The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[Kagami-chan]

old testament scriptures oftentimes point to the coming messiah. though these verses have something to do about God's message to David through his messenger Nathan, it also gives a glimpse of what God wills in the new testament.

Jesus never failed. his crucifixion marks the success of his mission in the first place.

Is there a chance that it was Solomon that has been pointed out in the passage? He was the one who turned away from God, but even so, God still let him remained king bu leaving a tribe for him to rule.

[cptn_star]

Is there a chance that it was Solomon that has been pointed out in the passage? He was the one who turned away from God, but even so, God still let him remained king bu leaving a tribe for him to rule.

The immediate reference would be directed to solomon. but we should also take in account that Christ is also from the lineage of david's bloodline. so bale, duha ang pasabot ani kng atong suwayan og analyze. however, this is the thought of God.

[MasterK]

@blackdream: pwede sad ka mobasa sa mga answers diri brad ai...Why isn't Matt 23:14 in the Cath Bible? - Catholic Answers Forums
Why are some verses not included in the modern translations bible? - Catholic Answers Forums

[SioDenz]

Question: basin wala pa nabalik
Unsay teachings sa RC about anang Speaking of tongues?

Naay daghan Christian Churches nga nag Practice ana...

[blackdream]

Question: basin wala pa nabalik
Unsay teachings sa RC about anang Speaking of tongues?

Naay daghan Christian Churches nga nag Practice ana...

unsa na sya bro?

[SioDenz]

unsa na sya bro?

kabantay ka anang naa sa worship nya murag mag yaw yaw nga di ka kasbot?

Speaking in Tongues diay na dili of..

[blackdream]

kabantay ka anang naa sa worship nya murag mag yaw yaw nga di ka kasbot?

Speaking in Tongues diay na dili of..

Ahh, oohh, kbantay btw ko ana bro... mao d i na sya..

[noy]

the term is not "missing" but instead, "not added". the catholic bible have books added to it and some verses omitted. try looking for Matt 23:14.

Full Question:
Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven Deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible ?

Answer:
No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.

If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren't in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?
source: Did the Church add the Deuterocanonical books to the Bible at the Council of Trent? | Catholic Answers

you can have this verified historically.

the date most usually given for the start of the Protestant Reformation is 1517 when Luther published The Ninety-Five Theses.
source: Protestant Reformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Council of Trent (1545-63)
source: Council of Trent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kagami-chan]

The immediate reference would be directed to solomon. but we should also take in account that Christ is also from the lineage of david's bloodline. so bale, duha ang pasabot ani kng atong suwayan og analyze. however, this is the thought of God.

But why is it in that passage that God will punish him if he will do wrong? Being crucified in the cross... is that what the passage meant? and Jesus really did wrong? I need enlightenment. Because a certain webpage stated that Jesus wronged the Father and that's why he is being crucified.

[noy]

I have a question in this passage, because it's what's been bothering me kay a friend of mine kept posting sa fb:

2 Samuel 7:12-16
" And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever."

Is Jesus being referred here by God? But why is it that it meant like, Jesus was hanged on the cross because he failed to do what God sent him to do?

But why is it in that passage that God will punish him if he will do wrong? Being crucified in the cross... is that what the passage meant? and Jesus really did wrong? I need enlightenment. Because a certain webpage stated that Jesus wronged the Father and that's why he is being crucified.

Hi sis,
if you read the whole chapter 7, the title would be God's promise to david..

verses 12-13 says : I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
these verses could point out to King Solomon, David's son who actually built the first temple of the Lord..

in the first part of verse 14, it reads: " I will be his father, and he will be my son."
just like when God promised Abraham that He will establish an everlasting covenant with his son Isaac( Gen 17:19).

there is no way that God would have been directly referring to Jesus
with verse 14 "When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands."
for it directly contradicts what the Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Cor 5:21
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
--This then would be the reason why Jesus is crucified..not because He sinned but because WE have sinned.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the Passover, Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Jesus, Son of God became the son of man so that we sons of men might become children of God.

Verse 14 therefore would have directly refer to Davd's son King Solomon
(read 1 Kings 11 about Solomon's wives and their gods)..
but also point out to a Messianic Prophecy indirectly, as Jesus too was King David's descendant, and was even referred to as the Son of David..
and in Jesus God established the new, final and everlasting covenant.