Roman Catholic Resources

Matthew C Jones · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63238#Comment_63238

Dominick Sela said:
LOL this should really be a discussion about base packages. If Logos only put into base packages theology all Christians believed, there would be no books in it.

There probably would not even be a Bible in it.

MJ. Smith · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66447#Comment_66447

Matthew C Jones said:
There probably would not even be a Bible in it.

As I mentioned elsewhere - I know of a Russian sect that accepts only Revelation - which the Slavic Orthodox treat as deutero-canonical so nope - no Bible.

Matthew C Jones · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63336#Comment_63336

Bryan Brodess said:
My point is,, no one should think they have the truth, just because they belong to an organisation.. no matter how old it is.. It is run by men.. and men have a 6000 year history of screwing it up!!

I agree and would go further by saying
     every graduate of a seminary,
          every poster in this thread (including myself),
               every theologian published in Libronix format,
                    every preacher who has stood in the pulpit...

......has at one time or another gotten it wrong and was guilty of "screwing it up!"

In spite of believing this to be true, I purchased the Portfolio package and many other add-ons to benefit from reading their thoughts and studies. No, I am not insecure in my beliefs. I am rather open to consider the possibility the other person got it right when I got it wrong. If I live much longer I will probably make many more corrections to my personal theology based on deeper study of the Bible and listening to godly teachers.[C]

Then, when we all get to Heaven, God will show us how wrong we all were. [:O]

Matthew C Jones · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66277#Comment_66277

Bryan Brodess said:
This is why I think no one can talk about their beliefs. Since when is this catholic bashing? Are Catholics the only group that believe in water baptismal regeneration. Or the Eucharist?? I did not think so.. yet we are catholic bashing..

No problem talking about beliefs. I have a problem with arbitrarily gagging someone else from talking. Peter C. never complained about JPS publications written by persons who deny Jesus Christ is the Messiah. At least the pope says Jesus is God's Son. That puts him closer to my camp than the JPS. My comment about the Catholic bashing came earlier on in the thread when everyone started in on them. My amazement at John's perception was that he could see a relationship between the inclusion of Catholic resources in a Logos base package and the inter-Protestant arguments on different interpretations of baptismal modes. To me they are light years apart. (therefore off-topic by light years.)

I think we have reached a consensus (I hate that word) that most of us are glad to have divergent views included in our Logos base packages. The Catholic Curch has made a lot more money delivering my babies at the local hospital than they have off dividends from my Logos licenses.

Bryan Brodess · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66362#Comment_66362

Alex Scott said:

Bryan Brodess said:
Repent is 2nd person, Baptise is 3rd.

My own personal opinion is that he was being very emphatic, "Repent and EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, let him be baptized" so that no one might think that the command was being fulfilled because they were having a massive baptismal service where a lot were being baptized but that you could opt out if you wanted. (Note that the 3rd person verb is singular)

I guess this is where we disagree. This is a passage that I had a hard time for years coming to grips with. It made no sense, especially when taken in context with the rest of scripture ( in my mind) until I saw a study done on it. Well I had to check out what the person had come up0 with. and low and behold I found it to be true.

This is how I would translate acts 2: 38. 2nd person means Peter is speaking to everyone.. literally, I command all of you to repent. (2nd person) and you shall also receive the gift (2nd person) of the holy spirit..and let every one of you (who have repented) be baptised (3rd person) because you have received the remission of your sins.

eis can easily be translated "because" John the baptist had a "baptism as the result or because of (eis) remission of sins" he proved this because he demanded that the religious Jews prove they had remmision of sin before he would even think of baptizing them.

anyway, this is how I see it. Again it makes no sens to say YOU repent, and let every one of THEM be baptized.. I guarantee if billy graham or someone in one of their revival services said this they would be laughed off the stage!

Bryan Brodess · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66377#Comment_66377

MJ. Smith said:

Bryan Brodess said:
why do people try to differentiate protestant theology from roman theology.

Those who try to do that are either uninformed or sloppy. However, there is a major theological division that imprecisely can be refered to as the Orthodox-Catholic-Lutheran-Anglican vs. everybody else. Loosely, this can be defined as historical-liturgical-sacramental-collective on one side and "not" on the other side. From your posts, I doubt that you really understand the historical-liturgical-sacramental-collective perspective, so it makes sense that the division would be murky for you. You need to go far further back in presuppositions than "salvic theology" to find the root differences.

And, as several of us have said many times, there is no such thing as "roman theology" - only Don Quixote could joist against that.

You just made my point. How can one learn if every time someons tries to understand they are called "catholic bashers" or whatever other name you can come up with.

As for roman theology. I use that term to separate the western church from the eastern, which came out of the roman empire, namely constantinian domain., and other protestant, but roman type thinking.. Again I hope this does not offend anyone. It is just how I separate them

Bryan Brodess · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66412#Comment_66412

MJ. Smith said:

Bryan Brodess said:
Have never heard a non catholic who takes the eucharists viewpoint..

Really? That implies that you've never heard an Orthodox, a Lutheran (use different language but are substantially the same), many Anglicans, most Armenians, most of the Oriental Churches ... think about 75% of all current Christians ... and a higher percentage historically.

I am not trying to be rude here, But if you read my message with a clear head, I stated I have never heard their viewpoint. meaning why they too believe it.. Which is why I asked the lutheran to explain to me why I misinterpreted john 6..

The reason I asked, is because every catholic I have asked do not even respond. The always point to the verses where jesus said eat my flesh and drink my blood. And the rest of the passage does not matter. And finally. I am not authorized to interpret only the pope ( gods vicar is) so I must be wrong.. If your a catholic, maybe I can post my john 6 interpretation and you can try to show me in a rational way,, I was hoping the lutheran would do this.. If I am wrong. I would like to know..

I was raised in a legalistic, "us only" church. I have found out that many things that I was told about other churches were wrong.. I want to learn.. is this wrong??

The eucharist is a great example. I was never told they used john 6 to interpret until I was having a conversation with a catholic.. That is how one leanrs. they ask questions..

just because I ask a question does not mean I am bashing..

MJ. Smith said:

When, in an earlier post, I indicated that a historical-liturgical-sacramental-communal mind set was shared by these groups, one implication of that is that we are more apt to know where are doctrines are shared ... from 29 A.D. on. We've shared creeds, Scripture, Patristics - they all cross divisions within the whole with some emphasized here, de-emphasized there and some individuals being only "local". We may fight. We may excommunicate each other. We may fight wars over turf and otherwise act like spoiled children, but through it all we recognize that we all share some of the Truth - each, other course knowing they have the lion's share and the fighting is the other one's fault.

forgive me but I disagree here. Many of the traditions, and doctrines you share did not come until much after 29 AD..although I would like to be proven wrong if I am

MJ. Smith said:

Unfortunately, when I try to understand the 25% or so that is ahistorical, nonliturgical, nonsacramental and individualistic, I keep getting thoroughly lost because "they" generally start so far from my starting point. I truly cannot converse meaningfully with you about theories of salvation if we don't start at more basic issues such as the role of Scripture, the role of worship, the role of teaching authority, the development of our understanding of those roles in the last 2000 years ... I find great hope in the fact that the Protestant side is taking a real interest in Pastristics. It is a major step forward in being able to talk to each other.

And I will reply like I have many.. Moses and arron were given Gods law. they wrote it down. and handced it down from generation to generation. One would think God would make sure the priesthood set up by him did not distort or misenterpret scripture and become somethign other than his priesthood. They were to represent God on earth.. yet they failed..

so why would I think that for the past 2000 years the same thing did not happen?? that God all of a sudden changed and forced the NT high priest. whome many call the pope, to do what he refused to do with the OT high priest?? I can not and will not buy it..

Not to mention. When Constantine made the church the state church. and killed anyone who did not believe as he demanded they believe, which went on for hundreds of years.. we can not possibly know if it was the only church or not.. for if it was a false church. the real church had to hide underground.. Likemany saved jews did many times under OT theocracy..

So history. although fascinating, and interesting ( I am a major
history buff) is not going to be the basis on which I inform my faith
in how one must be saved..

What will be the basis is what Gods word says.. The OT priests added laws to mosaic laws.. It was these man made laws Christ broke. What is there to keep me from believing Rome did not do the same?? Only one thing. Gods word..

That is why I ask questions.. as we all should.. with an open heart.. a closed heart will learn nothing.. I think scripture repeats this over and over..

Bryan Brodess · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66466#Comment_66466

Matthew C Jones said:

Bryan Brodess said:
My point is,, no one should think they have the truth, just because they belong to an organisation.. no matter how old it is.. It is run by men.. and men have a 6000 year history of screwing it up!!

I agree and would go further by saying
     every graduate of a seminary,
          every poster in this thread (including myself),
               every theologian published in Libronix format,
                    every preacher who has stood in the pulpit...

......has at one time or another gotten it wrong and was guilty of "screwing it up!"

In spite of believing this to be true, I purchased the Portfolio package and many other add-ons to benefit from reading their thoughts and studies. No, I am not insecure in my beliefs. I am rather open to consider the possibility the other person got it right when I got it wrong. If I live much longer I will probably make many more corrections to my personal theology based on deeper study of the Bible and listening to godly teachers.

Then, when we all get to Heaven, God will show us how wrong we all were.

Amen!

What worries me is getting the thing that saves us wrong.. if we do not get that right.. we will never make it to heaven.

I know I can't wait to talk to biblical people and get their perspective.. how they thought when they were here..

Bryan Brodess · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66485#Comment_66485

Matthew C Jones said:

Bryan Brodess said:
This is why I think no one can talk about their beliefs. Since when is this catholic bashing? Are Catholics the only group that believe in water baptismal regeneration. Or the Eucharist?? I did not think so.. yet we are catholic bashing..

No problem talking about beliefs. I have a problem with arbitrarily gagging someone else from talking. Peter C. never complained about JPS publications written by persons who deny Jesus Christ is the Messiah. At least the pope says Jesus is God's Son. That puts him closer to my camp than the JPS. My comment about the Catholic bashing came earlier on in the thread when everyone started in on them. My amazement at John's perception was that he could see a relationship between the inclusion of Catholic resources in a Logos base package and the inter-Protestant arguments on different interpretations of baptismal modes. To me they are light years apart. (therefore off-topic by light years.)

I think we have reached a consensus (I hate that word) that most of us are glad to have divergent views included in our Logos base packages. The Catholic Curch has made a lot more money delivering my babies at the local hospital than they have off dividends from my Logos licenses.

\

Actually I think you will find if we go back ( I could be wrong) that we all agreed that having a divergent resources in packages was helpful to us all.. I do not think any of agreed with the original poster [:P]

Damian McGrath · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66660#Comment_66660

Bryan Brodess said:
When Constantine made the church the state church

If you are a major history buff, then you would know that Constantine never made the Church the State Church. He removed decrees prohibiting the practice of Christianity.

Can we please drop this wildly Off Topic thread...

These forums exist to discuss Logos Bible Software.

Icarus38376 · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66666#Comment_66666

Bryan Brodess said:

Actually I think you will find if we go back ( I could be wrong) that we all agreed that having a divergent resources in packages was helpful to us all.. I do not think any of agreed with the original poster

I'm not a prophet, but that fact that none agreed with the original post is a good indicator that "christianity" is already heading back into a works based, Christ denying, man centered, dark age where everyone did that which was right in his own eyes. Be careful what you wish for!

Love, Pete

Alex Scott · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66650#Comment_66650

Bryan Brodess said:
eis can easily be translated "because" John the baptist had a "baptism as the result or because of (eis) remission of sins" he proved this because he demanded that the religious Jews prove they had remmision of sin before he would even think of baptizing them.

If that particular line of reasoning is true, then perhaps Jesus shed His blood because sins had been forgiven. Check out Matthew 26:28

I have to admit that I haven't really applied the 'because of' interpretation to the various occurrences of eis, but it seems to me that 'because of' in the sense of 'cause' is valid, but to assume it to be as a 'result of' seems a bit of a stretch. What I would want to know is, are there any occurrences of the word eis where that meaning is clear either in Scripture or outside, or is it just the result of some modern interpreter twisting meanings to fit his theology? I'm not saying that it is - I really haven't investigated this, but that does seem to be a fairly common practice these days, especially as Greek and Hebrew is used more and more by people who know less and less about the original languages. Anyway, thanks for your viewpoint - it's given me something to think about and look at.

By the way it doesn't say "let everyone of THEM" be baptized - it's 3rd person SINGULAR.

Matthew C Jones · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63351#Comment_63351

Peter Cellini said:
My mistake was that I accused logos of doing this, but I'm not sure my accusation was fair or accurate. I am checking the platinum library now to see how many pro-catholic books are included with the bundle.

Peter,

If you get the Portfolio edition the fraction of Catholic works shrinks dramatically as they are dwarfed by the non-Catholic titles. Then you could pass them by (hiding them if needed) and enjoy a wide variety of resources you may find useful. If this is a workable option for you jump on it! The savings might not last past New Years Day. Many have used the payment plan option to secure the sale price while awaiting tax refunds next Spring.

For whatever reason, God allows Catholics, Hindus, Muslims & Buddhists to walk on His earth with Protestants for the time being. [;)] Sharing the forum with them isn't much different. I'm not encouraging you to violate your conscience but I doubt there is much revenue paid by Logos to any Catholic entity.

Whatever your decision, may God bless you in the new year as you try so zealously to please Him. [<:o)]

MJ. Smith · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66660#Comment_66660

Bryan Brodess said:
Moses and arron were given Gods law. they wrote it down.

Don't omit the Oral Torah from consideration.

Bryan Brodess said:
forced the NT high priest. whome many call the pope, to do what he refused to do with the OT high priest?? I can not and will not buy it..

The New Testament high priest is Jesus Christ - certainly not the Pope

Bryan Brodess said:
So history. although fascinating, and interesting ( I am a major
history buff) is not going to be the basis on which I inform my faith
in how one must be saved..

History is not in and of itself proof. However, much of the New Testament is history - and through it we come to understand how Jesus' first and second generation disciples understood the faith. One cannot prove the validity of the Scripture through Scripture alone - if one could we could all go out and write our own Scripture. That is why any serious discussion must go back to who is God, how does He reveal Himself, who is Jesus Christ, why the cross and resurrection, how was the Church formed, how was the Bible formed, what is the teaching authority of Scripture and Church, how does God insure that His Truth is preserved ... when we understand each other on these points, then we can grapple with Scripture over the Body and Blood of Christ, justification et. al.

Bryan Brodess said:
or if it was a false church. the real church had to hide underground..

This is the argument that I grew up with and my grandfather preached. Unfortunately, there are no indications, even fragmentary, that such a church existed anywhere in the world. There are records of many splinter groups. Nor does it explain how the same "heresies" developed in the Church in India, in Ethiopia that developed in the less isolated areas. History does not prove the point but it adds weight to the argument. One can also approach history from the history of ideas perspective. I doubt any hermeneutic dependent upon post-Medieval thought i.e. a much stronger case needs to be made.

If you would like to continue this discussion, I think it best that we step out of the forum.

mjespuiva AT AOL dot com

BillS · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66667#Comment_66667

Damian McGrath said:
These forums exist to discuss Logos Bible Software.

+1[:)]

Bryan Brodess · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66914#Comment_66914

Alex Scott said:

Bryan Brodess said:
eis can easily be translated "because" John the baptist had a "baptism as the result or because of (eis) remission of sins" he proved this because he demanded that the religious Jews prove they had remmision of sin before he would even think of baptizing them.

If that particular line of reasoning is true, then perhaps Jesus shed His blood because sins had been forgiven. Check out Matthew 26:28

I have to admit that I haven't really applied the 'because of' interpretation to the various occurrences of eis, but it seems to me that 'because of' in the sense of 'cause' is valid, but to assume it to be as a 'result of' seems a bit of a stretch. What I would want to know is, are there any occurrences of the word eis where that meaning is clear either in Scripture or outside, or is it just the result of some modern interpreter twisting meanings to fit his theology? I'm not saying that it is - I really haven't investigated this, but that does seem to be a fairly common practice these days, especially as Greek and Hebrew is used more and more by people who know less and less about the original languages. Anyway, thanks for your viewpoint - it's given me something to think about and look at.

a way to look at it is this way, then it would make perfect sense:

We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!

Another illustration is as follows:

1. I phoned the Doctor for (in order to) some medicine.

2. I phoned the Doctor for (in behalf of) my child.

3. I phoned the Doctor for (on account, or because of) my sickness.

4. I phoned the Doctor for (with respect to) the bill he sent.

so we can see a few different ways we can interpret for (or eis)

Alex Scott said:

By the way it doesn't say "let everyone of THEM" be baptized - it's 3rd person SINGULAR.

Actually your right.. I made a mistake in number, but it really helps me out.. that is singular.

I could be wrong, but It should be a rule in Greek grammar, as it is in English, that the verb agrees with its subject in person and number:"

"Person is the quality of verbs which indicates whether the subject is speaking (first person), is being spoken to (second person), or is being spoken of (third person) ...

Number is the quality of verbs which indicates whether the subject is singular or plural

"If the subject of a verb is the person or the group of persons speaking, the verb is in the first person. If the subject of a verb is the person or group of persons spoken to, the verb is in the second person. If the subject of a verb is the person or the thing or the group spoken of, the verb is the third person"

if this be true I can not see how the verbs of the passage agree.. How can remission of sin be dependent on repentance, which is 2nd person, plural and baptism, which is 3rd person singular.. Language does not allow it.

this is the way I see it

Repent ye, --2nd person, ye shall receive 2nd person the gift of the Holy Spirit object of 2nd person

All of you repent and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Peter was speaking to everyone(plural) at this point)

every one of you 3rd person be baptized 3rd person unto the remission of sins used as object of third person verb.

Every one of you (who repented and received the Holy Spirit) be baptized because the remission of sins.(Peter was speaking induvidualy (singular) to those who repented)

Also notice. I think this is implied by vs 41.. “Then they (those who repented and received remission of sins because they believed what peter said) that received his word) were baptized."

Hope this helps explain further why I believe Acts 2 should be translated this way..

Bryan Brodess · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/66998#Comment_66998

MJ. Smith said:

Bryan Brodess said:
Moses and arron were given Gods law. they wrote it down.

Don't omit the Oral Torah from consideration.

Explain.. what oral torah??

MJ. Smith said:

Bryan Brodess said:
forced the NT high priest. whome many call the pope, to do what he refused to do with the OT high priest?? I can not and will not buy it..

The New Testament high priest is Jesus Christ - certainly not the Pope

Purely semantics. you mean to tell me that the OT high priest could be falible. but the pope can not in his interpretation?? sorry I am still not buying it..

MJ. Smith said:

Bryan Brodess said:
So history. although fascinating, and interesting ( I am a major
history buff) is not going to be the basis on which I inform my faith
in how one must be saved..

History is not in and of itself proof. However, much of the New Testament is history - and through it we come to understand how Jesus' first and second generation disciples understood the faith. One cannot prove the validity of the Scripture through Scripture alone -

sorry I disagree. God did not give us scripture which he inspired, then not allow us to interpret it based on scripture itself. If he did. scripture would not be complete. thus God failed..

MJ. Smith said:

if one could we could all go out and write our own Scripture.

We are not talking about the book of mormon, or any other act of scripture. we are talking about the inspired word of God. one thing that seperates the Bible I follow is that in no place does it contradict itself.. and even better, it completes itself..

MJ. Smith said:

That is why any serious discussion must go back to who is God, how does He reveal Himself, who is Jesus Christ, why the cross and resurrection, how was the Church formed, how was the Bible formed, what is the teaching authority of Scripture and Church, how does God insure that His Truth is preserved ... when we understand each other on these points, then we can grapple with Scripture over the Body and Blood of Christ, justification et. al.

Well a close and an openhearted read of scripture in full will answer every one of those questions..

As for how God keeps his word preserved./. He did it for hundreds of years in the OT when those who were supposed to keep it did not even follow God. If he can do it then. why can he not do it now.?

My whole point is, I am told continually that only one church can be historically tied to the apostles. Only one church can claim infallible interpretation. and only one church has made sure that Gods word has been preserved.

Yet the jews who crucified christ could make the same argument.. We see the results of their "infallibility" they crucified christ!

So am I going to listen to an organization just because they claim these things without testing them out first?? Sorry eternity is far to long for me to put mine in the hands of men just because they claim to come from God..

This is not anti-catholic. This is me going to search for truth.. Find out what people believe, (including catholic) Test it using the word of God. and decide as paul commands us all to do.. which doctrines line up with Gods inspired scripture.. and which are doctrines made by men.

Matthew C Jones · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/67024#Comment_67024

Bill Stonebraker said:

Damian McGrath said:
These forums exist to discuss Logos Bible Software.

+1

+2[:)][:D]

Marco Ortiz · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63213#Comment_63213

II wish Logos had more Catholic Resources, or at least allow you to choose what Resources you really want/need. I am new to logos, but I trying it out because BibleWorks does not have a MAC version.

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/165059#Comment_165059

Marco Ortiz said:

II wish Logos had more Catholic Resources, or at least allow you to choose what Resources you really want/need. I am new to logos, but I trying it out because BibleWorks does not have a MAC version.

I agree there should be more Catholic materials. However, we need to build up the demand for it to be financially viable. However, given Logos progress in a number of areas of importance to Catholics, I do expect this to change. Concrete examples?

verse mapping to handle the different verifications - we no longer have to "correct" for Malachi, Jeremiah, Psalms ...
progress on support for lectionaries
the speed with which some resources of interest to Catholics are getting into the development stage - Aquinas' Catena, interlinear for the deuterocanonical books

Once you have a base package, you can be very selective in what you add in - and there's enough to keep you over budget for quite some time.

Noel Fitzpatrick · August 2010

I have Logos , Original Languages, and I am happy with it. I use NAB and D-R, as well as NRSV, NAS etc. The Vulgate is available. However I have bought some extra resources, as the Collegeville BC and the Collegeville Reference Library. The Catholic Lectionary is useful.

I have always been treated here with welcome and support, for which I am grateful.. I am particularly impressed with the courtesy and expertise of everyone in Logos I have been in contact with.

Floyd Johnson · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166410#Comment_166410

I am not Catholic, but I do wonder (MJ, you could help here), would it be possible with the current set of resources for LOGOS to add a "Catholic Base Package" to its set of available resources. I don't even know if there are enough resources to justify this - but given your comments, there might be.

Similarly, though I do not see or hear the request from others, would an "Orthodox Base Package" be appropriate.

As has been noted, the resources that support the current base packages represent a strong protestant persuasion. Having either a "Catholic" or an "Orthodox" base package would provide an opportunity for some to use LOGOS that currently feel disinclined toward the "Protestant" feel of the software.

I suspect some of us (i.e. me) might be inclined to add a "Catholic" or an "Orthodox" package to our existing resources - given the appropriate discounts. [:)]

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166420#Comment_166420

Floyd Johnson said:
would it be possible with the current set of resources for LOGOS to add a "Catholic Base Package" to its set of available resources.

Logos originally had a separate Catholic package. I waited far longer than I expected for its release. At that time the resources that one's machine could handle was limited so it worked out well. I certainly would appreciate a package that included a higher percentage of resources I would use, I wouldn't label the dividing line as "Protestant" - I would say that Logos has a very Evangelical feel. It is a combination of a number of small and subtle things that give this feel:

the assumption that notes, lessons and sermons are based on a single Scripture not a collection of Scripture (liturgical or thematic)
the style of Bible study doesn't allow for the more table/comparison based flavor found in many Catholic Bible studies
the Prayer Lists seem designed for petitionary prayer with human-defined outcomes rather than prayer based on psalms and readings with open-ended outcomes
many of the tools (e.g. Biblical people) have not been expanded to cover the broader canons not even Anglican or Lutheran canons - although some of these are slowly coming
timelines for the English Bible that excludes the early translations giving the impression that English Bibles didn't precede the Reformation (I see the printing press as the major event ... this assisted the Reformation).
reading plans that don't allow for the easy creation of manual plans ... even the assignment of passages by verse count rather than content and comprehension difficulties is 'foreign'
the use of chapter and verse as 'real' divisions not as printers' marks (I see them as equivalent to the line numbers on legal documents) and Bible headings rather than lectionary definitions of pericopes
the lack of Bibles that are standard for English lectionaries e.g. Jerusalem Bible (we only have the New Jerusalem)
the (comparative) weakness of LXX and Vulgate resources and tools
the linking to sermon sites for the non-lectionary crowd but providing no links to the lectionary based resources
the limited set of creedal resources - something I would put as an essential element of the Passage Guide
the list could go on for some time ...

However, these biases are things I don't expect Logos to instantly 'solve' but rather to resolve over time as the demand increases. But they do illustrate why I think new base packages would not solve the problem.

I do think that a base product without commentaries and pastoral materials to which one adds a "denominational" component could work well. That is assuming one defines denominational very broadly. I think that the major camps can be divided into the liturgical churches, two groups of Protestant, and Judaism. By liturgical churches I mean Catholic, Orthodox, Church of the East, and some of the Anglican/Lutheran perspective. I say two groups of Protestant because I am not qualified to define them well - I think mainline/other or liberal/conservative ..

Floyd Johnson said:
I don't even know if there are enough resources to justify this

I don't think so at the moment. However, there are a number of resources in some state of prepub that Logos is only a commentary or two away from a plausible Catholic package. The Orthodox are not yet even close. As for the Church of the East ... But there are useful Lutheran, Catholic and Jewish non-base packages already.

Okay, now that I said something to irritate everyone

Silent Sam · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166443#Comment_166443

Simply amazing...

When it's a subject the MVPs are interested in debating, the post is allowed to ramble on forever.

If a newbie suggests a subject, he/she is read his/her rights and cautioned to never let it happen again.

Rank Has it's Privileges.

Milford Charles Murray · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166453#Comment_166453

Silent sam said:

Simply amazing...

When it's a subject the MVPs are interested in debating, the post is allowed to ramble on forever.

If a newbie suggests a subject, he/she is read his/her rights and cautioned to never let it happen again.

Rank Has it's Privileges.

Peace to you, Silent Sam! And Joy in our Lord Jesus! *smile*

Sam, your statement is rather subjective to be sure! I am most certainly not an MVP, and -- having thought it over for a few minutes -- and having prayed as to whether or not to respond to your post -- I feel I must post ....

........... I strongly disagree with your statement. In my humble opinion, your statement is inaccurate! I am quite unaware of what has irritated or annoyed you; but I ask you, please, to rethink your statement. Still time to edit it! *smile*

Rich DeRuiter · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166453#Comment_166453

Silent sam said:

Simply amazing...

When it's a subject the MVPs are interested in debating, the post is allowed to ramble on forever.

If a newbie suggests a subject, he/she is read his/her rights and cautioned to never let it happen again.

Rank Has it's Privileges.

You'll notice that the post to which you replied (by MJ Smith) deals with limitations of the Logos program and the resources Logos offers. This is well within the guidelines. Knowing that Logos staff regularly read these posts, her criticisms function as a kind of suggestion list for making Logos more broadly usable.

Or were you referring to another post?

Todd Phillips · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166453#Comment_166453

Silent sam said:

Simply amazing...

When it's a subject the MVPs are interested in debating, the post is allowed to ramble on forever.

If a newbie suggests a subject, he/she is read his/her rights and cautioned to never let it happen again.

Rank Has it's Privileges.

Not sure if you saw the starting date on this thread. It is from last year, before the forum rules were put in place (i.e., before theological debates were officially declared off limits). This thread is one of the reasons this forum has rules about off topic posts. MVPs are regular people too, and have to follow the rules.

You don't have to be a silent sam--you're welcome to add to the discussion about Logos. Welcome to the forum.

Silent Sam · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166454#Comment_166454

Milford Charles Murray said:
but I ask you, please, to rethink your statement. Still time to edit it!

Just because you disagree with my statement, I should rethink and edit it?

You are well on your way to an MVP[:P]

Milford Charles Murray · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166463#Comment_166463

Silent sam said:

Milford Charles Murray said:
but I ask you, please, to rethink your statement. Still time to edit it!

Just because you disagree with my statement, I should rethink and edit it?

You are well on your way to an MVP

That will never happen, Dear Sam! *smile* But thanks for the compliment, if that is what it is! Probably isn't, I guess, though.

I think that if you reconsidered what you wrote, and if you "thinked" about it for a bit, you might be very desirous of editing it.

However, that's in your court and your own personal decision. My original post was because I thought you had over-reacted.

Kindest personal greetings! *smile*

Silent Sam · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166468#Comment_166468

Milford Charles Murray said:
However, that's in your court and your own personal decision. My original post was because I thought you had over-reacted.

[:D]*Smile*[:D]If it were your conviction that my statement was my own personal decision, It would seem unlikely that you would reprimand me and suggest I edit it.[:D]*Smile*[:D]

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166453#Comment_166453

Silent Sam said:
When it's a subject the MVPs are interested in debating, the post is allowed to ramble on forever.

If it is my post to which you are referring, I am a bit puzzled. I am not entering into a debate - I am answering a question that was specifically addressed to me. I would have much preferred to answer the question in a separate thread but decided to answer it here. The question was specifically about Logos software as was my answer. Sorry you find my answer "rambling" - I am more often chided for erring on the other side.

You are correct that newbies are reminded more quickly of the forum guidelines because they are less likely to be aware of them. I don't recall any case where a newbie has been called to task for a Logos related question; if there are such case, I apologize on behalf of the entire forum community.

Noel Fitzpatrick · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166468#Comment_166468

I have recently upgraded to Logos 4, and have been relooking at this forum after the absence of some time.

I think this discussion started with a Christmas present of Logos 4 Platinum, as the first post was Christmas Day, 2009. M.J. Smith promply replied. I note he has over 4500 posts. Most seem to be about Logos queries, which is why we are here.

As a Catholic I find Logos excellent, and appreciate the fellowship and help of so many here.

However I have many problems, which I hope to resolve over time as I get more familiar with the new improvements

Could we get back to discussing the original question about Catholic resources in Logos?

Incidentally Catholics do read the Bible and use Logos.

spitzerpl · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166540#Comment_166540

Noel Fitzpatrick said:

Could we get back to discussing the original question about Catholic resources in Logos?

Incidentally Catholics do read the Bible and use Logos.

Unfortunately I am not too familiar with Catholic resources, but I'd still like to say welcome to the forums. If you could have 5 Catholic resources in Logos that are not in Logos, what would they be?

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166540#Comment_166540

Noel Fitzpatrick said:
M.J. Smith promply replied. I note he has over 4500 posts. Most seem to be about Logos queries, which is why we are here.

Welcome to the forums. It is always especially nice to have an addition from the Lutheran-Anglican-Catholic-Orthodox_Church of the East wpr;d. As I am sure you have guessed, I am Catholic ... and a she MJ aka Martha[:)]

Noel Fitzpatrick · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166540#Comment_166540

Philip,

I am happy with Logos as it is. There are no resources not in it that I would
really like to have.

If I were a rich man I
would buy the works of John H Newman.

My favorite Bibles are:
NRSV, NAS, NAB, ISV, ESV and D-R.

Favorite Commentaries:
Harpers, Collegeville, New and JFB

Favorite Greek Bibles:
NA27 Gramcord, with and without McReynolds.

Favorite Lexica etc:
ESV, B. Newman, Swanson (Greek), Louw-Nida, EDNT, BAGD, NBD, Anchor YBD and
Chambers Oxford Eng Dict.

I enclose my preferred
Layout (I am still trying not to call it workspace).

I
would like this to appear when I start Logos, rather than the last screen I
had.

Noel Fitzpatrick · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166548#Comment_166548

Martha,

many thanks for your reply.

Mea culpa.

I had presumed you were male. That is meant as a compliment!

spitzerpl · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166558#Comment_166558

Noel Fitzpatrick said:
I
would like this to appear when I start Logos, rather than the last screen I
had.

Agreed. I'd love to be able to set the Layout to always use. For now to save a bit of time I just put a shortcut to it on the shortcut bar. sometimes the layout menu takes a couple seconds to come up.

Of course, back in the paper days it would take me 1/2 an hour to set up my desk the way I wanted it :-)

Matthew C Jones · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166559#Comment_166559

Noel Fitzpatrick said:

Martha,

many thanks for your reply.

Mea culpa.

I had presumed you were male. That is meant as a compliment!

Noel, welcome to the forums.

MJ is wiser than many males. I think it is from using both sides of her brain. [^o)]

I also think it gives her an unfair advantage when coupled with initials for a name [:^)] .

Pastor Al Brodbent, PhD. · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166475#Comment_166475

As I understan it ( and I have been wrong before) this blog has to do with Catholic Resources. Personally I have found the Nicene Fathers, The Jerome Commentaries, and the Revised Standard Edtion (Caholic Version) to give me everthing I need. AL

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166596#Comment_166596

Dr. Al Brodbent said:

As I understan it ( and I have been wrong before) this blog has to do with Catholic Resources. Personally I have found the Nicene Fathers, The Jerome Commentaries, and the Revised Standard Edtion (Caholic Version) to give me everthing I need. AL

I'll agree that is a good resource base - I would add to that the New Jerusalem Bible and, given where I live, the NAB. But I will be happier when some of the things already in the pipeline are complete. I would be happiest if the Catechism, Vatican II documents and encyclicals were in the pipeline.

Noel Fitzpatrick · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166630#Comment_166630

Logos is about Bible study, so (perhaps) it is unfair to expect
non-Bible resources to be available in it.

However the resources requested are already
available as shown below:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html the Church Fathers

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a2.htm#I
CCC

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
Vat II documents

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=iw#hl=en&source=hp&q=encyclicals+of+pope+benedict+xvi&aq=2&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=Encyclicals&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=728ef3750cf3a29c B XVI Encycs

BibleWorks8: RSV (maybe not Catholic), NJB

Logos: NAB

I
have some other resources you might consider

http://www.ntgateway.com/

http://www.torreys.org/bible/

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166643#Comment_166643

Noel Fitzpatrick said:
Logos is about Bible study, so (perhaps) it is unfair to expect
non-Bible resources to be available in it.

Logos already carries a number of counseling and pastoral works. I consider these to be less tied to Bible Study than creeds, catechisms and most church documents. It may be that the new PBB format will allow us to create the same advantages of Logos tagging that we have in Logos resources. If so, I don't care whether I get these resources from my own labor or theirs - though I'm sure their staff is better trained and faster. [;)]

I do supplement Logos with Biblica Clerus, VulSearch 4 and Faith Database but I do much prefer the power of Logos and keeping all my materials in one place. I do use Favorites in Logos to link to resources such as those you provided. Thank you for providing the links.

Lynden O. Williams · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166630#Comment_166630

MJ. Smith said:
But I will be happier when some of the things already in the pipeline are complete. I would be happiest if the Catechism, Vatican II documents and encyclicals were in the pipeline.

MJ sounds like you need to start marshaling the troops to speaks to the powers that be to get those resources in Logos. Show other catholics that advantage of having them there and how to use it.

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166690#Comment_166690

Lynden Williams said:
MJ sounds like you need to start marshaling the troops to speaks to the powers that be to get those resources in Logos.

I slowly am. But I figure the first step is to get some of the Lutheran position papers into Logos. They already have the Catechisms of Luther so they make a clear example of what Catholics need. It also wouldn't hurt to put some pressure on The Liturgical Press to make several of their Michael Glazier imprint books available in Logos..

Silent Sam · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166548#Comment_166548

MJ. Smith said:
Welcome to the forums. It is always especially nice to have an addition from the Lutheran-Anglican-Catholic-Orthodox_Church of the East wpr;d.

[^o)] HMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166705#Comment_166705

Silent Sam said:

MJ. Smith said:
Welcome to the forums. It is always especially nice to have an addition from the Lutheran-Anglican-Catholic-Orthodox_Church of the East wpr;d.

HMMMmmm~~~

wpr;d -->world as spelled by my helpful cat [:O] Sorry I missed seeing it.

Noel Fitzpatrick · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166690#Comment_166690

MJS

thanks
for suggesting BibliaClerus, VulSearch
4 and The Faith Data Base.
There are really many Catholic resources available.

I have problems in
getting time to study, understanding what I read and remembering it.

Any suggesatiuons for
these complaints?

spitzerpl · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166766#Comment_166766

Noel Fitzpatrick said:

I have problems in
getting time to study, understanding what I read and remembering it.

Any suggesatiuons for
these complaints?

My only suggestion is to start a club. I'm right there with you on that one. [:D]

Ivan J. Perrino · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166768#Comment_166768

Noel, choose the time of day when you are the most fresh, the most peaceful - it seems to work for me. It seems that time is also best for prayer and contemplation.

MJ. Smith · August 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/166766#Comment_166766

Noel Fitzpatrick said:

I have problems in
getting time to study, understanding what I read and remembering it.

Any suggesatiuons for
these complaints?

My uncle who recently died at 98 set me a perfect example. In his mid-eighties, he began loosing his memory (not Alzheimer's). He was still winning shuffleboard tournaments. Each time he was reminded that he had won, he got the same pleasure as he did when he initially won which he thought was great. So you don't remember? That just gives you all the more possibilities for the joy of discovery.[;)]

As for time ... that I don't know. I keep petitioning God for longer days but ...

Roman Catholic Resources

Comments

Categories