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

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you kidding me? or trying to fool somebody here? Come on, you just posted a critique of a letter, you did not mention the whole story; If anyone wants the Truth that refutes BrianH bogos claims here visit this site which includes his small critique. We Catholics love critics because it makes Truth speak louder;
newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia

(1) The letter of Aristeas is certainly apocryphal. The writer, who calls himself Aristeas and says he is a Greek and a pagan, shows by his whole work that he is a pious, zealous Jew: he recognizes the God of the Jews as the one true God; he declares that God is the author of the Mosaic law; he is an enthusiastic admirer of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish land and people, and its holy laws and learned men.
(2) The account as given in the letter must be regarded as fabulous and legendary, at least in several parts. Some of the details, such as the official intervention of the king and the high priest, the number of the seventy-two translators, the seventy-two questions they had to answer, the seventy-two days they took for their work, are clearly arbitrary assertions

Jesus and the Apostles quote from the LXX but they also quote from the MT as well. There are also quotes that do not line up to any existing text.

 

[Nicea325]

Are you kidding me? or trying to fool somebody here? Come on, you just posted a critique of a letter, you did not mention the whole story; If anyone wants the Truth that refutes BrianH bogos claims here visit this site which includes his small critique. We Catholics love critics because it makes Truth speak louder;
newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

**I fear your opinions are not holding up to water here. Jesus teachings and the Apostles oral and written testimony from the New Testament gives credence to the Septuagint and the DC books, because these Divine revelations are spoken of from the DC books and the Septuagint. If your holding your faith to those tangible things, you appear to be aspiring to the faith of the flesh only?

 

[BrianH]

Hello Brian! On another note,quick question? Does the United Methodist Church have clergy? Does your Christian tradition accept or reject Sola Scriptura? What about women as pastors?

These are not questions to start a fight,but merely to understand your Christian Church and its traditions. Thanks!

BTW: I work at local Catholic Church as a Director of Catechetical Ministry located in So.Cal and we have an interfaith food pantry with the local United Methodist Church. The folks from the Methodist Church who come and pick-up the food seem to be more interested what we believe and teach as Catholics,instead of attacking us. Really nice folks. Nothing nicer than ecumenical dialogue with mutual respect.

God Bless

Yes.
Reject.
Yes.
Absolutely. Sounds like a very important and helpful job. Yes, we go to the Catholic Church every year and speak to the priest at confirmation.

 

[BrianH]

Are you kidding me? or trying to fool somebody here? Come on, you just posted a critique of a letter, you did not mention the whole story; If anyone wants the Truth that refutes BrianH bogos claims here visit this site which includes his small critique. We Catholics love critics because it makes Truth speak louder;
newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

I fear your opinions are not holding up to water here. Jesus teachings and the Apostles oral and written testimony from the New Testament gives credence to the Septuagint and the DC books, because these Divine revelations are spoken of from the DC books and the Septuagint. If your holding your faith to those tangible things, you appear to be aspiring to the faith of the flesh only?

 

[answermethis]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

My apologies, I forgot to thank you for helping me better understand how this all happened.:knight1:

 

[elvisman]

**Mat 16:19 **And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." *

Wisdom 16:13 *For it is thou, O Lord, that hast power of life and death *

None of the same words appear in English or more importantly the Greek. The power to bound in heaven is not the ability to give someone life. The ability to loose something on earth is not the ability give someone life either. In other words, not only are the words not the same, the concepts are different. It is not literary dependence or even the same idea.
And the concept of God having power over life and death is once again in the OT. It is also well known that the power to loose and bind is referring to Isaiah if anything.

Hmmm . . . so let me get this straight.
**When the Protestant wants to attribute multiple a references to a verse - that’s just fine. BUT, when the Catholic does - it’s just not right. That is ludicrous and you know it.

Binding and loosing IS a DIRECT reference to Isaiah 22. It is also a reference, more indirectly to Wisdom 16:13 - especially when it is buttressed by the reference to the gate of the netherworld (hades).

Can you please address the other verse I gave you - in order, beginning with the “armor of God”?

 

[BrianH]

Hmmm . . . so let me get this straight.
When the Protestant wants to attribute multiple a references to a verse - that’s just fine. BUT, when the Catholic does - it’s just not right. That is *ludicrous *and you know it.

Binding and loosing IS a DIRECT reference to Isaiah 22. It is also a reference, more indirectly to Wisdom 16:13 - especially when it is buttressed by the reference to the gate of the netherworld (hades).

Can you please address the other verse I gave you - in order, beginning with the “armor of God”?

I am not sure what you mean about multiple references. IF I have been inconsistent, point it out to me. I did not think I have. Yes, I will get to the other ones. It takes longer than you might think to see if there is an earlier source in the OT, look at the Greek, etc. I will not blow you off. But I also got back from gym supervision at church and in a horrible mood about my second getting bullied by a punk next door. But I will get to all of them and if we have a match, I will always be the first to admit when I am wrong.
I will say that in my cursory look I did not see any direct quotations. Allusions are more difficult to say yay or nay on. I feel comfortable in my nays so far though.

 

[elvisman]

I am not sure what you mean about multiple references. IF I have been inconsistent, point it out to me. I did not think I have. Yes, I will get to the other ones. It takes longer than you might think to see if there is an earlier source in the OT, look at the Greek, etc. I will not blow you off. But I also got back from gym supervision at church and in a horrible mood about my second getting bullied by a punk next door. But I will get to all of them and if we have a match, I will always be the first to admit when I am wrong.
I will say that in my cursory look I did not see any direct quotations. Allusions are more difficult to say yay or nay on. I feel comfortable in my nays so far though.

Sorry you’re having a bad day.
My daughter was the victim of bullies a couple of years ago, so I can sympathize.
Take your time.

 

[Masters_Servant]

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.

If you actually read the books in light of Scripture you would recognize the errors, but you can do your own homework; I won’t do it for you. Second; ask Guanophore if the Apocrypha was used as either/or Scripture or as devotional until it was officially canonized by your church at the Council of Trent in response to the reformation; again I will not do your homework.

Even the intro in some of the Catholic Bibles will minimize and admit some of the discrepancies. But you are using your line of questioning to avert the real issue. If you found that the Apocrypha contained errors, then would you still consider it the Word of God? That is the core issue; the errors are not hard to discover and if you look at the late canonization on a universal level; not any specific church or regional councils, then you will see a different history; one you may not want to see nor acknowledge.

Jerome, whom you so admire when he speaks in your perceived favor is a good guy, but he spoke loudly about the Apocrypha as not being inspired; perhaps he knew about the error.

The only one misleading are the folks the head in the sand and don’t truly desire to work; which is why Jesus said “strive to enter through the narrow gate”, strive is where we get the word agonize; it takes work and hard work and most will easily make a profession and go through some motions, but few are willing to put the hammer down and get to work.

Talk with a Pre Vat II Catholic if you want to know about “change” w/in your church; they will be happy to give you ear fulls; but maybe they are not considered Catholic. I know two neighbors that have this discussion with each other and it is always a good time to hear them hash it out even though I disagree with both of them on almost every issue.

 

[Masters_Servant]

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.

Regional, not universal Mr. Transparent. And you were there to know what Jesus used; yet the NT wasn’t written and He did not need to use anything written when He taught His disciples; a bucket full of holes trying to hold water.

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?

AKA: I believe it contains error - thanks for showing your transparency and if you could demonstrate this to Gabriel12; that would be most appreciated as I told him you would be the one to go to.

I promise not to bug you any longer; it is obvious to me that you do not really believe the Word of God, which I already suspected, but now you have verified. So I will not bother you any longer I know with certainty where you stand in relation to the Living Word based on your own testimony.

Enjoy this life and I pray the wind will blow your way…amen
God bless!

MS

 

[Dancelittleewok]

If you actually read the books in light of Scripture you would recognize the errors, but you can do your own homework; I won’t do it for you. Second; ask Guanophore if the Apocrypha was used as either/or Scripture or as devotional until it was officially canonized by your church at the Council of Trent in response to the reformation; again I will not do your homework.

See post 188 for a refutation of “it’s only devotional” reasoning.

 

[Masters_Servant]

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.

Try reading them in light of Scripture and will will see the errors…maybe?
But I doubt that would deter you if you saw the error; you would still claim it is the word of God…am I right? Yes or No

 

[answermethis]

I know this is a simple question but…
Is there a resource to prove that the Protocanonical books can be ascribed authority by the rules laid out for the Deuterocanonical books to have authority? If so where can I find it?

 

[Masters_Servant]

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.

See previous post; you are citing a regional council as your source as proof; why bring the 5th part of the God head into the discussion?

Keep the faithful off track by approving Bibles in a language (Latin) they could not understand, including many of the priest, then murdering those that put it in the vernacular despite what God said about Who teaches? Being at the mercy of men; just as it is today IMO; since their is a claim to a one true interpreter, your church, as though a simple educated person couldn’t get it right nor a highly educated could get it right; yet God says He chose: 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; *The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. ***
**
Psalm 19 has a great section describing the nature of Scripture. you should try reading it and Psalm 119 if you want the expanded version.

What is the weakness of the HS that He cannot perform what He was sent to perform?

Also, you need to look at the intro to the 1611 KJV where it states the Apocrypha is not inspired by God, which it isn’t.

Do you believe it is inspired by God? If there were known geographical, chronological and/or doctrinal errors, such as alms atoning for sin; would you believe it to be inspired by God? If yes, then why. If no, then why.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If you actually read the books in light of Scripture you would recognize the errors, but you can do your own homework; I won’t do it for you. Second; ask Guanophore if the Apocrypha was used as either/or Scripture or as devotional until it was officially canonized by your church at the Council of Trent in response to the reformation; again I will not do your homework.

Even the intro in some of the Catholic Bibles will minimize and admit some of the discrepancies. But you are using your line of questioning to avert the real issue. If you found that the Apocrypha contained errors, then would you still consider it the Word of God? That is the core issue; the errors are not hard to discover and if you look at the late canonization on a universal level; not any specific church or regional councils, then you will see a different history; one you may not want to see nor acknowledge.

Thank you, you just posted reasons above why I hang around these non catholic forums. To inform the misinformed about my Catholic faith. I can only summarize here, because you gave no specifics. The Catholic Church has never changed period. What many attest to change are her cultures, languages, and disciplines but never her doctrine. Yet I find when those who protest Truth in the Catholic faith, tend to move their arguments into other subjects in search of something negative to offer off topic, just as you have done.

I think you protestants should be aware of this phenomenon

 

[BrianH]

The Magnificat is based upon Hannah’s prayer in 1st Samual chapter two

1Sa 2:1-10 And Hannah prayed and said: "My heart rejoices in the LORD; My horn is exalted in the LORD. I smile at my enemies, Because I rejoice in Your salvation. No one is holy like the LORD, For [there is] none besides You, Nor [is there] any rock like our God. "Talk no more so very proudly; Let no arrogance come from your mouth, For the LORD [is] the God of knowledge; And by Him actions are weighed.
"The bows of the mighty men [are] broken, And those who stumbled are girded with strength. [Those who were] full have hired themselves out for bread, And the hungry have ceased [to hunger]. Even the barren has borne seven, And she who has many children has become feeble. "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up.
The LORD makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up. He raises the poor from the dust [And] lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set [them] among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. "For the pillars of the earth [are] the LORD’s, And He has set the world upon them. He will guard the feet of His saints, But the wicked shall be silent in darkness. "For by strength no man shall prevail. The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken in pieces; From heaven He will thunder against them. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth. “He will give strength to His king, And exalt the horn of His anointed.” *

**Luke 1:47-55 **"*My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, And holy [is] His name.
And His mercy [is] on those who fear Him From generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered [the] proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from [their] thrones, And exalted [the] lowly. He has filled [the] hungry with good things, And [the] rich He has sent away empty. He has helped His servant Israel, In remembrance of [His] mercy, As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his seed forever." *

The passage you gave certainly parallels a very common theme in the OT. It certainly is not a direct quotation as such but it indeed does reflect a common theme. However the Magnificat is almost always associated with Hannah’s prayer in Samual. I think that Sirach certainly parallels this as well.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I believe that the differences revealed here is not necessarily the bible books.

The differences is placed on “Authority”.

Protestants look to man (Martin Luther x Catholic monk biblical scholar) to arrive at their truth about the matter of books. Including opinions from historians, critics and some biblical scholars of late.

While Catholics have always placed her emphasis on Truth based on what Jesus revealed and what is written in the bible;

**1Timothy 3:14 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
**

So the question really is not the books, but by who’s authority does one arrive at ones Truth? Is it men like Martin Luther and others who removed 7 books or denied them as God breathed by relabeling them not inspired of God when Martin Luther attached “Apochrypha” to them?

Or does one follow the scriptures when it specifically states “The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth”.

Then we come to the matter on defining what the Church is? And we know according to scripture is the body of Jesus Christ, ahd Jesus is the head. She is visible fully human, and Truth fully divine. The Church is never one person. Please don’t argue that the Pope is the Church, the Pope is One shepherd of many in the Church not the Church herself.

peace be with you

 

[Nicea325]

Yes.
Reject.
Yes.
Absolutely. Sounds like a very important and helpful job. Yes, we go to the Catholic Church every year and speak to the priest at confirmation.

Hello Brian! May you please elaborate on your reference about speaking to the priest at confirmation?

 

[Masters_Servant]

I believe that the differences revealed here is not necessarily the bible books.

The differences is placed on “Authority”.

Protestants look to man (Martin Luther x Catholic monk biblical scholar) to arrive at their truth about the matter of books. Including opinions from historians, critics and some biblical scholars of late.

While Catholics have always placed her emphasis on Truth based on what Jesus revealed and what is written in the bible;

1Timothy 3:14 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

So the question really is not the books, but by who’s authority does one arrive at ones Truth? Is it men like Martin Luther and others who removed 7 books or denied them as God breathed by relabeling them not inspired of God when Martin Luther attached “Apochrypha” to them?

Or does one follow the scriptures when it specifically states “The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth”.

Then we come to the matter on defining what the Church is? And we know according to scripture is the body of Jesus Christ, ahd Jesus is the head. She is visible fully human, and Truth fully divine. The Church is never one person. Please don’t argue that the Pope is the Church, the Pope is One shepherd of many in the Church not the Church herself.

peace be with you

 

[BrianH]

Hello Brian! May you please elaborate on your reference about speaking to the priest at confirmation?

Our 8th graders visit the cathedral next door and visit with the priest. They also go to the Orthodox Church, a messianic congregation, and usually go to a African American congregation that has a dramatically different worship style. The priest talks about the Catholic Church and answers the same questions every year “Why so many statues of Mary”, “a question about the Pope” and sometimes a purgatory one…sometimes. Kids always have the same questions it seems.