A Difference of 7 Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marie_Gregg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quest? Does Jesus quote anything from 1 or 2 Maccabees ?
or is there anywhere in the NT referring to the Maccabees?
Just wondering as I can’t recall.

Thank you.
Red herring. Nowhere does scripture require that our Lord must have quoted something before it is God’s word. For all we know, since the bible is such a fragmentary and incomplete record (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corthinains 11:34), our Lord may have quoted from all of the books and more. We do know that most of what He said and did is not in the bible.

Our Lord did not quote from: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes or Song of Solomon. Do we throw those out?

God is not even specifically mentioned on the book of Esther. Throw it out, too?

Paul wrote of Jannes and Jambres as opposing Moses in 2 Timothy 3. They are nowhere mentioned in the OT. Throw out 2 Timothy?

Jude quotes the book of Enoch (Jude 1:9) - universally agreed as being non-caninical. Throw Jude out?

How about ol’ Marty’s least faves: Revelation, James, Hebrews. Throw them out?

We are down to 55 books now. Where do we stop?

What we forget is that the bible teaches principle, not precision. The principles that God transmitted to man are in each of the books in the 73 book canon.
 
Only strange as a 20th century phenomenon. The oldest Protestant communion had them up until they switched to English translations in the 20th century. The Anglicans until the 19th (as far as I know)
Thus I ask: what has happened to protestantism?
 
Thus I ask: what has happened to protestantism?
In the case of the Lutheran churches, there has never been an English Lutheran translation. They have always borrowed from other English translations by Protestants, which, of course, do not include the Apocrypha. However, German speaking Lutherans still use Luther’s Die Biebel, which contains the 7. The Lutheran Confessions explicitly refer to the deuterocanonicals as “Scripture.”

The Anglicans, as far as I can tell, did not remove them for doctrinal reasons.

The Reformed branches of Protestantism did reject them for doctrinal reasons.
 
In the case of the Lutheran churches, there has never been an English Lutheran translation. They have always borrowed from other English translations by Protestants, which, of course, do not include the Apocrypha. However, German speaking Lutherans still use Luther’s Die Biebel, which contains the 7. The Lutheran Confessions explicitly refer to the deuterocanonicals as “Scripture.”

The Anglicans, as far as I can tell, did not remove them for doctrinal reasons.

The Reformed branches of Protestantism did reject them for doctrinal reasons.
My question relates mostly to the number of profound changes in protestantism in a relatively short time. Very few believe today as the three primary reformers did. Entropy seems endemic.
 
The Anglicans, as far as I can tell, did not remove them for doctrinal reasons.
Anglicans even use a slightly larger set, because they included the Prayer of Manasseh and the additional Esdras books (1&2 or 3&4, depending on your numbering scheme)
 
Hello, All,

So-called Protestant Bibles generally contains 66 books. So-called Catholic Bibles (I hate both those terms) generally contain 73. (Correct me if I’m wrong; this was the information I found).

Is there a major difference in understanding because of a difference of 7 books? What doctrines or practices are contained in these books?

Thanks!
I believe that nothing in the teachings of the Catholic Church need reference to those scriptures within the “extra” books in the Catholic bible.

So it isn’t so much a worry you should have.
 
Hello, All,

So-called Protestant Bibles generally contains 66 books. So-called Catholic Bibles (I hate both those terms) generally contain 73. (Correct me if I’m wrong; this was the information I found).

Is there a major difference in understanding because of a difference of 7 books? What doctrines or practices are contained in these books?

Thanks!
The [so called] protestant bibles are just a small reflection of the greater deficiency.

Christian protestants believe incompletely. The grass is not greener on the outside of the sheepfold. The Catholic church is the one true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as it’s first pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

Return to the One, True church you came from. All true christian protestant came from the Catholic Church.
There are those out there that call themselves christians but do not accept the divinity of Christ. They just fancy the name.

Come home.
 
Only strange as a 20th century phenomenon. The oldest Protestant communion had them up until they switched to English translations in the 20th century. The Anglicans until the 19th (as far as I know)
IggyAntiochus,

Actually, the Deuterocanonical Books are still part of the Canon accepted by Anglicans. Some Anglicans accept them as inspired, and others believe they do not carry the same weight as the rest of the Bible.

Anna
 
IggyAntiochus,

Actually, the Deuterocanonical Books are still part of the Canon accepted by Anglicans. Some Anglicans accept them as inspired, and others believe they do not carry the same weight as the rest of the Bible.

Anna
That was the historical practice of the Lutheran churches prior to its Americanization (and that of the historical Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches as well).
 
In the case of the Lutheran churches, there has never been an English Lutheran translation. They have always borrowed from other English translations by Protestants, which, of course, do not include the Apocrypha. However, German speaking Lutherans still use Luther’s Die Biebel, which contains the 7. The Lutheran Confessions explicitly refer to the deuterocanonicals as “Scripture.”

The Anglicans, as far as I can tell, did not remove them for doctrinal reasons.

The Reformed branches of Protestantism did reject them for doctrinal reasons.
Die Biebel also had the Prayer of Manassess.

There seems a slow change in directions among Lutherans in America. The LCMS publishing arm, CPH, is set to release a companion to the study Bible (ESV) of the dueterocanon. One might hope that gradually Lutheran Churches will begin to use 74 book bibles as our European siblings do.

Jon
 
Die Biebel also had the Prayer of Manassess.

There seems a slow change in directions among Lutherans in America. The LCMS publishing arm, CPH, is set to release a companion to the study Bible (ESV) of the dueterocanon. One might hope that gradually Lutheran Churches will begin to use 74 book bibles as our European siblings do.

Jon
You know Jon, in a strange historical twist, I find the Lutherans to be some of the closest and most friendly to Catholicism.
 
The [so called] protestant bibles are just a small reflection of the greater deficiency.

Christian protestants believe incompletely. The grass is not greener on the outside of the sheepfold. The Catholic church is the one true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as it’s first pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

Return to the One, True church you came from. All true christian protestant came from the Catholic Church.
There are those out there that call themselves christians but do not accept the divinity of Christ. They just fancy the name.

Come home.
I appreciate the love with which you must have written this post. Frankly, I might be what you could call a “closet Catholic” or a “Catholic in Protestant clothing.” I love to learn, and I trust that the Spirit will guide me. Who knows where it all might lead? 🙂
 
You know Jon, in a strange historical twist, I find the Lutherans to be some of the closest and most friendly to Catholicism.
Probably the whole non-raging fundamentalist-actually consider Catholics Christian part lol
 
The Protestant Bible lacks Wisdom. 😉
Here is a Typology of Wisdom, from St Paul:
Romans 1: 18 The retribution of God from heaven is being revealed against the ungodliness and injustice of human beings who in their injustice hold back the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them: 20 ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse: 21 they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened. 22 While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid 23 that they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an imitation, for the image of a mortal human being, or of birds, or animals, or crawling things. 24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies- 25 because they exchanged God’s truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Wisdom 1:1 Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who, from good things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or, by studying the works, have not recognised the Artificer. 2 Fire, however, or wind, or the swift air, the sphere of the stars, impetuous water, heaven’s lamps, are what they have held to be the gods who govern the world. 3 If, charmed by their beauty, they have taken these for gods, let them know how much the Master of these excels them, since he was the very source of beauty that created them. 4 And if they have been impressed by their power and energy, let them deduce from these how much mightier is he that has formed them, 5 since through the grandeur and beauty of the creatures we may, by analogy, contemplate their Author. 6 Small blame, however, attaches to them, for perhaps they go astray only in their search for God and their eagerness to find him; 7 familiar with his works, they investigate them and fall victim to appearances, seeing so much beauty. 8 But even so, they have no excuse: 9 if they are capable of acquiring enough knowledge to be able to investigate the world, how have they been so slow to find its Master? 10 But wretched are they, with their hopes set on dead things, who have given the title of gods to human artefacts, gold or silver, skilfully worked, figures of animals, or useless stone, carved by some hand long ago.
 
Red herring. Nowhere does scripture require that our Lord must have quoted something before it is God’s word. For all we know, since the bible is such a fragmentary and incomplete record (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corthinains 11:34), our Lord may have quoted from all of the books and more. We do know that most of what He said and did is not in the bible.

Our Lord did not quote from: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes or Song of Solomon. Do we throw those out?

God is not even specifically mentioned on the book of Esther. Throw it out, too?

Paul wrote of Jannes and Jambres as opposing Moses in 2 Timothy 3. They are nowhere mentioned in the OT. Throw out 2 Timothy?

Jude quotes the book of Enoch (Jude 1:9) - universally agreed as being non-caninical. Throw Jude out?

How about ol’ Marty’s least faves: Revelation, James, Hebrews. Throw them out?

We are down to 55 books now. Where do we stop?

What we forget is that the bible teaches principle, not precision. The principles that God transmitted to man are in each of the books in the 73 book canon.
Exactly! The argument Jesus does not quote from the 7 books is to make Jesus who is God subject to the Bible,hence Jesus (God) is the student and the Bible the Judge. :ehh:
 
Exactly! The argument Jesus does not quote from the 7 books is to make Jesus who is God subject to the Bible,hence Jesus (God) is the student and the Bible the Judge. :ehh:
For example, Anglican scholar Henry Chadwick believed that, in Matthew 11:28, Jesus was directly quoting Sirach 51:27. Sirach was written about 180 BC, and contains several Messianic references. Going back to the protestant bible time line, Sirach, as well as 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, as well as the finalization of Esther, were written in the two centuries before Christ - a period for which most protestant sects claim God was inexplicably silent, apparently observing an “intertestimental period.” Hogwash! I say.
 
For example, Anglican scholar Henry Chadwick believed that, in Matthew 11:28, Jesus was directly quoting Sirach 51:27. Sirach was written about 180 BC, and contains several Messianic references. Going back to the protestant bible time line, Sirach, as well as 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, as well as the finalization of Esther, were written in the two centuries before Christ - a period for which most protestant sects claim God was inexplicably silent, apparently observing an “intertestimental period.” Hogwash! I say.
Indeed and a good observation.Furthermore, what many forget is that Jesus and many Jews during his life time were quoting from other sources. And why? One big reason is because the Jews did not have “fixed” canon per se stating only an “x” amount of books were considered scripture.
 
You know Jon, in a strange historical twist, I find the Lutherans to be some of the closest and most friendly to Catholicism.
Thanks. The twist, at least for me, goes the other way. I find my faith much closer to Catholicism than to most any other western non-catholic.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top