Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

Yeah. I know. That’s probably the only qualification RaisedCatholic cares about, though.

I love how you just assume things about people who disagree with you without taking the time to actually ASK them what their intentions are! SMH. You realize when you do that, you push people FURTHER away from Catholicism, not towards it.

And just to remind you, the reason I brought up his qualifications was because it was ASKED what his qualifications were! But I’m afraid you & others here are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The point about the book isn’t about MacArthur. It is about the content of the BOOK, which does an excellent job explaining the historical relationship between masters & slaves in the Roman Empire of antiquity, including Christians who owned slaves in the first century, like Philemon. And I realize since it’s not written by a Catholic, you are suspect, but again, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I have read books by Catholic authors, such as Brant Pitre, despite no longer embracing Catholicism. I did not allow my rejection of Catholicism to impede reading a book recommended by a friend of mine who converted to Catholicism. It helped me understand her position better. And the book “Slave” has NOTHING in it that is “anti-Catholic” just because it’s written by a Christian who is not Catholic. In fact, if you read it, you would probably agree with it, since he cites early Catholics in it, including canonized saints.

Which education institute awarded him an honorary doctorate?

In addition to receiving Master in Divinity from Biola University’s Talbot Theological Seminary where he graduated with honors, he received two honorary Doctorates: Talbot Theological Seminary and the second one from Grace Graduate School. Again, all the education he received, including at the Masters level, included studying Biblical Hebrew, in addition to earning a minor in Greek & church history.

Aside from all this, the book written by him, “Slave,” is the real issue, because even Catholics who have read it, agree with it, because it accurately explains historically the master-slave relationship in the ancient Roman Empire in antiquity, which Jesus drew on, as well as how it related to the relationship between slaves & masters in the OT, which was also one of ownership. So, when God states “you shall not covet your neighbor’s man-slave,” he is not saying “servant” but “slave,” because unlike a servant, a slave is owned. Again, this is why Paul simply states “you shall not covet”…PERIOD!..when he cites this SINGLE commandment. Slaves were considered property in OT, just as they were in the NT, not merely their labor. Slaves could be bought & sold, just like other property like houses, fields, & animals.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

My issue was the transliteration and translation of both Elohim and eveth.

I respect your education. However, the difference between “Elohim” & “Elohiym” isn’t the issue. BOTH are in the plural. The “im” at the end is what makes it plural, just like the difference between cherub (singular) & cherubim (plural), and seraph (singular) & seraphim (plural). Elohim indicates a plurality of God, which is why this same term in used in Genesis when God says “Let US,” rather than “I will.” The “US” is addressing the plurality of the God, which is not as apparent in the OT, as it is in the NT where this plurality is revealed in the Triune God - Father, Son, & Holy Spirit Who the “US” was being addressed in Genesis.

I already finished reading it. It is okay. Bible 101 basically.
Once again the author spends so much time discussing why Protestant Bibles are smaller but only a brief mention is given that Orthodox Bibles are bigger and there is absolutely no explanation of why.

If you are referring to the book, “Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller,” I commend you for reading it. As the title implies, it was not meant to focus entirely on the Eastern Orthodox canon, which is why only one chapter is devoted to it. It also addresses the Septuagint, Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, etc. But it did address why Orthodox Bibles are bigger than Catholic & Protestant Bibles. Like the Catholic OT, it relies heavily on the Septuagint. But it relies on a version of the Septuagint that had been added to after the first century. The book quotes Catholic author Gary Michuta who has researched this in depth. However, the version of the Septuagint prior to the days of Jesus was limited to “the Law,” not the rest of the OT. That got added to the Septuagint later. The additional books in the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets & the Writings) were added to the Septuagint by the time of Christ. It was this version of the Septuagint that Pharisees, like Paul, embraced & what Jesus affirmed in Luke 16 when he affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees. The Deuterocanon, like the additional books in the Eastern Orthodox Bible, were added AFTER this time. The proof from the NT is none of the terms to describe OT books (ie: “it is written,” etc) are used in the NT to describe the Deuterocanon or these other books. And this is all explained in the book.

 

[Prodigal1984]

The proof from the NT is none of the terms to describe OT books (ie: “it is written,” etc) are used in the NT to describe the Deuterocanon or these other books. And this is all explained in the book.

So you don’t accept Esther, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes either? So what you accept the Penteteuch? Are you a Samaritan? My apologies if you are.
Why must we go by the European Jewish canon anyways? Last I checked they don’t even accept the New Testament. Do you debate that being in the Bible too? I mean they were written after the time of Christ as well.

 

[De_Maria]

…The difference is Paul attempted to reason with the Jews at the synagogue at Thessalonica with the Scriptures, which they rejected, …

Show me where Scripture says that the Thessalonicans rejected the Scriptures.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So you don’t accept Esther, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes either?
Why must we go by the European Jewish canon anyways? Last I checked they don’t even accept the New Testament. Do you debate that being in the Bible too?

I thought you said you read the book, because this too is addressed there. The book explains unlike modern Bibles, certain books were merged together - like Ruth-Judges, Jeremiah-Lamentations, etc - so if a NT metonym, like “it is written” isn’t used to describe Lamentations, but it does Jeremiah, since they were one originally one book, Lamentations would be included under Jeremiah. Also, entire collections of books, like the minor prophets, were originally lumped into one book. This is why Matthew cites the prophet Zechariah, but refers to it as “Jeremiah the prophet.” Incidentally, Jeremiah was the first book of “the Prophets” in the Pharisaic OT, which Jesus affirmed. And as the book explains, like today, certain books had “subsections,” like Historical, Poetic, & Former Prophets, that were lumped together. Zechariah even mentions some of these “former prophets.” So, this is why if a book like Ecclesiastes is not mentioned - specifically - with a metonym, it would also count, since would fall under a “poetic” book. This was not only the view of the Jews from antiquity, but also many early Christian writers & ECFs, which is also cited in the book.

As far as the Jews not accepting the NT, that too is addressed in the book. The apostle Paul states the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, which the OT describes as OT writings. And the particular Jews in question would be the Pharisees who adopted the same OT canon from the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, etc, which excluded the Deuterocanon, since they had not been written at that point, nor the extra books in Orthodox Bibles. So, the fact later Jews rejected the NT is irrelevant to the canon of the Jews, which Jesus affirmed in Luke 16 - the canon of the Pharisees, the same canon later Rabbinical Jews adopted in the late first & early second century.

Are you sure you read the entire book? Because all if this - and much more - is in it.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The difference is Paul attempted to reason with the Jews at the synagogue at Thessalonica with the Scriptures, which they rejected, while the Jews at the synagogue at Berea received the word eagerly BECAUSE they examined the Scriptures to see whether the things Paul was saying was true or not.

This shows exactly why we need the Church. It says Paul proved to them from the Scriptures as was his custom…

Without Paul (Tradition) and just searching Scripture one can be led astray. Then without Scripture Paul would have not had the proof he needed that Christ was the Messiah.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Show me where Scripture says that the Thessalonicans rejected the Scriptures.

I said they rejected Paul’s use of the Scriptures who used them to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Will you stop quote-mining me out of context!

 

[Prodigal1984]

I never read the book nor is this post about whatever book you’re taking about. If it was written by a Protestant I have no desire too.
The Pharisees didn’t have one biblical canon the supposed Palestinian Canon as they call it never existed. The Jewish Canon wasn’t even closed until after the Church had already said what their canon is.

 

[De_Maria]

I said they rejected Paul’s use of the Scriptures who used them to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Will you stop quote-mining me out of context!

So, you admit that they did not reject the Scriptures. But they rejected St. Paul’s use of the Scriptures. What was St. Paul using the Scriptures to do?

 

[Prodigal1984]

The Church gave us the scriptures. Noone even said they had too. It was mainly to combat heresies. Tradition is what gave us the scriptures. Not the other way around. For almost four centuries Christianity flourished by Tradition alone. Books not even in our Bibles today were thought by some to be scripture. Tradition gave the discernment to the Church of which were and which weren’t. The Church could have put any book in the New Testament and I assure you there were many floating around. Hence if they say these books of the New Testament are scripture and you accept it I have no idea why you don’t accept the Old Testament they also decided on.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I never read the book nor is this post about whatever book you’re taking about. If it was written by a Protestant I have no desire too.
The Pharisees didn’t have one biblical canon the supposed Palestinian Canon as they call it never existed. The Jewish Canon wasn’t even closed until after the Church had already said what their canon is.

It was written by someone who was brought up Catholic, graduated from a Catholic college, and utilizes over 600 references about 60% from Catholic resources. In it, it does affirm from Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers, that the Pharisees DID have a unified canon, that was the same as that of later Protestants. The “Jewish Canon” you are referring to was adopted from the Pharisees by the Rabbinical Jews after the destruction of the Temple. I believe you are confusing the later Rabbinical Jewish canon with the earlier Pharisaic canon. And while the Jews - as a whole - did not have a unified canon, the Pharisees did. And it is this canon that Jesus affirmed in Luke 16.

It’s a pity you won’t read the book. If you could get past your reluctance for the author, you might find you would agree with it.

 

[Prodigal1984]

There was a Palistinean Canon, a Greek Canon, an Essene Canon, a Samaritan Canon. I’m not big on the Pharisees. If they couldn’t discern who Christ was I don’t think I will trust them with the canon of the Bible either.
You do realize there was no books back then right? The Septuagint was a collection of scrolls. Churches and Synagogues with more money could afford the bigger collections.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Church gave us the scriptures. Noone even said they had too. It was mainly to combat heresies. Tradition is what gave us the scriptures. Not the other way around. For almost four centuries Christianity flourished by Tradition alone.

Although this is a common assumption, church history simply doesn’t support this. First, the OT Jews, not the church, gave us our OT. The apostles, not the later church, gave us our NT. And the OT lists in the fourth century church councils were not identical with each other. Nor were the identical to the list at Trent. Catholic author Gary Michuta affirmed this, whose written books defending the Catholic OT. The Catholic canon did not get defined until Trent in 1546. Even at Florence, books like Sirach were questioned. But Trent did not include 1 Esdras, which was in the fourth century councils, the Septuagint at that time, & in later versions of the Vulgate. Again, the addresses all this, and much more.

 

[Prodigal1984]

The Apostles may have given us the scriptures but they didn’t write them thinking they were scripture. In fact we don’t even have them all. Are you stating there are missing New Testament letters? Confer 1 Corinthians where Paul says he already wrote them a letter. That’s horrifying we may be missing doctrine!
And many books were floating around that claimed to be an Apostle. Some were very early too.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If they couldn’t discern who Christ was I don’t think I will trust them with the canon of the Bible either.

You are conflating two unrelated things: their theology & their canon. While Jesus also rejected their theology, He DID affirm their canon. It was because they had “added” man-made “traditions” TO their canon (Matthew 15:1-9), was why they rejected Christ, while His disciples accepted Him BY their canon (John 1:45).

You do realize there was no books back then right? The Septuagint was a collection of scrolls.

I was raised Catholic so, yes, I am well-aware they were written on scrolls. And this “collection of scrolls” that made up the Septuagint in Jesus’ day was limited to the “Hebrew Bible,” not the Deuterocanon & the other books in Orthodox Bibles. The book even cites Trent Horn from Catholic Answers who admitted “the first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was the Hebrew Bible.”

 

[Prodigal1984]

You are conflating two unrelated things: their theology & their canon. While Jesus also rejected their theology, He DID affirm their canon. It was because they had “added” man-made “traditions” TO their canon (Matthew 15:1-9), was why they rejected Christ, while His disciples accepted Him BY their canon (John 1:45).

I don’t remember ever seeing anything that Christ said about which books he accepted as inspired. For all we know he may have accepted Enoch and Jubilees. I mean he was close with John the Baptist who is thought to have been an Essene and those were found at the Dead Sea.
Quote me Jesus ever saying which books he accepted and didn’t and I will accept what you say.
Also I don’t think ancient Jews really cared much about the boundaries of the canon like modern Protestants do.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Apostles may have given us the scriptures but they didn’t write them thinking they were scripture.

Peter affirmed all of Paul’s was Scripture. Paul affirmed Luke’s writings were Scripture. By the mid-first century, nearly all of the NT written up to that point was recognized as being just as much divinely inspired Scripture as the OT. This too is in the book.

In fact we don’t even have them all. Are you stating there are missing New Testament letters? Confer 1 Corinthians where Paul says he already wrote them a letter. That’s horrifying we may be missing doctrine!

Yes, we do - at least the inspired books. The ones written by Paul that are not in the NT were not divinely inspired. Just because they were written by him, if they were inspired God would have preserved them & they would be in the NT. Plus, these were likely personal letters written to local churches, but not meant to be communicated to the church at large for all time like the inspired NT books. So, no, we are not “missing” NT letters, nor are we “missing doctrine.”

And many books were floating around that claimed to be an Apostle. Some were very early too.

Those were written in the second century, or even later - meaning they couldn’t have been written by an apostle, because they were DEAD! ALL of this is in the book too.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Peter affirmed all of Paul’s was Scripture.

That was a disputed book. 2 Peter. Confer Eusebius of Ceasarea Church History. Even in the 4th century it wasn’t accepted. Your entire argument is because the Church discerned to include that and not the Epistle of Barnabas.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Those were written in the second century, or even later - meaning they couldn’t have been written by an apostle, because they were DEAD! ALL of this is in the book too.

The Didache is possibly from 50 A.D. 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas were probably from the 80s. They probably are older than some in the New Testament. And 2 Peter was contested because it was thought to be written later as well. Just because of the reason you mentioned that he refers to Paul’s letters as scripture.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Those were written in the second century, or even later - meaning they couldn’t have been written by an apostle, because they were DEAD! ALL of this is in the book too.

I wonder if the author of this book knows you regard it as the hand of God? Do you worship the guy? Is this some new revelation? It is one mans interpretation and there are many. It’s like you read it and drank his kool aid and have no differing thought unless it is in the book.