The Church looked at the consistency to the Apostolic faith handed down and whether the writing was written by an apostle or one that knew the apostles. An indicator of the above was what books were being read at Mass.
I am just watching The Big Bang Theory (Repeat). Sheldon is wearing a tee shirt with a circle and the number 73 in it. I immediately thought, “Now that is why we have 73 books in the bible”.Yeah not to mention the symbolism of the Protestant bible having 66 books. The number 6 is not a good number and is too similar to 666. That right there is a sign. Not saying Protestants are the antichrist or anything I’m just talking about the number itself and having 66 books in the Bible is not a good sign. 7 is the number of perfection. 70-something books is a better sign.7 the number of perfection and 3 for the Trinity.
I agree…and disagree…
Yes, thank you, the NT written by Catholics. But the Catholic Church discerned which OT books were inspired and inerrant. We do owe the Jewish faith much in preserving the OT books.
So all the NT was either written by the Apostles or someone who knew the Apostles?
Yes, it is almost entirely Apostles writings (Peter, John, James, Matthew, Paul). A couple exceptions being Luke/Acts written by Luke who was a close associate and Mark who was a close associate of Peter. Hebrews is unknown as to authorship, perhaps Paul, maybe another Apostolic period person, I like the theory it was Priscilla and her name left off due to her being female.
To tie this with another thread, then is it safe to say that the Gnostics and the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” is rejected because it wasn’t written by the Apostles or those taught be the Apostles?
Yes, and because it is contrary to the deposit of faith which the church holds as true.
I recomend the book *Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church *by The Right Reverend Henry G Graham.
The question should be:
Yes, agreed. And it makes the answer much clearer and simpler to say:
Having recently read some of the DC books, and Luther’s prefaces to them, I would respectfully disagree with your cause and effect. Luther had a great fondness for a number of the DC books, not the least of which being 1 Macc. He used them in his writings and preaching long into his life.
Luther was in no way cavalier, but he was willing to express his views, not unlike many before him regarding, in particular, James. And oddly enough, he continued to preach from James, as well
I absolutely agree. I strongly recommend the Prayer of Manasseh, as well, particularly during Lent.
The books are not “extra”; they have always been a part of the Bible. Certain reformers, during the protestant reformation, kicked them out of the cannon, because they sounded too Catholic. They are just as true and reliable as the rest of the Bible. You might want to read, “Where We Got The Bible”, by The Right Rev. Henry G. Graham (a protestant minister) for a history of the Bible.
Even from a Lutheran perspective, these books are not “extras”. They are an important part of our history, of understanding parts of the OT, etc.
One complaint is the fish heart on the flames driving away evil spirits. It is an unusual method, but consider how the Lord healed a blind man.
I am not surprised that the site you mention above would have many twistings and misrepresentations of anything Catholic.
What should you do?