Did Catholics add 7 books to Bible in 1546?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mo3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing about our friends at Carm. I sent an e-mail to the good Matt Slick who runs CARM, asking how he can put such an obviously false statement on his site (Note: This is listed as “Truth” on Carm’s website, not just posted on their Forums).

Did Mr. Slick provide any proof of his claims? No. Did he try to open up an honest dialog? No. Instead, he simply replied “Because they did”. Case closed.

That’s Evangelization at it’s best, eh? :rolleyes:
 
Mystophilus said:
δωσω σοι τας κλειδας
Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone, never mentioning anything at all about successors. Then, as recorded in Mt 18:18, he gave the power of binding and losing to the disciples en masse, and Peter was neither the boss of the disciples, nor was he endowed with any dynasty. Therefore, a claim that a rejection of the authority of the Pope equates to a rejection of God is a claim that requires an extra-textual belief in the succession of Popes as having been sent by God, claiming that a dynasty was meant despite the singular pronoun, and an extra-textual belief in the teachers of all of the other Christian churches as having not been sent by God, claiming that the other disciples were only those disciples who followed Peter, contradicting Jesus’ prayer for church unity and Paul’s discussion of such divisiveness in 1 Co 1:10-17, and a denial of Roman Catholic Canon Law, as per my sig-line.
Click to expand...
I don’t quite understand your argument. The logic of the argument seems to betray a Protestant use of Scripture that looks at specific texts rather than the evidence of Scripture as a whole.

I will only answer one point whose argument is at least reasonable: that Peter was not the head of the group. Suffice to say that St Peter was always listed as the first in all the lists of the Apostles to show that he had pre-eminence over all the apostles. While all the apostles were granted the power to bind and loose, they were granted only after St Peter and were not given the power of the keys. It is clear (to me) that there is a difference in the power given to St Peter and to the rest of the Apostles.
 
peregrinus_sg said:
I don’t quite understand your argument. The logic of the argument seems to betray a Protestant use of Scripture that looks at specific texts rather than the evidence of Scripture as a whole.

I will only answer one point whose argument is at least reasonable: that Peter was not the head of the group. Suffice to say that St Peter was always listed as the first in all the lists of the Apostles to show that he had pre-eminence over all the apostles. While all the apostles were granted the power to bind and loose, they were granted only after St Peter and were not given the power of the keys. It is clear (to me) that there is a difference in the power given to St Peter and to the rest of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Why else was Peter called the First Apostles by St. Paul. He certainly wasn’t the first one chronologically, his brother Andrew was one before him.
 
The answer to the above question of whether Catholics indeed added books to the Scripture is quite easily sorted out in a non-polemic scientific method. Weigh a Bible before the reformation and after. which one weighs more? If Catholics added to the Bible after the reformation, it should weigh more than before the reformation. Go to my GODTUBE channel to see the actual experiment. God bless you all
godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=71728107d445a083f33b
 
“In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches.”
Click to expand...
Where the Deuterocanonical books accepted as scripture before Trent? Simple … Look at a copy of the Gutenberg Bible. There they all are. Well before 1546. And not segregated into an appendix. QED
 
I have also learned that the original King James version included the Deuterocanonical books. Then in the 1830’s someone decided to remove them. A good question to ask is “who had the authoritiy” to remove books from the original King James Bible?
 
Well, arguably, the same abuses can occur without the verses being numbered as well as long as someone can recall or look up the selected sentence and read it or quote it out of context. If you read the Early Church Fathers, many of them quoted snippets of Scripture here and there without benefit of chapter/verse.

Now, maybe if they had never added punctuation (which did not appear in the original Hebrew and Greek)…:hmmm:
 
I guess that american bible printers are divinely inspired to remove book from the Authorized Version too.
 
When Luther put together his German translation of the bible, he decided to use the Canon of the old testament which was determined by the JEWS not the CHRISTIANS. The Jewish council of Jamnia occurred 70-90 A.D.
The Jews at this council closed their cannon of scripture and excluded any Old Testament books which could be used by the rival Christians to prove the divinity of Christ and the Fact that he was the Messiah. Participants of this council were required to swear an oath or curse against the Christians and other groups considered HERETICS
See below:
The inclusion of a curse on the “Minim” which probably included Jewish Christians (Birkat ha-Minim). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Min: “In passages referring to the Christian period, “minim” usually indicates the Judæo-Christians, the Gnostics, and the Nazarenes, who often conversed with the Rabbis on the unity of God, creation, resurrection, and similar subjects (comp. Sanh. 39b). In some passages, indeed, it is used even for “Christian”; but it is possible that in such cases it is a substitution for the word “Noẓeri,” which was the usual term for ‘Christian’… On the invitation of Gamaliel II., Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan composed a prayer against the minim which was inserted in the “Eighteen Benedictions”; it is called “Birkat ha-Minim” and forms the twelfth benediction; but instead of the original “Noẓerim” … the present text has “wela-malshinim” (=“and to the informers”). The cause of this change in the text was probably, the accusation brought by the Church Fathers against the Jews of cursing all the Christians under the name of the Nazarenes.” (Wikipedi)

Luther Chose to use an Old Testament of which the books were chosen with the specific goal to deny that Christ was the Messiah. The participating rabbi’s were required to swear a curse against all Christians. How interesting!

He did this because the other Old Testament known as the LXX or Septuagint (which was the old testament of choice of the early Christians) was contrary to some doctrines that he was teaching.
For more on this, go to the web address below and read the article DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS by James Akin.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
 
While it might seem a very nice idea to beat the other side down, this would not normally promote ecumenical understanding, nor appreciation of the truth, nor aid the practice of charity.

In all honesty, Luther probably never realized that the shorter canon he advocated had such murky origins. He was probably influenced by St Jerome who *might *(emphasize might) be construed as advocating some distinction between the traditionally accepted canon and the Jewish canon. His opinion on the so-called deuterocannonicals are probably more complex than what Luther (and many of us) understand, but it cannot be denied that his murky opinion had been a cause for many people in the Latin Church, even before Luther, to cast some doubts on the deuterocannonicals.

At the same time, the theory of a council in Jamnia deciding the Jewish canon seems to have little support in scholarly circles today. There appears to be various canons in Judaism in the time of Christ and into the start of the Christian era, but with Pharasaic traditions coming to form the nucleus of rabbinical Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, its easy to imagine how a Pharasaic canon would, over time, become the standard.
 
Thank you for that link. I teach a Bible History segment for the edification of the members of our Bible study group(s) in our Parish. Some of the participants have been influenced by Protestant teachings and the discussion of “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger” always is part of it. While I have solid material recounting the canon process and the councils of the end of the fourth century, the existence of that image of the Gutenberg is an excellent discussion closer.
 
The Saducces and the Samaritans despite their serious differences about the correct place for the animal sacrifices, only thought as inspired the Torah. For example.
 
Get a copy of the original King James Version. You will find them all in there.
 
Pwrlftr said:
What is this based on?
Click to expand...
This is based on common knowledge.

The Sadducees only believed the 5 books of the Law were inspired. This is evidenced by their lack of belief in the Resurrection. Also, notice that when arguing with the Sadducees, Jesus only uses the Torah to argue against them.

The Samaritans also believed in the Torah only. If you look at Jewish history, you’ll find that the History books (after Deuteronomy), the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Wisdom books weren’t considered inspired works until the after 500 BC. By then, Israel had split off from Judah and Benjamin.

This adds special meaning to what the Samaritan woman at the well meant when she said, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.” The prophet that she’s talking about was prophecied by Moses, who would be like Moses. To him, Israel would listen. The woman wasn’t saying Jesus was “A” prophet - she was saying Jesus was “THE” Prophet.
 
mo3 said:
I saw the following statement on a Christian Apologetic website:

“In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches.”

See it at: carm.org/questions/canon.htm
Click to expand...
Actually, it was the Protestants who removed them in the 18th century. Prior to that they were in every Protestant bible. So the question really is, why did the protestants remove these books which were in every bible from the time of for nearly 2000 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top