Catholic bible and the Deuterocanon

[CopticChristian]

BrianH,

Just want to make sure you had a chance to check the links I posted. Please let me know.

Thanks,
Anna

Anna,

Perry and Brian are apparently not able to answer this question. You appear to have had luck addressing Brian and Perry. I cannot get them to answer this simple question. This is the only question I ask and the only question that will help all viewing. Can anyone answer this question?

**

**Are you able to name and direct me to any ecclesial body that acted to remove the DC? **

**

 

[David]

I heard Gary Michuta discuss this on a Journey Home episode.

His website has some articles.

I think he mentioned that some “Bible printing society” removed them.

I could be wrong.

Peace
David

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

Perry and Brian are apparently not able to answer this question. You appear to have had luck addressing Brian and Perry. I cannot get them to answer this simple question. This is the only question I ask and the only question that will help all viewing. Can anyone answer this question?

---

CopticChristian,

Martin Luther had his own canon going on; but I don’t know of any “Ecclesial body” that acted to remove the DC. I have read in multiple sources that printers realized they could print the KJV cheaper without the DC; and they didn’t think people would know the different. And—as it turns out, they didn’t.

Even though the 39 Articles of Anglicanism places the DC in a less authoritative status–to be read for examples of right living; many of us (especially Anglo-Catholics) regard them as inspired Scripture.

Maybe you aren’t getting an answer regarding an “Ecclesial body,” because there wasn’t one. Though I could be wrong and often am.

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian,

Martin Luther had his own canon going on; but I don’t know of any “Ecclesial body” that acted to remove the DC. I have read in multiple sources that printers realized they could print the KJV cheaper without the DC; and they didn’t think people would know the different. And—as it turns out, they didn’t.

Even though the 39 Articles of Anglicanism places the DC in a less authoritative status–to be read for examples of right living; many of us (especially Anglo-Catholics) regard them as inspired Scripture.

Maybe you aren’t getting an answer regarding an “Ecclesial body,” because there wasn’t one. Though I could be wrong and often am.
Anna

Anna,

The question is asked knowing that there is an answer and you are correct. You don’t have to go up to heaven or descend into the deep the word you speak is in your mouth and in your heart and all that is required is that all admit and confess that what you say is true as if on their lips and in their hearts and believe it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

The question is asked knowing that there is an answer and you are correct. You don’t have to go up to heaven or descend into the deep the word you speak is in your mouth and in your heart and all that is required is that all admit and confess that what you say is true as if on their lips and in their hearts and believe it.

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Is that meant for me? I’m confused (confused and tired. :yawn
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Is that meant for me? I’m confused (confused and tired. :yawn
Anna

Anna,

Not for you rather the general audience that knows now as you and I do that there was never an ecclesial body that removed the DC and hopefully anyone that says that the OHCAC added to the Bible will consider this.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

Not for you rather the general audience that knows now as you and I do that there was never an ecclesial body that removed the DC and hopefully anyone that says that the OHCAC added to the Bible will consider this.

Makes sense. Thanks. I was so tired last night, I barely knew my own name.

Peace,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Makes sense. Thanks. I was so tired last night, I barely knew my own name.

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

Truth always prevails.

The DC are part of the Bible. The DC were removed from the bible and not added. The removal was never done by any authority or ecclesial body. They were part of the 1611 King James and other English translations. Protestants distant from denominational Protestant thought should know that if they have been told that the DC were added they have been lied to. Catholics should know that if they were removed that there is no authority that can be named that removed them.

and with that I am a “Regular Member” woo whooooo…

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

Truth always prevails.

The DC are part of the Bible. The DC were removed from the bible and not added. The removal was never done by any authority or ecclesial body. They were part of the 1611 King James and other English translations. Protestants distant from denominational Protestant thought should know that if they have been told that the DC were added they have been lied to. Catholics should know that if they were removed that there is no authority that can be named that removed them.

and with that I am a “Regular Member” woo whooooo…

Coptic,

Yes, woo hoo!! You are “Regular” now! :extrahappy:

You are right about the DC; but good luck explaining that to the*** King James-without the Deuterocanonical Books-only*** crowd. Let me know if you plan to do some splainin. I’ll be waiting with popcorn.

Peace,
Anna

 

[PerryJ]

Anna,

Truth always prevails.

The DC are part of the Bible. The DC were removed from the bible and not added. The removal was never done by any authority or ecclesial body. They were part of the 1611 King James and other English translations. Protestants distant from denominational Protestant thought should know that if they have been told that the DC were added they have been lied to. Catholics should know that if they were removed that there is no authority that can be named that removed them.

and with that I am a “Regular Member” woo whooooo…

For the people claiming I didnt respond to the questions because I did not know the answer made a big assumption. Some of us work and get busy.

Coptic I did not understand your question before or what you were trying to lead to. I believe your question is immaterial and not pertinent. I agree with your thought as a Catholic; however, using a Catholic thought process will not convince anyone else.

Protestants do not believe in an ecclesial body leading them without question. (Catholics dont either; however, let us not add complexity at this time.) As such whether a body took it out or a printer did does not matter. Protestants pick and choose their beliefs. As such I am not sure why you ask this question. They do this as a body; but, also at an individual level. So how do you prove their book is lacking authoritative books when they do not believe in a worldly authoritative body?

I am not sure one should use the King James version to create any proof. As you are aware it was created by a Catholic King, Henry the VIII that left his religion for lust. As such the Bible he created is hardly an authoritative work for any religion. It also fails any proof statement to a Protestant because he was originally a very Catholic Monarch.

I believe the best method to prove the DCs belong are by historically showing that the Apostles and very first Christians used them and that Luther’s removal of them (at least in materiality) was based upon premises that have been proved wrong. The Bible we use is based upon the teachings of the apostles. Just as the Mass of Catholics is the same mass that was used by the Apostles and the very first Christians. Historically this has been proven. Our Mass and our Bible have been proven to have been used by the very first Christians that were Catholic.

 

[CopticChristian]

For the people claiming I didnt respond to the questions because I did not know the answer made a big assumption. Some of us work and get busy.

**Coptic I did not understand your question before or what you were trying to lead to. I believe your question is immaterial and not pertinent. ** I agree with your thought as a Catholic; however, using a Catholic thought process will not convince anyone else.

Protestants do not believe in an ecclesial body leading them without question. (Catholics dont either; however, let us not add complexity at this time.) As such whether a body took it out or a printer did does not matter. Protestants pick and choose their beliefs. As such I am not sure why you ask this question. They do this as a body; but, also at an individual level. So how do you prove their book is lacking authoritative books when they do not believe in a worldly authoritative body?

I am not sure one should use the King James version to create any proof. As you are aware it was created by a Catholic King, Henry the VIII that left his religion for lust. As such the Bible he created is hardly an authoritative work for any religion. It also fails any proof statement to a Protestant because he was originally a very Catholic Monarch.

I believe the best method to prove the DCs belong are by historically showing that the Apostles and very first Christians used them and that Luther’s removal of them (at least in materiality) was based upon premises that have been proved wrong. The Bible we use is based upon the teachings of the apostles. Just as the Mass of Catholics is the same mass that was used by the Apostles and the very first Christians. Historically this has been proven. Our Mass and our Bible have been proven to have been used by the very first Christians that were Catholic.

From one Regular member to another there is no need to understand my question. Facts are facts that do not require understanding. You believe that my question is immaterial and not pertinent to what? Facts?

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Our Mass and our Bible have been proven to have been used by the very first Christians that were Catholic.

PerryJ,
Which Bible?

Anna

 

[PerryJ]

PerryJ,
Which Bible?

Anna

No offense intended; but, this shows how little you understand the the foundation of the faith. The Bibles that the Catholic Church approves have the thought processes of the first Bibles written in the original Aramic. As they have been translated into new languages any Bible will vary from the Aramic because of sentence structures and word differentiation. With that stated we fully know and understand the first Bible as we have writings from the Apostles and the first Catholics that clearly define the Bible and from this we get sources such as the Cathechism that defines the Bibles.

For example historical evidence clearly shows the Mass we perform as being the same as the very first Christians masses. We know how a mass should be performed as it was written down by the Apostles. This evidence is not part of the Bible; but, clearly shows the meaning of the Bible with regard to the Body and Blood of Christ. I am not sure what you believe; however, it appears that your question was molded out of Sola Scriptura thought process.

 

[PerryJ]

From one Regular member to another there is no need to understand my question. Facts are facts that do not require understanding. You believe that my question is immaterial and not pertinent to what? Facts?

First your statement “One regular member to another” appears that you may be showing pride in your answers. Truly we are after the truth and pride gets in the way of truth. I noted that in several posts you have mentioned the importance of being a regular member. Why is that even important?

Second facts do require understanding. More importantly you have proven nothing to anyone with your thought process. Do you note that no one is interested in your proof as everyone has left this thread. Take a step back and think about what you are trying to prove. Protestant do not believe in an authoritative body and as such what you are trying to prove had zero impact to the Protestants. So what does it matter that you believe that no authoritative body took them out of the Bible? Your point is relevant only to Catholics and Catholics dont need convincing.

I am going to leave this thread. I think we can conclude that even if your thought is relevant as I am Catholic you dont need to perform a proof for me about the DCs. I know they belong and as such we wasting time. Posting to each other.

 

[CopticChristian]

First your statement “One regular member to another” appears that you may be showing pride in your answers. Truly we are after the truth and pride gets in the way of truth. I noted that in several posts you have mentioned the importance of being a regular member. Why is that even important?

Second facts do require understanding. More importantly you have proven nothing to anyone with your thought process. Do you note that no one is interested in your proof as everyone has left this thread. Take a step back and think about what you are trying to prove. Protestant do not believe in an authoritative body and as such what you are trying to prove had zero impact to the Protestants. So what does it matter that you believe that no authoritative body took them out of the Bible? Your point is relevant only to Catholics and Catholics dont need convincing.

I am going to leave this thread. I think we can conclude that even if your thought is relevant as I am Catholic you dont need to perform a proof for me about the DCs. I know they belong and as such we wasting time. Posting to each other.

Perry,

My mind boggles at your answer to me and Anna. You commenced by telling me that my conclusion of fact was immaterial and not relevant. Please add to you and your line of thinking.

Your response to Anna did not provide me or Anna the answer that was asked. Which Bible? This Bible. That is a direct question for a direct answer. I can suggest much concerning your desire, need, motiviation to answer a direct question with less than a direct answer. Anna has stated she is considering the Catholic Church in the thread concerning married priests. In consideration that Anna is knocking on our door and asking questions your answer to her in my opinion does not encourage more knocking.

Your response to me as to Regular member is an enigma. You infer pride. It is not enough that you infer pride you pose it as a reason to respond. You need to spend some time in learning to infer. I do not infer much and when I do it is based on serial observation coupled with those observations. I recall a television show “Marcus Wellby”…the dialogue went something like this…“I would not trade insults with you because that would be like me dueling with a one armed man”…I won’t trade inferences with you.

Facts and understanding. You made the point that facts require understanding. This is true. In the context of the OP below…the fact that no ecclesial body removed the DC does not stand alone…

How do protestants continue to use a 66 book bible when the oldest bibles in the world contain the Deuterocanon? Even the first King james bible contained the Deuterocanon. How do they continue to use a shortened version of the bible despite having the ancient manuscripts contradicting the canon of their bible?

If someone were to say the following…Gregor Mendel is the father of Genetics, he was a Catholic monk…that is a stand alone fact and has no relevance to anything.

Genetics is the study of transfered material. Some of that material is sex-linked and other material is not. There is dominance, penetrance, and incomplete transfer. This material is made up of numerous linkages and it was discovered that the material is bound in helix form recently discovered and described by Watson and Crick. The study of Genetics is part of the world of Science.

Gregor Mendel is the father of Genetics and was a Catholic monk is no longer a stand alone fact and applies to the prior statement that gives insight and understanding.

I infer your lack of understanding of Science, lack of understanding of intuitive argument based on your position that after the establishment of fact that the discussion no longer requires your participation. I infer your desire to leave is a result of no ability to offer any meaningful discussion related to the OP. Everyone has left and you are leaving suggests to me an indirect insult because Anna and I are still posting. I may continue to post daily.

I will miss you.

P.S. the Regular member was tongue in cheek and I conclude you have no sense of humor.

 

[CopticChristian]

How do protestants continue to use a 66 book bible when the oldest bibles in the world contain the Deuterocanon? Even the first King james bible contained the Deuterocanon. How do they continue to use a shortened version of the bible despite having the ancient manuscripts contradicting the canon of their bible?

The fact has been established that no ecclesial body removed the DC. Many Protestants have been wrongly taught that the OHCAC added these books. The fact is that they were removed. The fact is that many Protestants are not aware of this fact and believe what they have been taught. Many Protestants have attempted to inculcate me in their beliefs. I have been told I was lied to by the Church and other such nonsense. This one point, the fact that the OHCAC did not remove the DC and that the Protestants that I speak to cannot provide me evidence of any ecclesial body that removed them prevents them from moving any further in their attempts to inculcate. I deliberately use this as a sticking point, the hill to die on…

I have told Protestants that try to evangelize me that if they can produce proof of an ecclesial body that authoritatively removed the DC as opposed to what they have been taught that the OHCAC removed them…I propose…I will sell my house, I will donate all that money to your church, I will join your church, I will help spread your message, I will take up the crusade to teach others of what you believe…the burden is now on the evangelizing Protestant to prove this point…either they were lied to or the OHCAC added these books. Their desire to convert motivates them to look and no further discussion about evangelization can continue until this point is proved or disproved…this is what I do…

In consideration that I know this fact, the DC were never removed by any ecclesial body, I am on solid ground. If this fact helps any of the 3500 that are viewing this post and if it helps any one Protestant then this fact stands as a means to change a mind…

and after all to repent means to change your mind…

repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand…

Regular member reporting today!

 

[Anna_Scott]

No offense intended; but, this shows how little you understand the the foundation of the faith. The Bibles that the Catholic Church approves have the thought processes of the first Bibles written in the original Aramic. As they have been translated into new languages any Bible will vary from the Aramic because of sentence structures and word differentiation. With that stated we fully know and understand the first Bible as we have writings from the Apostles and the first Catholics that clearly define the Bible and from this we get sources such as the Cathechism that defines the Bibles.

For example historical evidence clearly shows the Mass we perform as being the same as the very first Christians masses. We know how a mass should be performed as it was written down by the Apostles. This evidence is not part of the Bible; but, clearly shows the meaning of the Bible with regard to the Body and Blood of Christ. I am not sure what you believe; however, it appears that your question was molded out of Sola Scriptura thought process.

PerryJ,

I couldn’t be farther from Sola Scriptura. So, I appreciate the laugh.

Are you implying Catholics have better and more accurate Bible translations than Protestants and other non-Catholics?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .Regular member reporting today!

You go “regular member”! :egyptian:

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

First your statement “One regular member to another” appears that you may be showing pride in your answers. Truly we are after the truth and pride gets in the way of truth. I noted that in several posts you have mentioned the importance of being a regular member. Why is that even important?

Second facts do require understanding. More importantly you have proven nothing to anyone with your thought process. Do you note that no one is interested in your proof as everyone has left this thread. Take a step back and think about what you are trying to prove. Protestant do not believe in an authoritative body and as such what you are trying to prove had zero impact to the Protestants. So what does it matter that you believe that no authoritative body took them out of the Bible? Your point is relevant only to Catholics and Catholics dont need convincing.

I am going to leave this thread. I think we can conclude that even if your thought is relevant as I am Catholic you dont need to perform a proof for me about the DCs. I know they belong and as such we wasting time. Posting to each other.

You are missed Perry:wave:

 

[PerryJ]

Perry,

My mind boggles at your answer to me and Anna. You commenced by telling me that my conclusion of fact was immaterial and not relevant. Please add to you and your line of thinking.

Your response to Anna did not provide me or Anna the answer that was asked. Which Bible? This Bible. That is a direct question for a direct answer. I can suggest much concerning your desire, need, motiviation to answer a direct question with less than a direct answer. Anna has stated she is considering the Catholic Church in the thread concerning married priests. In consideration that Anna is knocking on our door and asking questions your answer to her in my opinion does not encourage more knocking.

Your response to me as to Regular member is an enigma. You infer pride. It is not enough that you infer pride you pose it as a reason to respond. You need to spend some time in learning to infer. I do not infer much and when I do it is based on serial observation coupled with those observations. I recall a television show “Marcus Wellby”…the dialogue went something like this…“I would not trade insults with you because that would be like me dueling with a one armed man”…I won’t trade inferences with you.

Facts and understanding. You made the point that facts require understanding. This is true. In the context of the OP below…the fact that no ecclesial body removed the DC does not stand alone…

If someone were to say the following…Gregor Mendel is the father of Genetics, he was a Catholic monk…that is a stand alone fact and has no relevance to anything.

Genetics is the study of transfered material. Some of that material is sex-linked and other material is not. There is dominance, penetrance, and incomplete transfer. This material is made up of numerous linkages and it was discovered that the material is bound in helix form recently discovered and described by Watson and Crick. The study of Genetics is part of the world of Science.

Gregor Mendel is the father of Genetics and was a Catholic monk is no longer a stand alone fact and applies to the prior statement that gives insight and understanding.

I infer your lack of understanding of Science, lack of understanding of intuitive argument based on your position that after the establishment of fact that the discussion no longer requires your participation. I infer your desire to leave is a result of no ability to offer any meaningful discussion related to the OP. Everyone has left and you are leaving suggests to me an indirect insult because Anna and I are still posting. I may continue to post daily.

I will miss you.

P.S. the Regular member was tongue in cheek and I conclude you have no sense of humor.

The Belgic Confession (1561) the oldest Confession in Reformed Protestantism the Fourth Article list the Old and New Testament books. This list did not include the Duetercanon books. “We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal”

The French Confession (1559) Composed of the first national Protestant Synod in Paris “We know these books 9the shorter canon) to be canonical and the sure rule of faith”

The Synod of Dort (1618 – 1619) Although included the Duetercanon books they recommended these books were type in smaller print and included derogatory footnotes.

The Thirty Nine Articles (1562) from the Church of England “and the other books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish doctrine. Such as these (lists the Deutercanon)

The Westminster Confession (1643) was the confession for all of England and it states: “the books commonly called the Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture

I can quote many more if you need.