

I try to ignore comments that make very little meaning to me but yours takes d height. Does the above make any sense to you? "Quoting our Catholic Bible"

i think that is actually the topic,
"the bible is a catholic book". So they are quoting the bible a catholic book.

Ubenedictus:

i think that is actually the topic,
"the bible is a catholic book". So they are quoting the bible a catholic book.

Saying the Bible is a Catholic book in the way you guys are using it does not make much sense. If you guys are looking for books to claim then by all means take ownership of books that are solely Catholic. I do not see any protestant quoting from 'Canon law' or other books of the Church.

Ubenedictus:

you are still trying to avoid saying Jesus came to earth as a jew! I think it sounds like the defense for nestorianism, (they refused to call mary mother of God because -they said-Jesus pre-existed). His preexistence doesn't stop him from been a jew, or having a jewish mother.

Those actually are your thoughts. I am not responsible for the implications you choose to draw from my comments.

Ubenedictus:
i think you know her point was talkin about the person of Jesus as God (before the incarnation) and as God and man (after the incarnation).

I have not presumed you guys know the point I am making. Why should I presume to understand the point she tried to make?

Ubenedictus:

are you sure you aren't confusing his substantial Word a person, with his revelation/command?

I don't understand.

striktlymi:
Saying the Bible is a Catholic book in the way you guys are using it does not make much sense. If you guys are looking for books to claim then by all means take ownership of books that are solely Catholic. I do not see any protestant quoting from 'Canon law' or other books of the Church.

the bible is a catholic book exactly like canon law and the vatican ii documents!

We are not looking for books to claim, you can't steal what is already yours. The bible is a catholic book.