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

[elvisman]

In one of the most ironic of possible quotes to begin with, Elvisman provides a teaching from Christ that he specifically states…comes from the Law and the Prophets. So, in an attempt to show that a teaching was not found earlier in the OT, Elvisman finds his view directly opposed…by Jesus!

Elvisman stated

Look at Matthew 7:12

Wait a minute…Christ does not say that it comes from Tobit but the Law and the Prophets. Well…what part of the Law??
To begin with Leviticus 19:18

So on the very first one that Elvisman took exception with, we have Christ telling us where this teaching comes from.
I cannot imagine the others will be this easy but thanks for the softball…

Sorry, Brian. This is weak - REALLY weak.

---

We are talking about the wording here, not simply similar meanings. If we were going merely from simple meaning - we could attribute some of what Jesus said to Hinduism and Buddhism.

---

“Love your neighbor as yourself” is NOT the same as “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.”**
NOTHING** Jesus said was wasted, for he is Truth itself. Jesus chose his words carefully and knew***** exactly***** that what he said would be known immediately by those to whom he said it.**

---

Loving your neighbor as yourself is something that YOU do.
Doing unto others is something YOU do – BUT what you would have them do unto you is something THEY do.
The Golden rule is clearly based on the passage from Tobit and NOT Leviticus.

 

[BrianH]

Sorry, Brian. This is weak - REALLY weak.

---

We are talking about the wording here, not simply similar meanings. If we were going merely from simple meaning - we could attribute some of what Jesus said to Hinduism and Buddhism.

---

“Love your neighbor as yourself” is NOT** the same as* “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.”***
NOTHING** Jesus said was wasted, for he is Truth itself. Jesus chose his words carefully and knew***** exactly***** that what he said would be known immediately by those to whom he said it.**

---

Loving your neighbor as yourself is something that YOU do.
Doing unto others is something YOU do – BUT what you would have them do unto you is something THEY do.
The Golden rule is clearly based on the passage from Tobit and NOT** Leviticus.**

But Christ himself says that it is the Law and the Prophets. Christ says where the teaching originates from. You are are not arguing with me but Christ. I believe Christ. You did not deal with that.
As far as your defense, no. It is from the Law because Christ said it was. It is about how you treat others. It is looking externally and involves a reciprocal relationship even in the Law. The Law was meant for both parties as well.

 

[BrianH]

As far as the wording

Tobit 4:15: Do that to no man which thou hatest: drink not wine to make thee drunken: neither let drunkenness go with thee in thy journey.

Mat 7:12 "Do for others what you would like them to do for you. This is a summary of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.

Tobit is advocating the same meaning but the wording is completely reversed. It is arguing for the same thing. Matthew says to do for others similiar to Leviticus. Tobit says do not do to someone what you hate. Its a similar concept but the wording is not the same at all.

 

[answermethis]

:knight2:

I have a 1611 edition with those books; it is not a question if the books existed, we know they do, but if they are the WORD, if they are, then we should not believe anything God has said because these books, which were used as “devotionals”, not inspired of God, contain errors and that is easily proved. the Catholic Church allowed their priests at one time to teach then as devotionals or spiritual lessons or to treat them as Scripture; it was their choice. It was until later that it became etched in stone in order to combat the reformers on issues like praying to saints for example…:dancing:

“Devotionals?”
You do not have a clear understanding of the history of Christ’s Church.

Again all Bibles from the time the Bible was first formally canonized contained both the Deuterocanonical and the Protocanonical books and they, along with the NT books that the Church selected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are held to be the Word of God.

You seem to dishonor Christ. Are you claiming that He was such a poor teacher that the Church he founded was not able to organize His Bible.
Are you claiming that He would allow His Church to spread error in His Name during the formative years?
He claimed that He would build His Church. You appear to claim His Will was insufficient to guide His own Church until Martin Luther… not!:knight1:

 

[answermethis]

I trust in the power of Christ to lead His Church on earth.
Christ never promised His followers a book to guide them.
Christ promised His Church. His Church was His Church before His Bible was His Bible. Yes, the Church I belong to predates the Bible.
I have complete confidence in My Master and His abilility to lead. If I would have been in charge of building His Church things would have been different (thank God that Christ was). As it is, I will follow Christ and His Church here on earth. Since the Church of Christ has long ago decided on the canon, I will accept that canon and no other.:knight1:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Masters Servant;6518936]I have a 1611 edition with those books; it is not a question if the books existed, we know they do, but if they are the WORD, if they are, then we should not believe anything God has said because these books, which were used as “devotionals”, not inspired of God, contain errors and that is easily proved.

What a remarkable statement; Let me get this straight;

1. Do you know where you got your 1611 edition? Copied from the Catholic Church which contained the whole cannon of bible books.

2.Do you know who removed the 7 books 1700 years later? The “Infallible” Protestants who never existed when the original cannon was placed by the Catholic Church.

3.The Catholic Church approved these 7 books as inspired of God, who lied to you and told you we just used them as devotionals? All the Canon (bible) books are used in our Liturgies. The whole context of the bible is used as devotionals especially when we pray our Rosaries which is praying the Gospels fulfilled in the Law and prophets. Don’t confuse the Catholic prayer life in Confraternity with Liturgy worship. Before making outrageous claims please know the difference.

1. If you believe these books contain error can provide an authoritative source which proves it?
2. If you believe these books contain error why do protestants keep them in their bibles?
3. Unless you have an Infallible teacher on earth to reveal to you what is inspired of God and what is not. Don’t be too fast to reject what God has approved as his inspired Word. Could you prove where these books are in error from your infallible interpretation? Interesting how a power and principality is addressed in the number 6 column.

the Catholic Church allowed their priests at one time to teach then as devotionals or spiritual lessons or to treat them as Scripture; it was their choice. It was until later that it became etched in stone in order to combat the reformers on issues like praying to saints for example…:dancing:

According to your understanding; The Catholic Church denied these books as inspired of God, and to be used as devotionals? and then gave Catholic priests a choice to treat them as inspired of God or not? Are you for real?

Then you believe that the Catholic Church changed her mind to make these books inspired of God (“etched in stone”) “in order to combat the reformers” about a 2000 year old Apostolic, biblical teaching in the “communion of saints”?

What is it that would make you say such outlandish fallacy against the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is built on Rock, she can never change. How can the body of Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church remove what is inspired of God?

I hope not to change this topic, but your statements are misleading to some who don’t know about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[answermethis]

What a remarkable statement; Let me get this straight;

1. Do you know where you got your 1611 edition? Copied from the Catholic Church which contained the whole cannon of bible books.

2.Do you know who removed the 7 books 1700 years later? The “Infallible” Protestants who never existed when the original cannon was placed by the Catholic Church.

3.The Catholic Church approved these 7 books as inspired of God, who lied to you and told you we just used them as devotionals? All the Canon (bible) books are used in our Liturgies. The whole context of the bible is used as devotionals especially when we pray our Rosaries which is praying the Gospels fulfilled in the Law and prophets. Don’t confuse the Catholic prayer life in Confraternity with Liturgy worship. Before making outrageous claims please know the difference.

1. If you believe these books contain error can provide an authoritative source which proves it?
2. If you believe these books contain error why do protestants keep them in their bibles?
3. Unless you have an Infallible teacher on earth to reveal to you what is inspired of God and what is not. Don’t be too fast to reject what God has approved as his inspired Word. Could you prove where these books are in error from your infallible interpretation? Interesting how a power and principality is addressed in the number 6 column.

According to your understanding; The Catholic Church denied these books as inspired of God, and to be used as devotionals? and then gave Catholic priests a choice to treat them as inspired of God or not? Are you for real?

Then you believe that the Catholic Church changed her mind to make these books inspired of God (“etched in stone”) “in order to combat the reformers” about a 2000 year old Apostolic, biblical teaching in the “communion of saints”?

What is it that would make you say such outlandish fallacy against the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is built on Rock, she can never change. How can the body of Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church remove what is inspired of God?

I hope not to change this topic, but your statements are misleading to some who don’t know about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

:knight1:That pretty much sums it up.

 

[guanophore]

In the BEGINNING was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was GOD. What God said in Scripture, which is the voice of God was well decided before your extra books were added to combat the reformers;

For someone who claims to know so much, sometimes you amaze me with statements like this.

Jesus and the Apostles used the Alexandrian Septuagint. That is why the Church adopted this collection of Holy Writings. The references in them of the Messiah were disurbing for the Jews who rejected Christ, so they left them out when they created a canon. The Church, however, has always had these books in the canon, and pronouced as much in382 when the canon was closed for the NT. If you do not accept them, then you have no reason to accept the NT either, since they were both authorized at the same time, by the same source.

 for the WORD contains no error, but those extra's do and you actually know that which begs the question; do you believe the Word is without error?  If so, then why do you refer to books with error as from God.  You can have it both ways with man, but never with God..right? :thumbsup:

The Bible was not intended to be a scientific textbook. It’s inerrancy exists with regard to the revelation of God. People have found plenty of what they consider historical and scientific “errors”. It does not mean that the Word of God contains errors.

Your task is to explain away why the Apostles used these books, and why Jesus was too weak and disinterested in the Truth to communicate to His Church that they were not part of Scripture for 1500 years. Why did God have to wait for a rebellious monk to make this pronouncement? Why did He allow the Church to be in error all that time? What made Him fall down on the job?

 

[guanophore]

John 16:7-15 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 12 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 ***However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. ***15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Quite a leap from speaking to His disciples to your church.

Only if you are unable to recognize that this statement was made to the Church. Jesus is alone with His Apostles, those He ordained, and those that He would send out with His own authority. This promise was not made to them as individuals, but to them as a collective. Once any one person leaves the Church, the promise to be led into all Truth is forfeited. Triuth exists in the unity.

 So was Jesus lying when He told these "uneducated and lowly disciples" the following?:

John 14:25-27 25 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Not a bit! He was speaking to His church. We can all benefit from these promises, to the extent that we are in unity with His One Body, the Church.

 This also demonstrates who the true interpreter of Scripture is among other passages and as easily observed in the world; every place in the world this lack of knowledge of the Word of God is displayed, every place. Some place more concentrated than others.

I think what you are saying is that, since Catholics understand this passage differently than you do, that we do not hear the voice of God.

 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because **God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, **:thumbsup:

All of these people are in unity with the Apostolic succession. Those who departed from it were considered separated from the Church.

This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. :thumbsup:

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Does this relate to the topic?

 

[guanophore]

They have known errors; does god error?

The fac that you disagree with the contents does not mean the books contain errors. It means that you have received a truncated version of the gospel, and do not recognize the Truth because your spiritual ancestors became separated from it about 500 years ago.

Every generation seems tobecome more and more separated from the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

But Christ himself says that it is the Law and the Prophets. Christ says where the teaching originates from. You are are not arguing with me but Christ. I believe Christ. You did not deal with that.
As far as your defense, no. It is from the Law because Christ said it was. It is about how you treat others. It is looking externally and involves a reciprocal relationship even in the Law. The Law was meant for both parties as well.

Tobit was considered to be one of the Prophets. I dont’ think what Tobit wrote was in any way separated from what was written in the Law. Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Deuterocanonicals, and Jesus affirmed the authenticty of them.

 

[guanophore]

I have a 1611 edition with those books; it is not a question if the books existed, we know they do, but if they are the WORD, if they are, then we should not believe anything God has said because these books, which were used as “devotionals”, not inspired of God, contain errors and that is easily proved. the Catholic Church allowed their priests at one time to teach then as devotionals or spiritual lessons or to treat them as Scripture; it was their choice.

You have it backwards, Servant. This was the attitude of the REFORMERS for the Deuterocanonicals.Since 382 when the canon was closed by the Church, no non-canonical books have been permitted during Divine Liturgy. Yet, the Deuterocanonicals have been used in the Liturgy all this time. That alone is proof that they were considered Scripture by the church.

It was until later that it became etched in stone in order to combat the reformers on issues like praying to saints for example…:dancing:

It is true that the Church "etches in stone’ doctrinal pronouncements that are needed when heresies are rampant. She declared Mary the Theotokos to combat heresies, named and defined the Trinity, defined the hypostatic union, and closed the canon in 382 to prevent the faithful from getting off track. None of these teachings of the Apostles were “new”, but were declared hundreds of years later inorder to make it clear that those who rejected them were in a state of heresy.

At the Council of Trent, the Latin Church pronounced what was never questioned by the Eastern Church, that the Deuterocanonicals are part of the inspired canon. This was done because heresy was rampant in Europe, and it was necessary to make a clear delineation of what has always been held by the Church as true.

 

[answermethis]

You have it backwards, Servant. This was the attitude of the REFORMERS for the Deuterocanonicals.Since 382 when the canon was closed by the Church, no non-canonical books have been permitted during Divine Liturgy. Yet, the Deuterocanonicals have been used in the Liturgy all this time. That alone is proof that they were considered Scripture by the church.

It is true that the Church "etches in stone’ doctrinal pronouncements that are needed when heresies are rampant. She declared Mary the Theotokos to combat heresies, named and defined the Trinity, defined the hypostatic union, and closed the canon in 382 to prevent the faithful from getting off track. None of these teachings of the Apostles were “new”, but were declared hundreds of years later inorder to make it clear that those who rejected them were in a state of heresy.

At the Council of Trent, the Latin Church pronounced what was never questioned by the Eastern Church, that the Deuterocanonicals are part of the inspired canon. This was done because heresy was rampant in Europe, and it was necessary to make a clear delineation of what has always been held by the Church as true.

Thank you! Your explanation was much clearer than mine.:knight2:

 

[Roy5]

I wonder sometimes why we get so uptight about the Bible, and why so many Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, insist that it is the infallible word of God. Frankly, I think Bible worship is a form of idolatry.

 To begin with, the first eleven chapters of Genesis are quite clearly a mixture of legend, fable, parable and myth. Were the stars, the sun and moon made after the creation of the earth? Science suggests otherwise. Yet that is what Genesis 1 says (see Gen 1:14-19). Or, can we really believe that Adam was made from mud, that Eve was made from his rib? Or, that story of Noah. God was sorry that he has created humanity (Gen. 6:7), an apparent mistake God made, so he drowned all the people (including babies and pregnant women, we must assume). But four men built an ark big enough to house and feed all those animals for 150 days (Gen. 8:3) until the waters subsided? Or, that the origin of languages was God's punishment when man tried to build a tower into the sky? Give me a break.

 There is much, much more in the Bible to raise serious questions, even about its morality. Like God commanding Joshua to kill everyone in Jericho, Ai and elsewhere, that God sent Saul to slaughter every last Amalekite, and other horrendous atrocities. Slavery was okay, too, even selling one's daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7).. And re-read some of those bizarre 'rules' (mixed in among some decent ones) as found in Ex. 21, Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23? So many foolish reasons for stoning people to death. How could we worship such a God, especially since we loudly proclaim him a loving and merciful deity? It's sad that millions of Christians still insist that all such stories are true because they're in the Bible.

 This sort of primitive and naive belief is one reason more and more intelligent and educated people are increasingly skeptical of narrow-minded religion, both Catholic or Protestant. Islam, of course, is at least as intolerant, even more so often. Fundamentalism in any form is an enemy of God. Sorry, but that's what I have reluctantly come to believe. And I am dismayed that so many otherwise articulate CAF posters are fundamentalists of one kind or another. They know that they possess the truth and the rest of humankind is wrong. 

 It's time for Christians to recognize that we should be free to use our God-given brains to think for ourselves, differ among ourselves, and respect these differences. There is no sin in disagreeing with one another amiably since the infinite God is well beyond our understanding. That's an important part of God's magnificence and majesty and mystery. I believe it was Harry Emerson Fosdick, the great preacher, who said that he could only believe in a God that he could not possibly understand. Amen.

 God bless all those who seek to increase and broaden their spiritual insight. God doesn't care about our church affiliation or our sectarian doctrines. He does care that we love him and one another. (I say him, but in all likelihood God is beyond gender.)

 Let us work together to make our Christian faith a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Nicea325]

I have a 1611 edition with those books; it is not a question if the books existed, we know they do, but if they are the WORD, if they are, then we should not believe anything God has said because these books, which were used as “devotionals”, not inspired of God, contain errors and that is easily proved. the Catholic Church allowed their priests at one time to teach then as devotionals or spiritual lessons or to treat them as Scripture; it was their choice. It was until later that it became etched in stone in order to combat the reformers on issues like praying to saints for example.

LOL! I love when people show their lack of knowledge about historical facts.

Care to show us where the RCC ALLOWED its priests to teach them as devotionals or treat them as Scripture?

Did the RCC allow its priests to ‘treat’ all the other books of scripture on their own accord?

Time to learn history buddy!

 

[answermethis]

I wonder sometimes why we get so uptight about the Bible, and why so many Christians, Catholics and Protestants both, insist that it is the infallible word of God. Frankly, I think Bible worship is a form of idolatry.

 To begin with, the first eleven chapters of Genesis are quite clearly a mixture of legend, fable, parable and myth. Were the stars, the sun and moon made after the creation of the earth? Science suggests otherwise. Yet that is what Genesis 1 says (see Gen 1:14-19). Or, can we really believe that Adam was made from mud, that Eve was made from his rib? Or, that story of Noah. God was sorry that he has created humanity (Gen. 6:7), an apparent mistake God made, so he drowned all the people (including babies and pregnant women, we must assume). But four men built an ark big enough to house and feed all those animals for 150 days (Gen. 8:3) until the waters subsided? Or, that the origin of languages was God's punishment when man tried to build a tower into the sky? Give me a break.

 There is much, much more in the Bible to raise serious questions, even about its morality. Like God commanding Joshua to kill everyone in Jericho, Ai and elsewhere, that God sent Saul to slaughter every last Amalekite, and other horrendous atrocities. Slavery was okay, too, even selling one's daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7).. And re-read some of those bizarre 'rules' (mixed in among some decent ones) as found in Ex. 21, Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23? So many foolish reasons for stoning people to death. How could we worship such a God, especially since we loudly proclaim him a loving and merciful deity? It's sad that millions of Christians still insist that all such stories are true because they're in the Bible.

 This sort of primitive and naive belief is one reason more and more intelligent and educated people are increasingly skeptical of narrow-minded religion, both Catholic or Protestant. Islam, of course, is at least as intolerant, even more so often. Fundamentalism in any form is an enemy of God. Sorry, but that's what I have reluctantly come to believe. And I am dismayed that so many otherwise articulate CAF posters are fundamentalists of one kind or another. They know that they possess the truth and the rest of humankind is wrong. 

 It's time for Christians to recognize that we should be free to use our God-given brains to think for ourselves, differ among ourselves, and respect these differences. There is no sin in disagreeing with one another amiably since the infinite God is well beyond our understanding. That's an important part of God's magnificence and majesty and mystery. I believe it was Harry Emerson Fosdick, the great preacher, who said that he could only believe in a God that he could not possibly understand. Amen.

 God bless all those who seek to increase and broaden their spiritual insight. God doesn't care about our church affiliation or our sectarian doctrines. He does care that we love him and one another. (I say him, but in all likelihood God is beyond gender.)

 Let us work together to make our Christian faith a bridge and not a barrier.

I quite agree with much of what you say. The Scriptures are often difficult to put a private interpretation to.
Yes, I too believe in a God who is beyond my limited ability to comprehend. The glimpses we do catch can be confusing especially when we look at them thru the “glasses” of history.
I am leaving the whole creation timeline up to others to debate. For me, as long as it is understood that God is the Creator I am content.:knight1:
Amen, I hope that we can draw closer to each other as we come closer to Christ.

 

[BrianH]

Tobit was considered to be one of the Prophets. I dont’ think what Tobit wrote was in any way separated from what was written in the Law. Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Deuterocanonicals, and Jesus affirmed the authenticty of them.

I do not believe we have a “quote”. Can you give me just one that you feel strongly about. I believe there are possibly 3 or 4 possible cases.
Yes, I understand that what Tobit says is in line with the Law and Prophets (whether Tobit is a prophet is another topic, or maybe it is where we should go).

 

[elvisman]

But Christ himself says that it is the Law and the Prophets. Christ says where the teaching originates from. You are are not arguing with me but Christ. I believe Christ. You did not deal with that.
As far as your defense, no. It is from the Law because Christ said it was. It is about how you treat others. It is looking externally and involves a reciprocal relationship even in the Law. The Law was meant for both parties as well.

**Did Christ say that it was the Law OR the Prophets?
He said it was the Law (Leviticus) AND the Prophets (Tobit).

Neither Tobit OR Leviticus says the Golden Rule exactly as Jesus said it - but the wording of Tobit is closer, even though it is in reverse. Jesus reversed it but came out with the same meaning.

 

[BrianH]

**Did Christ say that it was the Law *OR ***the Prophets?
He said it was the Law (Leviticus) AND the Prophets (Tobit).

Neither Tobit OR Leviticus says the Golden Rule exactly as Jesus said it - but the wording of Tobit is closer, even though it is in reverse. Jesus reversed it but came out with the same meaning.

Yes. It is a summary of the Law and the Prophets. Prophets…plural. Its not a direct citation and the wording is not that similiar. But absolutely, the meaning and message is the same. But it is not a case of literary dependence. As I said before, the Deuterocanonicals are not directly quoted in the NT. Can you give an example of where they are? Look, I have read Catholic authors on this topic. The most you get is some possible allusions but no quotes. Now, what else do you wish to discuss?

 

[Nicea325]

**Yes. It is a summary of the Law and the Prophets. Prophets…plural. Its not a direct citation and the wording is not that similiar. But absolutely, the meaning and message is the same. But it is not a case of literary dependence. As I said before, the Deuterocanonicals are not directly quoted in the NT. Can you give an example of where they are? Look, I have read Catholic authors on this topic. The most you get is some possible allusions but no quotes. Now, what else do you wish to discuss? **

The issue of the Deuterocanonicals became more of an issue with the Reformation,like it or not! The early Christian Church used the LXX and even my NIV Study Bible states it. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do some research and let me know if there is any relationship there?

So it has to be an exact quote in order for it to legit? Care to show me where Jesus only adhered to a 39 OT canon? You cannot because there was not set canon during Jesus time. The Sadducees only stuck to the 5 books of Moses and the Pharisees followed more than just 5 books. Protestants act as though Jesus only followed the current Jew/Protestant canon and no where does scripture support such a belief.