Isn't 66 an incomplete number of books in the (Protestant) Bible?

[Masters_Servant]

I have responded three times that I’m ready for you to cut to the chase and show me these errors. It is self-evident that Protestants don’t take the Deutocanonicals as the word of God or else it would be included in the Bible. Since the Deutocanonicals are included in the Catholic Bible, it stands to reason that Catholics believe is the Word of God. These books, you believe, contain errors.

Please tell me.

I believe that the Bible is not without error in regards to faith and morals; Sola Scriptura means the Bible of the sole rule of faith, not necessarily extending beyond faith/morals either.

If you cannot be dogmatic and it depends on who you can, then why not accept the Catholic since it’s a matter of “certain point of view”? If the canon can* only* known by God, then both Protestants and Catholics are in trouble.

Or detracting from them, depending on your point of view. Catholics believe that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are a seamless garment; one isn’t greater than the other and both form the deposit of faith, which the Church has preserved throughout the centuries.

A few post back, you argued that the Catholic Church set the Deutocanonicals into stone to combat the Reformers yet now the case is now open? You cannot have it both ways.

First; you still refuse to answer the question; so just Google “errors in the Apocrypha” and you can easily make the discoveries from multiple websites. I did not argue anything; I stated a fact from the Council of Trent, but as the revelation to the Church ebbs and flows; there no longer remains a standard; except a standard of continuous change; contrary to the very nature of God.

I have heard enough and if I continue I will be in disobedience to the Lord; in fact I have probably crossed that line.

I am finishing any remaining posts, then I am going delete this thread; there is nothing more to be said that can or should be said IMO; at least for me.

 

[Masters_Servant]

When did it close?

Before the foundation of the world via God’s predetermined time frame, which no human can be dogmatic about by human standards.

 

[BrianH]

Before the foundation of the world via God’s predetermined time frame, which no human can be dogmatic about by human standards.

But since its closed now, there is a certain level of dogmatic views on the matter?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

First; you still refuse to answer the question

Really? I’ve not answered?
MS:

Now you do not need to answer the question above; you have implicitly stated “no” you do not believe the Word of God is without error

And:
DLE:

I believe that the Bible is not without error in regards to faith and morals; Sola Scriptura means the Bible of the sole rule of faith, not necessarily extending beyond faith/morals either.

MS:

so just Google “errors in the Apocrypha” and you can easily make the discoveries from multiple websites.

I have done so:
DLE:

MS, please just tells us the errors. I’m waiting for you to tell me that the Book of Tobit promotes magic and the alms giving forgives sins. The Book of Maccabees promotes the “pagan idea” of praying for the dead. The Book of Judith contains a historical error about Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.

And
DLE:

Catholics: Go to google and type in “apocrypha errors” and see what happens. I’d link some of them here but it is against forum rules to post links to anti-Catholic sites, such as CARM…

I await your response to the Catholic answer to the Deurocanonical “errors.”
MS:

I did not argue anything; I stated a fact from the Council of Trent, but as the revelation to the Church ebbs and flows; there no longer remains a standard; except a standard of continuous change; contrary to the very nature of God.

I find these two statement contrary. Do you believe that the canon isn’t closed for Protestants? If you believe that the Council of Trent set the canon set in the stone to combat the Reformers, then it is closed for Catholics, because the standard has been set.

 

[Subrosa]

Luther never removed them. His objections to the canonicity of a book were entirely his own opinion. His opinions were also shared by numerous Catholics of his own time (such as Cardinal Cajetan), as well as prior.

Many people have had thier own objections to the books, however, these books are christian in thier content. At all the councils that met in order to decide the canon, these books were included.

Martin Luther may not have removed them himself, but can you deny that they were removed by his influence? Can you deny that what we know now as the Protestant canon did not begin with Martin Luther?

Don’t get me wrong. The books have been controversial since early christianity, but they were included in the canon, and counted as such in at least five councils that were gathered by the whole of christianty. Face facts! Martin Luther wanted to reject several books of the New Testament, but there was no basis. Just to say that the Old Testament is the Palestinian canon is to say that the Jewish choice for thier canon is correct. It is for them for they reject Jesus. The deuterocanon is christian.

Pax Christi,
Subrosa

 

[TriuneUnity]

Martin Luther may not have removed them himself, but can you deny that they were removed by his influence? Can you deny that what we know now as the Protestant canon did not begin with Martin Luther?

Yes, I can, for several reasons. Being that numerous contemporaries of his rejected them, why would his influence for rejecting them be any greater? Secondly, Luther did not only dispute the canonicity of the DC books, but a few of the NT books as well, such as Revelation, Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter. If his opinion of the DC books was influential in their removal, why were these NT books not removed? Lastly, they were not removed from any Protestant Bibles until the 19th century. Can we look back to Luther three hundred years prior and attach it to him? Why not Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Ximenes, Jerome, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary of Poiters, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Naziansus, Epiphanius, or Ruffinus? The rejection of the DC books by the Jews and many early church fathers was far more influential, not only in Protestants considering them uninspired, but in Luther rejecting them to begin with.

 

[Roy5]

To repeat what I said a couple hundred postings ago:

This issue is so insignificant, and both Catholics and Protestants can advance a pretty strong argument to sustain their viewpoint. There were (and are) two separate versions of the Old Testament. The Jews of today decided upon the one used by the Protestants. But there is a good argument for the additional books included in the Catholic Bible (and included in many Protestant Bibles between the OT and NT as the Apocrypha).

 So, why waste time on this topic when I'm sure that God could care less? God would want to know if we're focusing upon faith, hope and love, not the correct number of books in the Old Testament. That sort of wrangling among Christians is one reason many spiritual people have become alienated from the organized church. We too often major in minors.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color and country. May we work together to make religion a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[MartinJordan]

To repeat what I said a couple hundred postings ago:

This issue is so insignificant, and both Catholics and Protestants can advance a pretty strong argument to sustain their viewpoint. There were (and are) two separate versions of the Old Testament. The Jews of today decided upon the one used by the Protestants. But there is a good argument for the additional books included in the Catholic Bible (and included in many Protestant Bibles between the OT and NT as the Apocrypha).

 So, why waste time on this topic when I'm sure that God could care less? God would want to know if we're focusing upon faith, hope and love, not the correct number of books in the Old Testament. That sort of wrangling among Christians is one reason many spiritual people have become alienated from the organized church. We too often major in minors.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color and country. May we work together to make religion a bridge and not a barrier.

Agreed!

MJ

 

[Edson]

tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=e5bd18b0b7bc7bd03654

tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=7be3f46ec4a082479b96

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Luther never removed them. His objections to the canonicity of a book were entirely his own opinion. His opinions were also shared by numerous Catholics of his own time (such as Cardinal Cajetan), as well as prior.

Luther removed 7 books of the original canon of bible books ( from the early Catholic Church since the fourth century) when he relabeled the 7 Deuterocanon books as “uninspired by God” by attaching “Apocrypha” to his own canon of books. Which later were removed entirely from Protestant bibles. Protestants with Martin Luther agreed that these books were not God breathed. Now that is an extreme case of Power of infallibility from one man and protestantism in general to remove not one book from the bible, but 7 books from the Canon of scripture and then have the self made man power to add their own word “alone” to God’s word. When the scriptures are clear no one is to add or subtract from God’s Word.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**Therefore; why do you refuse to answer the real question? If the Apocrypha contains error is it the Word of God or not and why? **

I thought I did answer your question?

All Apocrypha books contain error because these are never God breathed.

The Word of God made flesh which is Jesus is without error because he is without sin.

The Canon of Scripture as authenticated by the Church (bulwark and pillar of Truth) confirmed in the Holy Spirit is without error in the teachings of morals and faith.

2 Timothy 3:16
**All scripture is inspired by God **and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

If you have a bible book labled “Apochrypha” then you do not have scripture inspired by God. Now If your founder of your christian faith comes along over 1700 years later and decided upon himself which books are “inspired of God” and which ones are not? Then you are hard pressed to prove your new founders infallibility to remove any book which was authenticated by the Church in the Holy Spirit by the successors to the original Apostles.

I don’t know how to be more clear. God’s word does not contain any error’s. Please show God’s error’s in his Word, and I will show you a devil.