A new Indian version of the Bible recently, published by the Catholic Church, has run into controversy over its inclusion of verses from the Bhagavad Gita, a form of Hindu chant, and references to the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.
An illustration in the new version, New Community Bible, depicts Jesus, Mary and Joseph as poor Indian villagers. Mary wears a simple sari and has a bindi on her forehead alongside Joseph in a turban and loincloth.
According to the 30 Indian biblical scholars who worked for more than 15 years on the new edition, the Bible draws on "the rich cultural and religious heritage of India."
Although approved by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India and published by the Society of St. Paul, the Bible met the disapproval of Protestants and other Christian groups, who believe it diverts from biblical truth.
Pastor Vijay Thomas, who heads a Bible college in Chennai, told Christian Today, “By making it appear ‘Indian’ with references to Hindu scriptures and great poets, people will not come to the truth. This is a complete turn back from the real Bible."
Oswald Gracias, the Catholic Archbishop of Bombay, defended the Bible edition, saying, "I am sure this Bible, made in India and for Indians, will bring the word of God closer to millions of our people, not only Christians."
Accompanied by extensive commentary notes to assist readers in interpreting the verses, the edition also references Indian ancient literary works such as Ramayana and Mahabharata.
Jesus' words about storing "treasures in heaven" in the Gospel of Matthew, for example, are compared to the Bhagavadgita's teaching that "work alone is your proper business, never the fruits it may produce."
The teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore, Asia's first Nobel laureate, are also referred to in the commentary.
The general editor of the New Community Bible, the Rev. Dr. Augustine Kanachikuzhy, admitted that references to Hindu scriptures had drawn complaints.
"This was expected," he said. "It will take some time for the [new Bible] to gain acceptance."
Kanachikuzy still believes the Bible to be a huge hit. "It has proved to be extremely popular among the Christian community with over 15,000 copies sold out within barely 10 days. Now it has gone for a reprint," he added.
RSS
Actually, the approach used (of making them appear as Indians down to the clothing and practices--especially including Hindu practice of "bindi") is counterproductive. The best approach was used in the film DiyaSagar, which has shown much success.
Prophet,
Please forgive me if I'm just not understanding your post, but I wonder if the misunderstanding is as simple as equating God with God the Son (who was born of Mary), when the Bible text referring to God as Spirit is referring to God the Father (who was not born of Mary). I do know, agree with, and understand (so far as possible) the doctrine of the Trinity, but don't think that's your struggle here. Hope this helps - and pray it doesn't offend any.
Prophet,
IHS,
I wish I could believe that God was born, but I can't get past the scriptures that say that God is a spirit, and that He has no beginning or end.
For some reason, Catholics believe that humans give birth to spirits, and that God did have a beginning.
As I said, the God-head is indeed a mystery.
To say that Mary is not the mother of God is not a sin. She is afterall, the mother of Jesus. And that counts for something.
And it does not take away from the deity of Christ in any way.
God could have used a donkey to give birth to Jesus. (Yeah yeah...I know...that's sacrilege). Why do you worship her and lift her up? There is only one that we worship.
Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."
But yet, that's what the Catholics do.
Guys...you sound like a bunch of politicians...maybe not that low....
Jesus was God made flesh. The God part came from God and the flesh part came from Mary. "You shall conceive of the Holy Spirit".
Children are a combination of their mother and their father. This is how Jesus was completely God and completely man.
Dear IHS, Chris and all...
Admitedly, I am usually in over my head in these discussions as I have only been a Christian for 14 months. I don't have the added blessings that come with being raised in a Christian home . However, the Lord has never let me down. I have walked away from a few 'debates' frustrated, but never with damaged faith. The more I have opened up the truth to the Romanists on this board, the more God has blessed me with knowledge, dilligence in prayer and study, and increased faith. I believe what I believe because, and I know this sounds cliche, the Bible tells me so. God is so faithful, friends. He is so merciful. He is so absolutely righteous.
In regards to the last couple of posts from IHS, I have a link for you to follow. I am incapable of teaching on the matter of Sola Scriptura (remember, it is 'Sola', not 'Solo' - two very different things)but this link leads to a video clip that justifies Biblically and Historically exactly what we Christians believe.
IHS - Please watch this: http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=1193
If I 'speak' in here with any kind of 'authority' I ask you to forgive me. All authority is God's, and any truth I may speak is purely a result of His plentious blessings in my life. I have been in seminary for a very short period of time in my very short Christian walk. I have such an hunger for the Word of God... it is nothing short of amazing. And the more I know, brothers, the more I realize I don't know.
One thing is absolutely clear to me though. The Church of God that I read about in the Bible, its structure, its people (we true Christians are all Saints; we are all sanctified) the headship of Christ, the body of believers - looks absolutely NOTHING like the RCC. The church we read about, the church that Josephus describes - this is my church. This is your church. These people are my brothers and sisters. You are my brothers and sisters. And we are as far removed from the RCC as light is from darkness. Praise GOD!
Jesus himself says in John 10:35 – (the Scripture cannot be broken). To stand upon the Word of God as Jesus Christ did, is my position. To do less is to claim that the Holy Spirit did not accurately pen down the will of God and to claim that God did not faithfully preserve his Word. Question: Where does Jesus AUTHORITATIVELY quote tradition as something to be bound upon his followers?
(Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.) – Proverbs 30:5, 6.
In regard to tradition and 2Thessalonians 2:15; (Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle) –
2Thessalonian 2:15 – The first thing we note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a SINGLE BODY OF TRADITIONS ALREADY DELIVERED TO THE BELIEVERS. There is nothing FUTURE about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that WILL BE delivered? Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? NO, this oral teaching which he refers to has ALREADY BEEN delivered to the entire church.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; - 1Timothy 2:5.
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance – Hebrews 9:15.
Regarding Sola Scriptura - IHS is correct when he says, . . . have never found a scripture that says (Alone).
However, when we read the Scriptures, there are many passages that expound the PRINCIPLE of sola scriptura. For example, the (law) is the first five books that Moses wrote – Genesis through Deuteronomy and the (testimony) is the rest of the Old Testament books written by the prophets. So, consider this passage - (To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them – Isaiah 8:20.)
This same principle is also seen throughout the New Testament. The very phrase (It is written) means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, (It is written) as for example, in Matthew 4:4, (he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.) In stating (It is written,) the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible FORTY SIX times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17, 18.
(Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.)
Again, the same principle – (For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book) - Revelation 22:18-19
The Mary of scripture is entirely different from the one that is taught by Catholicism. The belief that Mary was born without sin, that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that she is the co-mediatrix/co- redemptrix with Jesus is completely foreign to the testimony of scripture.
As for Mary being born without sin; consider the follow passages -
(For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God) – Romans 3:23.
Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 – (And my spirit hat rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR). Mary needed a savior along with the rest of mankind.
The following passages disprove her perpetual virginity -
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him – Mark 6:3.
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? – Matthew 13:55.
And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS – Matthew 1:25.
Jesus Christ is the only way –
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me –John 14:6.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved – Acts 4:12.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ – 1Corinthians 3:11.
ihs, I would encourage you to read 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I have no problem with those who read more than the Bible. I personally use other books such as commentaries and other writings of authors such as Josh McDowell, but the difference is that these writings do not violate, contradict, or supersede the Word of God. If any writings do that, then as a Christian I am compelled by God's Holy Spirit to reject it. A question for you on your response about Mary. You said that she only bore one person, are you saying that in her lifetime she only had one child or that she bore no children prior to the birth of Christ?
Also, since this has also been a very tough issue for me and it appears you have not answered msn, then could you show me in the Bible where it says that the Bible is our ONLY source that Christians should go by.
I've discussed this with our Senior Pastor and I've discussed this at seminary and those that say they have a passage to support "Sola Scriptura" have never found a scripture that says "Alone" or anything else close to that wording which is one of our major doctrines sepparating us from the Catholics.
From my study it appears the Bible says that the Bible is good for building up a Christian and for reproofing, etc. It also says that we must keep the traditions handed down by the Apostles and it also says that specific men did receive certain authority over the "Flock". This sounds like it supports msn's position quite clearly, yet our doctrine seems to deny scripture then.
Please advise.
brotheraron,
MSN has answered your questions many times before on other posts. He has also come up with many verses from scripture to support his position and yet you say he hasn't.
Mary is the Mother of God and all evangelicals accept the first 7 ecumenical councils. If you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, as our senior pastor pointed out, then you deny that Jesus is fully divine and fully human at the same time. Also, Jesus human nature and his divine nature are two natures within ONE PERSON. Evangelicals accept this.
Argyle,
Could you please write in complete sentences. You are very hard to follow.
Prophet,
Msn was correct about Mary as the Mother of God or as Elizabeth said,"the mother of my Lord". She only bore one person and in that one person Jesus is both God and Man insepparable. Jesus is the incarnate God. If Mary is not the Mother of God or Mother of our Lord, then maybe you are not a Christian then. This position in effect would deny Christ divinity.
Thanks.
I think Chris might also have misunderstood what you saidand then jumped to false conclusions and then charged right into the heratic name slinging. I might be wrong but from what i read i think there was a misunderstanding. regardless, people like you and i are "heratics" anyway for submitting to God's word, before the papacy(man made organization).
The Catholic doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God. Mother gave birth to Jesus, not God. Human cannot give birth to spirit. Though Jesus is God, and they are one, they are also separate...as Jesus repeatedly showed us when He spoke of and to the Father. If they were one, but not separate, then He would not need to pray to anyone but Himself. It is the mystery of the Godhead, humanized by Catholics. Which I find heretical in itself.
Prophet: Where is he getting -
"If you say that Mary only gave birth to Jesus the human, then what you are saying is a Christological heresy. What you have just said is that you deny that Christ is fully humand and fully divine at the same time."
??
Aaron,
Where is Chris getting what?
I just got home from our Sunday evening service. Our pastor is in the midst of teaching something extra-biblical, which is unusual for our church. We are learning the history of the Received Text and the Critical Text. I can't wait to break down the blatant heresy of this ethnocentric 'bible' being talked about in this article for you all.
Praise Him for preserving for us through the Textus Receptus His infallible Word! Sola Scriptura!
Prophet, I've read over the posts and I'm still not sure where Chris is getting this? Care to elaborate on this anymore? I believe that God is making headway with the hardened hearts of some of those contributors to this forum through our combined attempts to teach and preach the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let's stay faithful to this strange place in prayer, Brother.
If you would be as zealous about the truth as you are about doctrine...*sigh*
I know doctrine. Mary was the mother of Christ. No woman was the mother of God.
Chris,
By saying that God had a beginning you youself speak heresy. You deny the immortality of God.
msnchris,
I really shouldn't laugh at you, but it's hard not to.
I was always told that God had no beginning. That doctrine must be wrong. Even though the Bible says that He is from everlasting to everlasting. Tell me, chris. If God had no beginning, how could he have a mother?
Whoa! Hold on their Chris... You sound like you are about to explode, and that, my friend, is not healthy! Ask any Christian, as I am sure you must know a few, whether or not we believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus; fully God and fully man. I'm glad we can agree on this fundamental doctrine; still saddened though, that you haven't answered a single one of my questions. I will pray for more patience.
You must be grasping for straws by now, to try and throw that one out...I must stress, as I have tried to before, read slowly and carefully. You are so close, and so passionate... yet so absolutely wrong on some of the most fundamental doctrines of the Bible. May God bless you with both grace and peace.
Aaron
Prophet,
You are Awesome. I just love it when fundamentalists like you and brotheraaron put your foot in your mouth because of your EXTREME IGNORANCE OF DOCTRINE.
If you say that Mary only gave birth to Jesus the human, then what you are saying is a Christological heresy. What you have just said is that you deny that Christ is fully humand and fully divine at the same time.
You see, when they called Mary "Theotokos" or the Mother of God, it was truly saying little of Mary and everthing about who Jesus is. Mary did not create Jesus' Godship, but she gave birth to Jesus who is both fully divine and fully human at the same time.
You can't give birth to sepparate natures! You've basically just denied the divinity of Christ because you are ignorant.
Why don't you ask your Pastor this one and I'll bet you money he'll slap you in the head for being so silly. Mary is the Mother of God because Jesus is God and is the Son of Man all at the same time. He is fully divine and fully human ALL AT THE SAME time.
How long will many accept dangerous beliefs that stray far from the written word of God? For example, read this excerpt from The Most Beloved Woman by Rev. Edward F. Garesche, S.J.):
"But the Blessed Mother is as powerful as she is merciful and loving, as strong as she is holy and fair. The multitude of her sons and daughters does not confuse her, their endless petitions do not embarrass her, for she has unspeakable strength and power from God to be to all men truly a mother. The cries at her thousand shrines rise efficaciously to her great heart, that is made strong and tender to hear and grant them all."
The above belief is contrary to sound doctrine, it is a deceptive wind indeed. Mary has never been given such an exalted status in heaven. Cry to Mary? No, but remember Ps 86:3 instead: "Be merciful unto me, O Lord: for I cry unto thee daily."
hlerwin:
Amen to that! I include myself in that too, brother...
I'm reminded, by the use of your phrase "fight over":
Jude 1:3 - "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
I have just caught up, reading these posts from Aug. 11th. What a bunch of nuts and screwballs the CP attracts! (I'm not excluding myself.) I guess that's why I keep checking in here. It's fascinating to see what all of us will choose to fight over.
I couldn't help but think of this incident in the book of Acts:
Act 13:44-47 - "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."
A similar incident took place in the city of Corinth:
Act 18:5-7 - "And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house..."
Reminds me of being on this forum some days...
But remember, brothers, to be discerning in your witnessing:
"GIVE NOT THAT WHICH IS HOLY UNTO THE DOGS, NEITHER CAST YE YOUR PEARLS BEFORE SWINE."
but...
Jude 1:22-23 "And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."
Universal:u·ni·ver·sal
–adjective
applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
A Church thats aplicable everywhere should be able to work for a christian stranded on an island where there are no buildings, preists or holy water. Unless the Catholic(Universal)Church is the body of people who belive in the spirit of Christ who are saved by grace and not by works/sacrements/laws/holydays.....
Unless the physical idea of the Church really isnt important, unless Christianty is a complete matter of the spirit and not the flesh, then again what am I saying, Im not a saint, Im a heratic, who doesnt know how to read or understand the bible, and if im lucky I will avoid hell and rot in purgatory for some time and then get to heaven. At least according to the "true" church...
And then the necessity of the sacrements, say you arent a preist, and your off on the 7 seas, you get shipwrecked on an island with no catholic church anywhere, How do you practice your religion, not going to mass is a sin isnt it, but theres no way you goto mass. and by luck u find natives who are friendly to you, they take youin and restore you. Now as a return favor you decide u want to share christ with them, but you dont have a preist to baptize them, you cant get them to eat the euchrist(forgive spelling) they and even YOU are un able to confess your sins and tragicly the rescue never comes, do you end up going to hell? How does one save or convert people without the physical church being present?
I just dont see how any of it works in this situation...
I understand that catholics see Mary praying as an extra help for them, but i dont see whytey bother with it when they can just pray to God himself? why even bother asking for intersession from Mary when you can justgo to Jesus right away anyway. its like calling the office,and the boss answers, and then you as for the secretary, then when the secretary gets the phone you as the secretary to ask the boss to mark your day off as vacation hours. The boss is already on the line, it just doesnt seem logical.
Mary was not the mother of God. She was the mother of the physical person of Jesus. Not the spiritual person of God. It seems that the Catholics cannot differentiate between the spirit and the flesh.
And I can't believe that the Catholics still hold on to the uninspired and erroneous apocrypha. I pray that someday they will see that these books are not canonical and not worthy of being part of the Scriptures.
I praise God that I am saved and my place in the Lamb's Book of Life is secure. I thank God that I am part of the true Church that bears no name other than "Jesus". It is this Church that will overcome the gates of hell. It is a Church that will not bow to vain traditions and deceitful teachings, but they will follow the Spirit with boldness and power. I am grateful to be a part of this glorious church. To God be all glory and power forever.
Unfortunately, many have been deceived and ensnared by vain traditions, strange doctrines, and beliefs that have been added to the word of God.
Compare this excerpt, "Our Mother [Mary] wishes indeed that we should cry to her in our distress--..." with this biblical verse, "In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me" (Ps 120:1).
Mary has never been given such a heavenly privilege. If your organization has, such leaven (crying to Mary in your distress), come out now, and return to the solid ground of God's written word.
(Excerpt from The Most Beloved Woman by Rev. Edward F. Garesche', S.J.)
Wow, all that hot air and you've yet to answer a few simple questions. I'm grateful that, unlike you, I don't judge all Catholics by the stomping around of one. Take a breath, and then read over my posts.
Fundamentalists are so funny! Brotheraaron comedy should be your new career.
Typical fundamentalist if they can't use scripture to defend one simple Doctrine like the "Bible Alone" they try to talk about the riches of the Vatican. Dodge, Dodge, Roll out of the way throw a rock another day.
You kill me with laughter. Ever seen the Pope's bedroom or any bishop's bedroom? Pretty stark, as they should be. Vow of Poverty ever heard that one? Saint Paul would be so honored by these Churches that honor God in such an amazing way and the fact these Chruches have survived so many centuries so that all the faithful can use them for worship of God. You should make God's house amazing shouldn't you? Then a fundamentalist would say "Sell the churches so that you can feed the poor" and I would say. We already feed the poor more than all Protestants combined and the Churches are not for sale since they are to be enjoyed by all mankind for years to come. They are priceless.
Many times I have used some 20 lines or more of scripture showing explicitly that Christ gave His authority to men to discipline, to legislate, to excommunicate, to forgive sins, to bind and loose doctrine, etc. This power continued through the Bishops. We see historically this is a fact.
You simply reject God's authority in these men. You are like a little child who just wants his way, more than he wants the Truth.
I am saddened by your beliefs. While the doctrine of the RCC is frustrating, it is also heartbreaking.
You still fail at coming back with the following:
- Where do us 'Bible alone types'differ on fundamental doctrine?
this line made me chuckle, because I feel the exact same way about you: "...that you too who have persecuted the Church like Saul will be struck down off your high horse fall and be humbled before almighty God."
Except that the RCC HAS actually persecuted the Church of God, past and present, thus adding weight to the argument when used against YOU.
Persecute the Church!!! The RCC is not THE CHURCH, therefore how have we persecuted you? Chris, this is laughable. The persecuted church is not the RCC, not the Mormons, not the JWs, not the Scientologists- It has, and always will be the Christians. Christs body of believers.
Prove that the Bible requires the interpratation of the RCC. Or, prove that the RCC's teachings on some of the fundamental doctrines has remained consistant throughout your broken line of popes.
A final thought, how can you not be sickened when looking at the pope, the vatican, and all of the extra indulgences surrounding God's 'servants'? And don't give me that 'oh, but we give so much blah blah blah...' Saint Paul would be absolutely rageful if he were to walk in to your Cathedrals or onto Vatican property today. But that's nothing compared to the wrath God will have on the RCC when He returns.
Finally, please watch this when you have the time: http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=1193
Brotheraaron,
I'm sure there are thousands if not millions who pound my Catholic Church with rediculous interpretations of Scripture. There are more Mormons than fundamentalists, and I'm not surprised how a bunch of people can follow a gun slinging polytheist polygamist to the gates of hell. I'm not surprised when someone of little education can attract thousands to follow them if they are charismatic.
Why don't you face one huge problem. THE BIBLE ALONE as your only authority. This man made tradition, you would think, could be found explicitly in scripture. By Contrast you see that God founded a church and appointed specific men to lead it and they passed that authority down which you can clearly see in scripture, and where scripture stops you see history continue the story.
Fundamentalists are a man made Tradition that hold to a man made doctrine of Bible alone.
I pray for you too Brotheraaron, that you too who have persecuted the Church like Saul will be struck down off your high horse fall and be humbled before almighty God.
Your belief that the Catholic Church is the apostate Church is no more suprising than people thinking Mormons are actually Christians. There are a lot of misguided people and you are all entitled to your fallible opinion.
Jesus is waiting for you in the Eucharist.
>>I once read a line from the "Message", I can't remember where, but it said something like "Jesus and His disciples walked merrily along."<<
Oh that hurts! Might make for a good musical tho. :D
Hi Chris,
Do you think I am alone in standing against the apostate church of Rome? Do you think that there are not hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians, some scholars, and some not, who regularly pound RCC dogma into dust using the Word of God alone?
Tell me, Chris, where do us 'Bible alone types'differ on fundamental doctrine? (you must watch this- http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=1193 )
All you do is accuse, and you never answer the questions posed against your religion's man-made doctrine. The wide road trodden upon by the RCC, as they come up to the Judgement Seat of God on the Day of the Lord's return shouting 'Lord, Lord', will be true and rightous justice indeed. Get out from her, brother!
And, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't like you. I pray for you in the same way I do for some of my friends who have not found the narrow gate.
If it were so simple brotheaaron, then why do all you Bible alone types never agree on any major doctrines??? Your divisions are paramount and there is no authoritative hiearchy to say what is Truth. In your system, your own interpretation is your own authority.
Sorry brother, but that system is not only unbiblical, it has no apostolic roots and you can't find it anywhere in history before the 1500's. Nice try! Your system fails constantly and does nothing for Christianity. Our system, founded by GOD and not by the traditions of men, has worked for 2000 years.
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM INDONESIA,
Christians have used the ALLAH for the Father in describing God in the Middle East and the Orient 500 years before there were Muslims. It isn't that Christians are using a Muslim name, but rather that Muslims are using a Christian term but these Muslims now outnumber Christians in areas where the word Allah is used so some people now think it is a Muslim word. IT IS NOT.
Stay strong in your faith.
Chris:
You won't ever find me at a mass. I worship the Living God. As a Christian, I cannot overlook the Trinity, for the Word of God(and not the RCC) implicitly teaches of this glorious and mysterious truth. As far as your uncertainty of my beliefs go, this matter can simply be solved by opening up the Word of God.
In Indonesia, the Alkitab bahasa indonesia uses the title Allah for God and Tuhan for Jehova - Alkitab do not specify Jehova.
I have struggled with these terms for some years because of their reference to Islamic terms and actually follows most of Church members by using our tribal bible the Bible Batak which uses terms Jehova debata and Tuhan instead of Allah.
I do not really know and hope the Spirit of Lord Jesus would guide me in this instead of theological debates.
Since I'm not sure as a fundamentalist you believe in the Catholic Dogma of the Trinity, then may the Father, Son and Holy Spirit bless you into the fullness of Truth.
See you at Mass!
God bless you MSNChris.
Thanks brotheraaron for showing that you have no interest in doing research before you make comments.
And as for this new Bible, I will heed the words of Saint Paul, from his letter to the Corinthians:
2Cor 6:17 - "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"
Chris:
"If you don't want me lumping you into the fundamentalist crowd then start acting like a thoughtful Christian and do some research first before you make such offensive and rediculous claims about it being heretical."
I want you to 'lump me in with the fundamentalist crowd' Chris. I want you to know that I am a Christian. I want you to know that I have eternal security. I want you to know that as a fundamentalist, I hold to the Word of God as the Truth, and that I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and King. I want you to know that we Christians have our foundation on Truth. That Truth comes in the form of knowledge from God. Not on the shifting ground of emotion.
As for my claims, need I say "here we go again?" I call the RCC apostate. You can go ahead now and call me anathema again if you want. This is meaningless, and if you've ever read the catechism, I cannot be anathema for never having been a part of the RCC. You could call the pastor of our Church anathema if you'd like. You can call many of our members, if you'd like. You are up against the body of the Church of God though. I praise God for how he's let you test my faith, Chris! Because of you, I have learned so much about the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the Scriptures, and of the RCC. Get out from her, my friend!
I once read a line from the "Message", I can't remember where, but it said something like "Jesus and His disciples walked merrily along." WHAT?! I almost lost my cookies too!
At Gordon Conwell, we almost had a book buring night for the "Message". It is not a Bible.
Brotheraaron,
The new bible that the Catholic Bishops put out for the Indian people is extremely erudite and you, if you were so inclined, should pick up a copy or at least due some honest due dilligence first.
The Bible is the Bible. No change, nothing. ONly the commentaries are specific to people of Hindu background who may consider Christianity through reading this version. A regular KJV or Latin Vulgate or NIV are all very western minded with their commentaries and does not relate as well. So, these commentaries help a hindu to culturally understand the Gospel.
If you don't want me lumping you into the fundamentalist crowd then start acting like a thoughtful Christian and do some research first before you make such offensive and rediculous claims about it being heretical.
Many Indians who endorsed this bible have ancestors who were actually baptised by Thomas. Catholic Christianity has been in the area for 1950 years and because they continue to try and reach the Indians in this creative way, Protestants will remain ineffective. Moreover, Indians by and large become Catholic because when they go to a Protestant Church there is no connection to the Apostles. Without a connection to Thomas in India, you won't have as much success. Makes sense.
Strudelcookies: "Put me off my food for a week"
that was FUNNY. Lol. Thanks.
I was totally thinking about The Message Bible too when I read this. Man talk about a whacked out version. I read a passage in Matthew that was something like "Come unto me...and walk the unforced rhythms of grace." Seriously, unforced rhythms of grace. Put me off my food for a week.
In addition, Chris, I know not one fundamentalist who believes in anything based on emotion. Faith comes through believing, which comes through knowledge. A faith built upon emotion, or an emotional decision, is a faith built upon sand. Before you angrily judge us Christians as being 'emotionally swayed by weak but exciting teaching' keep in mind that this is standard teaching in the Church. Our sermons are generally sober, exegetical, expounding, Biblical and, of course, bring glory to our Heavenly Father.
I agree, Chris, that "The Message" is not even worth the paper its printed on. It is a perversion with paganism infused throughout. There are a few other 'Bibles' such as this one too. As a Bible believing Christian, I am partial to the KJV.
I noticed you ignorantly like to paint all Christian Fundamentalists with this same brush. Grow up. I don't want to have to admonish you over this issue again. It is tiresome and boring.
I'm glad, however, that you have seen and touched this hindu-friendly bible. Given that it was written and is being used by the RCC, I am not in the least surprised by their lack of discernment. Culture must adapt to the Word of God. Not the other way around. God is an end, not a means.
How quickly the fundamentalists jump on this, and yet they do not have one of these Bible's or have even seen it.
I've seen it and it is beautiful! The Word of God has not been added to or subtracted. The commentaries do use quotes and passages from the Hindu book to show comparisons and there are pictures of Jesus and His family that make them look more Indian. This has worked in China and in Japan and many other places. People identify more with a Christ who looks more like them. After all, look at the pictures we have of Jesus today in the States. He looks like a long hair Anglo Saxon with blonde highlights and a very small nose and thin lips. He looks like a surfer from California.
If we captured a picture of the real Jesus he would have a much larger nose, very different hair and skin complexion. The shape of his face would be more round.
Fundamentalists always jump at things emotionally with little or no knowledge about the book and none have seen it. So, typical. Lots of emotion and no intellectual discovery.
Anyone seen the Bible called the "MESSAGE"? Talk about changing, adding and subtracting to the Word of God. It shouldn't be even called a Bible. The book the Message is the most watered down version of the Bible I've ever seen. At Seminary most of of my fellow Protestant Pastors had a major problem with it too because it truly changes passages to look like present day language. Using present day language with no respect to how it was written, it is no wonder there is so much variety of interpretation.
"To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE LAW I BECAME AS ONE OUTSIDE THE LAW (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I DO IT ALL FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL, that I may share with them in its blessings." 1 Corinthians 9:20-23
As long as the Hindu references are kept merely as commentary - WHICH THIS STORY CLEARLY INDICATES - then nobody has "added to" or "taken away from" the Bible. So why the venom, when people are coming to Christ?
The Apostle Paul was smart enough to understand that Gentiles would find the concept of a Jewish Messiah rather difficult to understand without a common frame of reference ... so he used ideas and terminology from the Gentiles' own experiences - namely, paganism. A prime example is when he spoke to the men of Athens:
“For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." Acts 17:23
While his sermon was not completely persuasive (some Athenians mocked the idea of resurrection), others asked Paul to speak with them again (vs. 32), and eventually became believers themselves (vs. 34).
Ironically, I recall a story regarding Mahatma Gandhi, in which he said that he rather liked Jesus ... but that His followers were unfortunately nothing like Him. (He had been turned away by 'Christians' when he attempted to attend a church in London as a young student.)
Good gosh! This Bible didn't include texts from the Bhagavad Gita as biblical texts!! The Bhagavad Gita texts were included as COMMENTARY; as comparison. Hasn't anyone read a Bible that has commentaries before?
(A new Indian version of the Bible recently, published by the Catholic Church, has run into controversy over its inclusion of verses from the Bhagavad Gita, a form of Hindu chant, and references to the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi).
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you - Deuteronomy 4:2.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar - Proverbs 30:6.
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another – 1Corinthians 4:6.
It is amazing that this principle is blatantly neglected for the sole purpose of promoting the doctrines and commandments of men. That is, going ABOVE, BEYOND, and declaring what is not EXPRESSLY REVEALED.
Rev 22:18,19 - "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
2Cr 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
This new version " New Indian Bible" published under the
sponsorship of the Catholic Church has an ultimate purpose. The uproar of the fundamentalists has just
started, it will keep on getting momentum in the future.
Many people around the world, even in India came to seek
Jesus Christ and His teaching by providentially reading
a gospel tract in a railway station or in some unexpected
places. One CNI Bishop of north India, when he was
student, while returning form school saw a gospel tract
on the road and took it to read. He was a Muslim boy at
that time. See the positive result of the New India
Bible? Thousands of people from non-Christian background
will read it, they will be attracted to one verse of the
Bible, and they will seek further to know more about the
life of Jesus Christ. We fail to understand the work of
the Holy Spirit, but getting judgmental about everything.
Let us all pray that thousands of people may read the
New India Bible and all the readers may seek more
about Jesus Christ, and let His name alone be glorified.
RE.: Oswald Gracias, the Catholic Archbishop of Bombay, defended the Bible edition, saying, "I am sure this Bible, made in India and for Indians, will bring the word of God closer to millions of our people, not only Christians."
To which god, Mr. Gracias? It is very hard to tell who or what the RCC worships.
Of course, if you were a Christian, you would have rejected this sort of heresy.