M
Mike_Campana
Guest
Why don’t non-Catholic religions recognize the 7 Books from the Old Testament, that are not in their Bibles?.
- Status
M
MrS
Guest
Mike Campana:
MrS
In one sentence??? Because the Catholic Church does. (and they used to)
MrS
J
J.R
Guest
Did you know that St. Jerome did not want to put those 7 books into the Latin Vulgate he did only after the the Holy Father told him to. Thank God we have the magisterium.
T
Tom
Guest
Mike Campana:
There are two Jewish traditions, the Palestinian and the Alexandrian; the Palestinian OT does not contain those books, while the Alexandrian tradition does. The protestant leaders decided to follow the Palestinian tradition. Unfortunately those books contain much of the teaching of our Lord Jesus the Christ. For example the OT book of Deuteronomy says to divorce a wife you simply need to give her a letter of divorce, we know that Jesus teaches the two become one, and it is an everlasting covenant, you will find those teachings of Jesus, as well as others, in the book of Tobit. The Lord’s Prayer, the sermon on the mount, the ressurection, come from Wisdom and Sirach, the resurrection, you won’t find it anywhere in the Protestant OT. I wish all Protestants would read those books with an open heart; they’d be amazed, and confused as to why their founders rejected inspired books used by our Lord.
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
Very good question!! 
I will present some of the arguments.reasons from a book I have read which touches on this subject. The book is
How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot. I’m fairly certain he is “Church of Christ” since he teaces (taught) at a CoC University (Abilene Christian University).
*I Esdras is not historically reliable when compared to Exra, Nehemian and II Chronicles.
*Tobit and Judith are fiction (with fictional characters).
*Additions to Daniel could not have been written much earlier than 100 B.C. and therefore form no part of the general text of Daniel, though he admits they were likely handed down by oral tradition before being written.
Should they be included or rejected from the Bible? On what grounds? See my next post for the spell-binding sequel!!
I will present some of the arguments.reasons from a book I have read which touches on this subject. The book is
How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot. I’m fairly certain he is “Church of Christ” since he teaces (taught) at a CoC University (Abilene Christian University).
*I Esdras is not historically reliable when compared to Exra, Nehemian and II Chronicles.
*Tobit and Judith are fiction (with fictional characters).
*Additions to Daniel could not have been written much earlier than 100 B.C. and therefore form no part of the general text of Daniel, though he admits they were likely handed down by oral tradition before being written.
- Baruch is likely written at some point after A.D. 70.
Should they be included or rejected from the Bible? On what grounds? See my next post for the spell-binding sequel!!
O
oat_soda
Guest
do protestants really think that the catholics and orthodox are completely ignorant about the canon and until the enlightened protestants figured it out, we were in the dark. why do they think they are always right when they all beileve different things?
Y
yinekka
Guest
I have a problem with someone in 2004 deciding which books should or should nor be in the bible when the Jews of Jesus’ time including Jesus Himiself used the translation which contains these books.
It would be like someone saying in 100 years that the book my siblings and I wrote about our father was incorrect!
A good book is Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham. It is available to read on the net. Be careful though, some of the net copies are 200 years out on some of their dates!
It would be like someone saying in 100 years that the book my siblings and I wrote about our father was incorrect!
A good book is Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham. It is available to read on the net. Be careful though, some of the net copies are 200 years out on some of their dates!
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
Ok, here is the continuation of my argument. Piecemeal as it is, from the same source as the book above, starting at p. 71 in my version. I’ll summarize his explanations/arguments.
*These books (apocrypha) were never included in the Hebrew canon of the OT, and … there is no evidence that these books were ever accepted by any Jewish community, either in or outside of the land of Palestine.
*Jesus and His apostles, as far as the evidence goes, never accepted the apocrypha as canonical. The NT writers nowhere quote from the Apocrypha as “Scripture.”
*Apocrypha were not accepted as Scripture by:
Philo, Josephus, Jewish council at Jamnia (A.D. 90), Origen or Jerome.
*Rome with all of it’s “infallibility” cannot make the fallible Apocrypha infallible
With all those claims, I would expect to see some evidence of research the author has done to be able to put these claims in print. I don’t see any footnotes, bibliography, or anything of that nature in this chapter anywhere, or at the back of the book, no attempt to support these claims. So in my mind, this is wide open to scrutiny and correction!!
*These books (apocrypha) were never included in the Hebrew canon of the OT, and … there is no evidence that these books were ever accepted by any Jewish community, either in or outside of the land of Palestine.
*Jesus and His apostles, as far as the evidence goes, never accepted the apocrypha as canonical. The NT writers nowhere quote from the Apocrypha as “Scripture.”
*Apocrypha were not accepted as Scripture by:
Philo, Josephus, Jewish council at Jamnia (A.D. 90), Origen or Jerome.
- Apocryphal books do not evidence intrinsic qualities of inspiration (being that great portions are legendary and fictitious). Example:
– Judith - Holofernes is described as being the general of “Nebuchadnezzar who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Ninevah.” (1:1) But Holofernes was a Persian general, and Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Babylonians in Babylon.
*Rome with all of it’s “infallibility” cannot make the fallible Apocrypha infallible
With all those claims, I would expect to see some evidence of research the author has done to be able to put these claims in print. I don’t see any footnotes, bibliography, or anything of that nature in this chapter anywhere, or at the back of the book, no attempt to support these claims. So in my mind, this is wide open to scrutiny and correction!!
T
Tom
Guest
My college son mentioned that a teacher, he respected, told him that the books were not quoted in the NT. I showed him the source of the sermon on the mount, the Lord’s prayer, Jesus’ teachings about marriage, the resurrection, the prophesy about the treatment of Jesus. I think he was surprised. I asked him to leisurely read the books and jot down all the teachings he found which sounded like the teachings of Jesus. I hope he does it. After reading those books you’ll wonder if Jesus used any books other than those!
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
oat soda:
no, they don’t think catholics and orthodox are ignorant, just wrong. well, there was the dark ages…you can put me on record…I admit that SOMETIMES I am wrong. by the way, I believe vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate. does that mean if you believe chocolate is better that we believe different things???
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Reformed Rob:
you HAVE done your homework…:tiphat: , or at least Origen, Jerome and others have…
M
mayra_hart
Guest
in 1529,martin luther proposed to adopt the 39-book cannon used by rabbinic judaism as the ot canon. luther justified his decision to delete seven books from the ot by appealing to st jerome who,around 400,had expressed concerns that these greek books had no hebrew counterpart. however research into the dead ses scrolls found at qumran has discovered ancient hebrew copies of some disputed books, making their rejection unsupportable on those grounds. the principle reason luther seems to have opposed the additional books of the christian ot is that they taught doctrines he did not like, such as praying to the dead(2 maccabees12:42-45). god bless you all
god bless you all
M
Maccabees
Guest
Origen did accept the dueterocanicals as scripture there are many examples of this. One thing he never refers to these books as apocrapha and neither does any church father till Jerome has his two cents. So you have to wait nearly 400 years before this apocrapha dissent is thought of. Origin did list the OT Book as received by the Jews. That is the list often quoted of course they leave out his quotes that we shouldn’t drop the septugient the church’s tradition of sacred books just becuase the Jews don’t accept it.
I have done this dance many a time. Don’t want to do it again but everything you say has a counterpoint and more. So your authority are the same Jews who rejected the new testament scriptures? Strike me as funny as that is your authroity and not the church which also recieved the new testament through her tradition.
You only valdi refernce is Jerome who was a catholic so your going to trust a catholic on what is scripture?
ANyway his opinions were written before the Councils were ratified. He was quiet on the subject after word in some instances he seems to have retracted his former teachings to be in line with the church.
I have done this dance many a time. Don’t want to do it again but everything you say has a counterpoint and more. So your authority are the same Jews who rejected the new testament scriptures? Strike me as funny as that is your authroity and not the church which also recieved the new testament through her tradition.
You only valdi refernce is Jerome who was a catholic so your going to trust a catholic on what is scripture?
ANyway his opinions were written before the Councils were ratified. He was quiet on the subject after word in some instances he seems to have retracted his former teachings to be in line with the church.
S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Source : catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Source : catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
O
oat_soda
Guest
these are some good links that refute the protestant arguments:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html
cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
users.stargate.net/~elcore/wegotnt.htm
an important thing to recognize is the church decided what was canonical based on tradition or what was always believed to be canonical going back to the apostles:
“The larger Canon of the Old Testament passed through the Apostles’ hands to the church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points of Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the New Testament data.”
“The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage.”
Finally, the church made an infallible pronouncement during the council of trent on the canonicity of the bible in response to protestants.
“The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fedei”
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html
cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
users.stargate.net/~elcore/wegotnt.htm
an important thing to recognize is the church decided what was canonical based on tradition or what was always believed to be canonical going back to the apostles:
“The larger Canon of the Old Testament passed through the Apostles’ hands to the church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points of Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the New Testament data.”
“The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage.”
Finally, the church made an infallible pronouncement during the council of trent on the canonicity of the bible in response to protestants.
“The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fedei”
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
O
oat_soda
Guest
WRONG
The ancient Greek Old Testament -Septuagint have all of the deuterocanonicals in them. Only maccabees is missing from the oldest (Codex Vaticanus) copy of the Greek Old Testament. All the entire manuscripts contain all the deutero writings; where the manuscript Septuagints differ from one another, with the exception noted, it is in a certain excess above the deuterocanonical books.
“The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era, and were therefore made by Christian hands; nevertheless scholars generally admit that these faithfully represent the Old Testament as it was current among the Hellenist or Alexandrian Jews in the age immediately preceding Christ.” newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
also, the Ethiopian Jews of today still have the same Old Testament as the Catholic Church does.
But they do refrence see cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7
this is not a valid way to decide if it is canonical. see the above links. also cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm
besides, where in the bible does it say how to determine if writings are inspired or not? if it isn’t in there, then they are traditions of men according to sola scriptura. the Catholic Church doesn’t use unbiblical methods to identify what is inspired, they only recognize what has been handed down by the apostles as inspired.
this is the worst argument of them all! why not ask muslims or hindus while you’re at it. how does a religion which rejects Christ share in his authority?
B
bbas_64
Guest
Mike Campana:
Bill
Good Day, Mike I would say that they lack historical backing.
Peace to u,
Bill
M
mayra_hart
Guest
but here is the real question: which ot would you rather use-the ot used by jesus, the nt writers and the early church, or the ot used by later jews who had rejected christ and persecuted christianity? if your bible includes the seven books, you follow jesus and the early church. if your bible omits the seven books, you follow non christian rabbisand martin luther- a man who wanted to throw out even more books(james,esther,revelations), and who deliberately added the word “alone” to sacred scripture in his german translation of romans 3:28.
god bless you all
god bless you all
O
oat_soda
Guest
bbas 64,
** Protestant apocrypha is not Catholic apocrypha!!!** Why would a catholic encyclopedia call the deuterocanonicals apocrypha? Apocrypha are the books Catholics don’t accept: The Book of Henoch (Ethiopic), Assumption of Moses, Fourth Book of Esdras ,Apocalypse of Baruch,…etc. newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#I
historical backing? the oldest existant septuagint bibles from the 4th and 5th centuries contain all of these books and the Jews of Eithiopia use the same old testament canon as Catholics have in thier bibles. how is that not historical? the oldest complete new testament dates from the same period. why not question their historical veracity? besides, where in scripture does it say how to decide on which books are canonical? this flies in the face of sola scriptura which states the bible alone is the sole rule of faith.
T
Tom
Guest
Those who reject those 7 books have never studied them with an open heart and in reflection to the teachings of our Lord, Jesus the Christ.
Other than those books can you show Old Testament reference to the resurrection? How about the sermon on the mount? The Lord’s prayer? The teachings of Jesus on marriage? The cure of the woman with 7 evil spirits? The curing of the blind? Etc… et…
Read those books with an open heart. There is more Christian teaching drawn from them than the entire rest of Scripture! Sit with a pencil and paper and read Sirach, jot down the teachings of Jesus, caution! You’ll get writers cramp! To say they were not used by our Lord is ridiculous.
Other than those books can you show Old Testament reference to the resurrection? How about the sermon on the mount? The Lord’s prayer? The teachings of Jesus on marriage? The cure of the woman with 7 evil spirits? The curing of the blind? Etc… et…
Read those books with an open heart. There is more Christian teaching drawn from them than the entire rest of Scripture! Sit with a pencil and paper and read Sirach, jot down the teachings of Jesus, caution! You’ll get writers cramp! To say they were not used by our Lord is ridiculous.
- Status