Do we need the Bible?

[LestWeForget]

For those concerned:

Mark 7:9
“He said to them, ‘All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.’”

And the Bible in no sense contradicts it self.

 

[LestWeForget]

66 canonized books in the Bible, by the way.

 

[Benadam]

For those concerned:

Mark 7:9
“He said to them, ‘All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.’”

And the Bible in no sense contradicts it self.

The bible is a representation of a diciples memory in the form of symbols that together are able to reproduce the concepts and ideas God inspired in that diciples mind. The bible is able to reproduce the diciples memory and mind but only when that memory has been passed down organicly from it’s author so the concepts and ideas that are symbolized in the form of words on the pages can be authenticated. without authentication it can never be known if they transmit the true faith. Why would the true faith ever be dlivred to us if it is destined to be lost shortly after Jesus was here?

Apart from the community that has surrounded jesus since the beginning, and of whom the bible testifies, how can anyone know it without erring.

Can someone who has not lived your life read your biography and have a more complete understanding of what’s
happened to you? Would they know you personally from reading the book or would they just know what they have imagined you are from the book? Thisis the false premise of those who think the bible is the source of faith in Christ and not the community that it is a testimony of.

This is the false premise that people accept who think the bible enterprets it’self.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Tell that to Moses, Abraham, Issac, Isaih, Daniel, and all the others. Tell it to Matthew, Luke, Mark, John etc. It is the Holy Spirit that moved men to decide the canon, not the other way around. Need proof, look at you own bible, you will see books that the Church itself contains error; yet we know god does not teach nor does His word contain error, but we know men who were not inspiried by the Holy Spirit do commit error.

Which came first, the Word of God or the Catholic Church? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. When it got physically written down and put into a nice collection called the bible has nothing to do with which existed first. I fGod can turn stones into worshippers he can inspire ment o chose the correct letters to form what we have as the Bible and that is precisely what He did. Where the extra books become part of Scripture officially as opposed to devotionals comes 1500 years later in response to accusations against the Chruch by the reformation.

MS
Romans 8:28

Very definitely, the Holy Spirit moved the Early Church Fathers to discern what was Scripture and what was not. We never asserted any differently, in fact, we claim the exclusive promise of the protection of the Holy Spirit to keep us from teaching error. One of the tests that the ECF used to decide if a writing was inspired was if it contradicted what was being taught orally since the time of Christ, ie - Tradition. It was the Holy Spirit Who inspired them to use this test and Who guaranteed that they got it right. There is nothing in Scripture which contradicts Tradition. If it had, it would have failed the test and been excluded.

The Word of God is Jesus, not the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of documents in which are recorded some of His words. It is a collection of books and letters which have been declared divinely inspired, sacred, and set aside for use in the Worship of God, the Mass.

The bible is not The Word. The bible is a collection of inspired books. It is not God.

St. John tells us that Jesus did and said many other things in His 3 year public ministry and that it would not be possible to write it all down. The bible is the supplement, while Tradition is the whole of the knowledge that was passed to us from Christ through the Apostles. (as opposed to the tradition of the Pharisees which Mark 7:9 is talking about)

66 canonized books in the Bible, by the way.

Says who and by what authority?

 

[Church_Militant]

66 canonized books in the Bible, by the way.

Better check again. Somebody told you something wrong.

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]).

Council of Hippo

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Old Testament Canon

That 66 book canon is a modern invention of men. Even the authentic 1611 edition of the KJB has 73 books. Google it.

 

[twinc]

If the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” and knows the sacred traditions and commandments of God, then do we even really need the Bible?

Just curious,
JJ

The Bible authenicates the Church and the Church authenticates the Bible.It is the Bible that states that the Church is " the pillar and bulwark of truth"and the Church which states thar the Bible is inerrant in all its parts - twinc

 

[LestWeForget]

I’m not sure why you think the true faith was destined to be lost, I’ll assume sarcasm, because that makes no sense. It is a matter of man wanting to do his own will rather than the Father’s.

As for the Bible is not the word of God? Wrong. All the authors were inspired by God, how can you believe that Jesus is God but not believe that the authors can’t write down God’s word. Which is the Bible.

By God’s authority, we know after “so many” people reading the Bible and picking out books, I’m mocking people who think like they know 73(give or take) books are in the Bible, all 66 canonized books never contradict themselves. I’d like to see you try and integrate these extra 7 books without it contradicting the Scripture. These extra 7 letters were merely letters from Christians to Christians. Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene etc.

2 Timothy 3:16

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hm, weird that God would just let men write the Bible however they wanted if God specifically wanted man to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. AND, Jesus was gone before Paul even started his missionaries, nearly the entire New Testament, so how could Jesus be only the word if the base of the Church was through the teachings of Christ by Paul writing letters to others? I know Paul isn’t the Church, don’t bother trying to start something.

And it makes me laugh seeing you write “The 66 book canon Bible is a modern invention of man.”, after just quoting 3 of the who knows how many MAN MADE doctrines.

And King James was Catholic, mind you a closet Roman Catholic, and of course he would approve a contradicting Catholic 73 book Bible.

 

[JJHIII]

I’m not sure why you think the true faith was destined to be lost, I’ll assume sarcasm, because that makes no sense. It is a matter of man wanting to do his own will rather than the Father’s.

As for the Bible is not the word of God? Wrong. All the authors were inspired by God, how can you believe that Jesus is God but not believe that the authors can’t write down God’s word. Which is the Bible.

By God’s authority, we know after “so many” people reading the Bible and picking out books, I’m mocking people who think like they know 73(give or take) books are in the Bible, all 66 canonized books never contradict themselves. I’d like to see you try and integrate these extra 7 books without it contradicting the Scripture. These extra 7 letters were merely letters from Christians to Christians. Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene etc.

2 Timothy 3:16

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hm, weird that God would just let men write the Bible however they wanted if God specifically wanted man to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. AND, Jesus was gone before Paul even started his missionaries, nearly the entire New Testament, so how could Jesus be only the word if the base of the Church was through the teachings of Christ by Paul writing letters to others? I know Paul isn’t the Church, don’t bother trying to start something.

And it makes me laugh seeing you write “The 66 book canon Bible is a modern invention of man.”, after just quoting 3 of the who knows how many MAN MADE doctrines.

And King James was Catholic, mind you a closet Roman Catholic, and of course he would approve a contradicting Catholic 73 book Bible.

Do you realize that the extra seven books are found in the Old Testament? They aren’t New Testament letters at all. And can you point out where those seven Old Testament books contradict scripture?

 

[JJHIII]

“Protestant…untill college”

What are you after college? You may want to update the spelling on “until”, not “untill”…

MS
Romans 8:28

PS The reason for the Scripture is to point the way to Jesus, which is the way of salvation. Nothing any tradition of men can do. Don’t get me wrong, traditions can be good if the are tested against the word of God, but should be dismissed if they fail that litmus test.

Haha that’s why my major is not in spelling!! Gotta love spell checker.

And at the moment, I intend to be Catholic. However my parents would not approve of my decision and therefore I’m Protestant, church of Christ to be exact, UNTIL, college.

I also agree that the tradtion of man can do nothing for our salvation. But Holy Tradition is a completely different thing.

 

[LestWeForget]

Do you realize that the extra seven books are found in the Old Testament? They aren’t New Testament letters at all. And can you point out where those seven Old Testament books contradict scripture?

Okay? Go ahead and answer my question with the question I just asked you. I will research for you. And regardless if they are Old or New Testament, doesn’t change the fact that they contradict scripture.

Place of Purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death (2 Maccabees 12:42, 46)
The worship of angels (Tobit 12:12)
Alms giving with expiatory value, and having the ability to deliver someone from death (Tobit 12:9, 4:10)

Don’t take my word for it, check your Bible.

Many of these books were kept by the Catholics to savor the idea of purgatory.

I can find more if this doesn’t suffice because there are several. Also, the books of Maccabees were written during the inter-testamental period which was 400 years of silence where God did not speak to man nor had prophets. This happens to be the case for most of the rest of these “hidden books” of the Bible, so not only are they in fact not God inspired but, which is expected, also contradictory to the Old Testament. Keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in New Testament. With over 250 quotations from passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament; there is not one quotation from the Apocryphal writings. Since the case is Old Testament it’s similar to beating a dead dog because God doesn’t hold us to the Old Testament anymore, sorry to break it to those who thought we are. Romans Ch. 8-10. Not saying the Old Testament isn’t important but we don’t sacrifice bulls and goats for the pushing forward of sins anymore. Or praise God with musical instruments, whoa! Ey, batta batta, sa-wing.

 

[Benadam]

I’m not sure why you think the true faith was destined to be lost, I’ll assume sarcasm, because that makes no sense. It is a matter of man wanting to do his own will rather than the Father’s.

You believe it was lost. that’s why you don’t believe anyone on earth is teaching the true faith. If you do I would think you would be saying my Church is the one true Church that teaches the true faith, the one believed since the beginning.

As for the Bible is not the word of God? Wrong. All the authors were inspired by God, how can you believe that Jesus is God but not believe that the authors can’t write down God’s word. Which is the Bible.

It is the Word of God. But, if authority is projected onto it apart from the community that it is a testimony of, it is the Word of any Tom Dick and Harry who can get people to believe that it testifies to themselves.

By God’s authority, we know after “so many” people reading the Bible and picking out books, I’m mocking people who think like they know 73(give or take) books are in the Bible, all 66 canonized books never contradict themselves. I’d like to see you try and integrate these extra 7 books without it contradicting the Scripture. These extra 7 letters were merely letters from Christians to Christians. Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene etc.

In order for you to say that no contradiction exists here in the Truth, but it does here, and conclude, so whoever believes that this is Truth does not have the Truth. For you to be able to make that claim you must believe on some level that your knowledge of Truth is full and there is no error or contradiction in your faith that you aren’t aware of. The thing about having that kind of thinking is that the Truth that does elude you remains out of reach if the paradox that surrounds truth, not yet revealed to you, is defined as contradiction.2 Timothy 3:16

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Yep it’s good for teachers of the faith, those indoctrinated to it’s meaning, but not so for those who must yet recieve the true faith through hearing.

Hm, weird that God would just let men write the Bible however they wanted if God specifically wanted man to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. AND, Jesus was gone before Paul even started his missionaries, nearly the entire New Testament, so how could Jesus be only the word if the base of the Church was through the teachings of Christ by Paul writing letters to others? I know Paul isn’t the Church, don’t bother trying to start something.

Your mistake is in thinking that the bible in of it’self is capable of making every man who picks it up be equipped for every good work. That passage was written to those who believe the true faith and who are teachers of the fullness of truth. Teachers who claim that they don’t teach error. Is the bible making every man that way?

And it makes me laugh seeing you write “The 66 book canon Bible is a modern invention of man.”, after just quoting 3 of the who knows how many MAN MADE doctrines.

The Jews canonized their scriptures after the Christians canonized theirs. A means to gain the advantage of hindsight over the faith of Christ. I think the Jewish canon was favored and adopted by the fathers of your 66 books. By the way, if your book opposes the true faith and the Man of sin uses it to gain favor and destroy the Church by claiming it is antichrist, that would be man of sin =6 who will claim the 66 books as testifying to himself who destroys the antichrist church, you will be following a testimony of 66 books that testifies to a man who is not God. A 666 book selling scenario if I ever saw one.

And King James was Catholic, mind you a closet Roman Catholic, and of course he would approve a contradicting Catholic 73 book Bible.

Truth doesn’t violate Truth in my bible. If it seems so to you there is truth not yet revealed to you, and the contradiction that you see would be better thought of as an invitation to seek out a mystery so that it may not forever elude you.

 

[Linda_Marie]

As for the Bible is not the word of God? Wrong. All the authors were inspired by God, how can you believe that Jesus is God but not believe that the authors can’t write down God’s word. Which is the Bible…

Please, do not put words in my mouth, nor twist what I said. The Bible is not The Word. The Word is Jesus. Jesus in not contained in the bible, nor is the bible Jesus.

The Bible is a collection of divinely inspired writings, put together and set apart (ie canonized) for use in Catholic Divine Worship. It does not contain ALL the Teachings of Christ which come to us through the Apostles. These have been preserved in Tradition.

The Bible is a part of Tradition.

By God’s authority, we know after “so many” people reading the Bible and picking out books, I’m mocking people who think like they know 73(give or take) books are in the Bible, all 66 canonized books never contradict themselves. I’d like to see you try and integrate these extra 7 books without it contradicting the Scripture. These extra 7 letters were merely letters from Christians to Christians. Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene etc.

God told you that the Bible has only 66 books?

Who are these ‘so many’ people who took authority upon themselves to remove books from the canon? Don’t you think that is important to know? not just some nebulous ‘so many’? If you don’t even know who they are, how do you know they got it right? What was their authority to remove them?

If you think that something in Scripture contradicts Tradition, then either you are misinterpreting Scripture or you misunderstand the Teaching of the Church. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about what the Church teaches. I know. I had to ‘unlearn’ a lot of them myself.

The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, The Protoevangelion of James are among the Apochrypha. The Apochrypha are the writings which were rejected at the various Councils of the Church which determined the canon. They were never canonized or set apart for use in Catholic Divine Worship. Some of the Apochrypha are heretical, while others are profitable for our spiritual development.

The 7 books of the Deuterocanon were segregated during the Reformation into a separate section of the Bible but were still ‘in’ the Bible. They were finally removed completely by publishers because it was cheaper to produce. Now there’s a good reason to remove books from the Bible. No doubt the Holy Spirit inspired them to increase their profits by publishing a smaller book.

Jesus used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, It contains the Deuterocanon. Jesus quotes from it in the New Testament.

The Deuterocanon was canonized at the same time as the Protocanon. (note - both are named ‘canon’.) Much in these 7 books points to Jesus. Before the Resurrection, there was no concensus among the Jewish people, scribes or priests as to which books were divinely inspired Scripture. We have no reason to accept that those who rejected Christ were inspired by the Holy Spirit to determine Sacred Scripture.

And it makes me laugh seeing you write “The 66 book canon Bible is a modern invention of man.”, after just quoting 3 of the who knows how many MAN MADE doctrines…

How do you know they are man-made? Who told you they were man-made and what authority does that person have to teach?

 

[LestWeForget]

It is sad reading these responses, all lack knowledge our this alleged “the Church”. If the Church was built on Jesus, who has all authority, and you claim this is his church, why are there points in the Bible that Catholics choose to not follow. And “those people” who decided what is canonized and not was me mocking your future response of “who are 'those people.” Again, these books contradict Scripture, plain as that. It baffles me how intertwined the reasoning is for these extra 7 books, you guys don’t even know what you’re saying. It would take me days to address how many wrong points that have been made against my last post, all of which were false accusations, words put in my mouth, spin doctoring, really immature attempts at explaining anything. And you know for a fact these Vatican documents etc. are all man-made, don’t flatter yourself. Men choose to not do what is right, 2 Tim 3:16 comment, because their tradition overshadows the Bible. Please research why you do anything without consulting the Bible. Good luck.

 

[LestWeForget]

Also, count how many "I think"s you have. Those will hopefully be replaced with “the Bible says” someday.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” and knows the sacred traditions and commandments of God, then do we even really need the Bible?

Just curious,
JJ

Even non believers like myself, feel that it is essential that every person reads the bible.
I’d believe if it were not for the bible.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Also, count how many "I think"s you have. Those will hopefully be replaced with “the Bible says” someday.

I had zero "I think"s, nor were there any in any of the previous posts of other Catholic posters.

The Bible ‘says’ nothing. It is a book. People ‘say’.

When a person says, “The Bible says…”, what they are really saying is, “My interpretation of what is written in the Bible is…”

It is written in the Bible. What is written is open to interpretation. There was no punctuation in Greek. There are no markings to give inflection to some words over others or to indicate where a sentence begins or ends. In addition, what a word meant in Greek 2,000 years ago may be translated much differently now.

A great deal was left out of the Bible, much of it being common knowledge so they didn’t think there was any need to write it down. Everyone already knew. Now, we don’t, so we are reading it in a vacuum, without points of reference.

Without the guidance of the Church which has the promise of the Holy Spirit to keep her from ever teaching error, we cannot be guaranteed that we understand what the Scripture is really saying. Parts of it are difficult to understand and it is easy to be led astray. (2 Peter:15-16) If we read a passage and come up with a different interpretation than what is taught by the Church, we know that we have taken a wrong turn and have misunderstood what was written in the passage.

The Church has perserved, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Teachings of Christ which come to us through the Apostles. Any interpretations which contradict these Teachings are not from God and should be rejected.

 

[gtrenewed]

John 21:25 “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”

Question 1 - Am I correct in assuming that this is one scripture used to teach that there is a Sacred Tradition?

Question 2 - Is Sacred Tradition oral? Has it ever been written down?

Question 3 - If oral, who do I contact to find out what it is? If written down, where is it?

Question 4 - What is the difference between Sacred Tradition and tradition?

Question 5 - Was a council ever convened to determine what tradition was considered Sacred and what was considered other tradition?

Thanks in advance for any help out there!

 

[JJHIII]

Okay? Go ahead and answer my question with the question I just asked you. I will research for you. And regardless if they are Old or New Testament, doesn’t change the fact that they contradict scripture.

Place of Purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death (2 Maccabees 12:42, 46)
The worship of angels (Tobit 12:12)
Alms giving with expiatory value, and having the ability to deliver someone from death (Tobit 12:9, 4:10)

Don’t take my word for it, check your Bible.

Many of these books were kept by the Catholics to savor the idea of purgatory.

I can find more if this doesn’t suffice because there are several. Also, the books of Maccabees were written during the inter-testamental period which was 400 years of silence where God did not speak to man nor had prophets. This happens to be the case for most of the rest of these “hidden books” of the Bible, so not only are they in fact not God inspired but, which is expected, also contradictory to the Old Testament. Keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in New Testament. With over 250 quotations from passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament; there is not one quotation from the Apocryphal writings. Since the case is Old Testament it’s similar to beating a dead dog because God doesn’t hold us to the Old Testament anymore, sorry to break it to those who thought we are. Romans Ch. 8-10. Not saying the Old Testament isn’t important but we don’t sacrifice bulls and goats for the pushing forward of sins anymore. Or praise God with musical instruments, whoa! Ey, batta batta, sa-wing.

I’m sorry that I don’t know actuall chapter and verse. I’m sure that you can look it up on this site. I know it is there because, being a fundamental Protestant myself, I had to read it in the Bible for myself to even consider it.

In Corinthians (1st or 2nd?) Paul talks about a man’s works being tested by fire. If his deeds weren’t always bad but he was good for the most part, then he would be saved but only through fire. Just as gold is purified by fire. That is by no means word for word. I will find the verse and post it.

I also believe that the writer of Hebrews quotes from the book of Wisdom (again the chapter and verse fails me. I will find it). Interestingly enough that this is written in a letter directed to the Jews. Thwy would’ve known the book of Wisdom.

Some of Jesus’s quotings aren’t found in the Old Testament. (Again chapter and verse fail me). But I know he talks about the seat of Moses. And the writer of Jude talks about Enoch in a way that I believe is not found in the OT?? This seems to support some form of Sacred Tradition.

JJ

 

[JJHIII]

Okay? Go ahead and answer my question with the question I just asked you. I will research for you. And regardless if they are Old or New Testament, doesn’t change the fact that they contradict scripture.

Place of Purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death (2 Maccabees 12:42, 46)
The worship of angels (Tobit 12:12)
Alms giving with expiatory value, and having the ability to deliver someone from death (Tobit 12:9, 4:10)

Don’t take my word for it, check your Bible.

Many of these books were kept by the Catholics to savor the idea of purgatory.

I can find more if this doesn’t suffice because there are several. Also, the books of Maccabees were written during the inter-testamental period which was 400 years of silence where God did not speak to man nor had prophets. This happens to be the case for most of the rest of these “hidden books” of the Bible, so not only are they in fact not God inspired but, which is expected, also contradictory to the Old Testament. Keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in New Testament. With over 250 quotations from passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament; there is not one quotation from the Apocryphal writings. Since the case is Old Testament it’s similar to beating a dead dog because God doesn’t hold us to the Old Testament anymore, sorry to break it to those who thought we are. Romans Ch. 8-10. Not saying the Old Testament isn’t important but we don’t sacrifice bulls and goats for the pushing forward of sins anymore. Or praise God with musical instruments, whoa! Ey, batta batta, sa-wing.

This is taken right off of the Catholic Answers Faith Tracts.

Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

This was taken from Catholic Bible 101…another great site

The second book of Maccabees, chapter 7, talks about a mother and her 7 sons being tortured and killed, one by one, by the evil king who had defiled the temple and wanted his captives to eat pork. They refused to transgress the law, and paid the ultimate price.

Hebrews 11:35 refers to this incident - “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.”

 

[NHInsider]

66 canonized books in the Bible, by the way.

Sorry?? How can you claim there is a canon if you reject the authority of the canonizers?

If you reject the full canon, then you have to try to defend the position that the individual books somehow testify to their own authentic nature, and that the books that aren’t canonical somehow give evidence in themselves that they are not inspired. (Good luck with that effort, by the way.)

You will not find any authority setting a 66 book canon. The 66-book Bible is what you get after Luther denied the inspiration of 7 Old Testament books and 4 New Testament books and relegated them to “the back” of their respective testaments in his translation, to show their lessor status without removing them (the 1611 KJV includes the full canon). The debate raged amongst Protestant scholars for more than a century, and there has never been any “authoritative” setting of a Protestant canon, not surprising since there is no Authority in Protestantism that could render such a decision.