Did Jesus ever quote any OT books that Protestants don't "believe in"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicmama
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus quoted from Septuaginta. Protestants prefer not use the version Jesus used but the Jewish Masoretic version made 4 centuries after the death of Christ.

At the same time they fully accept the Catholic canon of the NT.

Crazy isn’t?
 
Greetings,
There are a lot of things that I do not know, but I do no crazy.

Imagine a person climbing a large tree and going out on a large limb. He is sitting on the limb with a leg on each side and facing the trunk of the tree. He takes out a saw and cuts off the limb he is sitting on from the tree. Now, isn’t it crazy to expect the unattached limb to remain suspended in the air ?

But this is not unlike the Protestant who accepts the Catholic Church’s New Testament, but rejects the Church’s teaching authority. True, it is the Holy Spirit who causes those books to be the inspired word of God, but the question remains,

“How does a person know which books belong in the New Testament canon of the Bible?”

When discussing this with a Protestant it is vitally important to keep the focus on the New Testament so as not to get sidetracked onto tangential issues about the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament. Yes, our Bibles do have a different canon, a different list of Books in the Table of Contents, and that fact is important, but the question is,

“How does s person know with certainty that he has the correct books in the New Testament?”

For Catholics, we believe Jesus founded a Church on St. Peter

http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock1.html

that has continued throughout the ages till today by Apostolic Succession,

http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/apostolic_succession.html

through which the Holy Spirit infallibly works, despite the sins of the Popes and others like me, to infallible guide her when important decisions have to be made to guide the people to heaven. This includes decisions such as which Books belong in the Bible.

Protestants, on the other hand, have no infallible guide, only the subjective arguments of man.

The Canon, Who decides ? A divinely instituted and guided Church, or human arguments

John 5:33-34
“You sent emissaries to John, and he testified to the truth.
I (Jesus) do not accept testimony from a human being, but I say this so that you may be saved.”

A lesser thing cannot be the foundation and support of something that is greater. Merely human opinion cannot authenticate what is, or what is not, the Word of God. Neither Jesus or His Apostles have written down a Table of Contents for the Bible. The Word of God was not given to us with an inspired canon, or Table of Contents. If Sola Scriptura, Bible Alone, is a true doctrine, then the most Protestants can claim is to have a fallible list of infallible books. The bedrock of all his conclusions on how to interpret Sacred Scripture and even what is Scripture, what is the Bible, is based on his own human authority or opinion. The Protestant’s reasons for his list of Books that belong in the New Testament is merely human opinion and conjecture.
 
Last edited:
However, if Catholicism is true, and it is, then we have a Church instituted by Christ ( Matthew 16:18-19), which is infallibly guided to the correct answer for this and the other essential questions for our salvation. Our certainty is based on the Love of the Father to guide and save us, and in the truthfulness and integrity of Jesus Christ to be faithful to His Promises for His Church He built on St. Peter, and in the power of the Holy Spirit effects those promises to be true and fulfilled in spite of the sins of the Popes and Bishops, so that the infallible decrees of that Church are protected by God’s grace to be true.

At the bottom on this new page below are placed many links that answer that question. The videos by Patrick Madrid are especially good. Maybe, others on this list can suggest which links are best.

http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/why.html

http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/why.html#foundation
St. Augustine
Code: 
   Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental.  
[Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.] a.d. 397.
“[In] the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. … For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
[ Chapters 4 and 5 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm ]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jesus quoted from the O.T. in many places, calling it the word of God, but He never quoted from the apocrypha at any time. None of the Apostles quoted from it either.
 
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat" - Jesus in Matt 23:2. There is no mention of “Moses’ seat” in the Old Testament, but it is found in the Jewish oral tradition.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
Would you agree the same logic works in reverse, then, that whether or not a New Testament author referenced an Old Testament book is not a litmus test for whether an Old Testament book is scriptural?
Click to expand...
Sometimes, the NT authors quote certain OT writings by referencing them as inspired Scripture. After all, if scholarship is to be believed, then the meaning of the phrase “as it is written” communicates that whatever follows is authoritative based on its inspiration.
 
Last edited:
tgGodsway said:
Jesus quoted from the O.T. in many places, calling it the word of God, but He never quoted from the apocrypha at any time. None of the Apostles quoted from it either.
Click to expand...
Ay, there’s the rub: there’s protocanonical OT books that have likewise never been quoted in the NT, neither as Scripture nor even at all. Judges, Esther, Ezra, Ruth, Zephaniah, and at least five more.
 
Last edited:
Yes but Judges, Esther, Ruth and so on DO have a historical reputation as the word of God, a settled matter even without the New Testament. The Apocrypha, on the other hand, is much more problematic because of the notorious teachings on purgatory, a doctrine that flies right in the face of our Lord’s own teaching about eternal life and heaven.
 
tgGodsway said:
Yes but Judges, Esther, Ruth and so on DO have a historical reputation as the word of God, a settled matter
Click to expand...
.
tgGodsway, please do not take this personally, but I personally make it a habit of not taking claims seriously if they are not backed up with references, and preferably with links to reputable web sites confirming their validity. Please consider if this approach would work for you as well. . 🙂

Does the Book of Esther have a universal and solid tradition of being counted as Sacred Scripture so that it has no need of an authoritative church established by Jesus Christ to establish it as being part of the Bible ?

Answer : No.

Saint Melito of Sardes, the Philosopher, A.D. 177
He does not include Esther in his lists of Books for the Old Testament.
(The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, Volume 1, paragraph 190
Fragments, IV, From the Book of Extracts)
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/fathers/untitled-476.shtml#_Toc390298943

Saint Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 367.
He does not include Esther in his lists of Books for the Old Testament.
(The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, Volume 1, paragraph 791
Letter 39, 4)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

Saint Amphilochius of Iconium A.D 340-394
He does not include Esther in his lists of Books of the Old Testament, but at the end of the list he writes, “To these some add Esther.” Thus, the inclusion of this book was not universal.
(Letter to Seleucus
The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, Volume 2, paragraph 1078)

St. Gregory of Nazianz, Doctor of the Church, Bishiop,
He does not include Esther in his lists of Books for the Old Testament.
(Poems [1, 1, 12]
The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, Volume 2, paragraph 1020)

Synopsis of Sacred Scripture (called anonymous, or pseudo-Athanasian) A.D. 490-500
After listing the “canonical” Old Testament Books it states;
“Besides these there are also other books of the same Old Testament, which are not canonical, and which are read only to the catechumens. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, … the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, … Esther, … Judith, … Tobias … These are not canonical.”
(The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, Volume 3, paragraph 2167)
 
.
It was Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul who said, We have “a fallible collection of infallible books.”
(R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House 1992), p. 22.


.
And this truth could also be stated, “We have a fallible list of fallible books.” This is because Protestantism has rejected the Authoritative Church who has the authority to infallibly define that a particular Gospel Book or Letter belongs in the Bible. This completely undermines any security that any Protestant could have about every point of docrine he believes in. He has rejected the infallibly authority of the Church to affirm that a particular Gospel or Letter belongs in the New Testament.

“If you died to tonight do you know if you would go to heaven?”
Honest Protestant answer, “Well, if I assume - despite my own sins - that based on human humane reason and speculation I have correctly included all the appropriate books into my New Testament then…”

John


.
 
The poor defense to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church has powers of infallibility is laughable. The Apostles themselves never made such a claim and neither did Peter. But you have. This in of itself is a glairing blunder for the Roman Catholic organization.
 
:roll_eyes:

Mt 27:30-31
30And they spat on Him, and took the staff and struck Him on the head repeatedly. 31After they had mocked Him, they removed the robe and put His own clothes back.

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top