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

[Masters_Servant]

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?

The Jews rejected them as Scripture and they were experts on the Scripture, but could not recognize their Savior, so they were not as expert in that sense for sure.

 

[Masters_Servant]

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

Ask a pre Vat II Catholic about the subject. Or are they not Catholic?

Notice how you keep from answering the core issue, which is this. If you knew there were errors in the Apocrypha; would you consider it the Word of God? Yes I would because… or no I would not because God does not make error in His Word? Answer the question.

 

[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

If Christ is the Head and He is; why do you need a Pope? The church building is fully visible; but are you saying you know who the “elect of God” are? Scriptures says the whole creations WAITS for the revealing of the Sons of God"; so reconcile you visibility statement with God’s Word.

 

[Nicea325]

If Christ is the Head and He is; why do you need a Pope? The church building is fully visible; but are you saying you know who the “elect of God” are? Scriptures says the whole creations WAITS for the revealing of the Sons of God"; so reconcile you visibility statement with God’s Word.

Then why bother to pick 12? Look at the chaos so many on-Catholic churches have internally? No authority,but democractic in nature. Sorry,Jesus did not preach democracy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ask a pre Vat II Catholic about the subject. Or are they not Catholic?

Notice how you keep from answering the core issue, which is this. If you knew there were errors in the Apocrypha; would you consider it the Word of God? Yes I would because… or no I would not because God does not make error in His Word? Answer the question.

I have asked; I have 2 cousins who are active pre vatican II priests. These are seeking communion back with the Pope. Their issues are not doctrinal, their issues relate to conformity of the Mass disciplines that Vatican II gave “Permission” for other nations to hear the Gospel in their native tongues. This permission is not a solid footing, it can be retracted from nations such as the U.S from saying Mass in the vernacular, if the U.S continue to allow abuse in the sacred Liturgy, abuses may place them back to pre-Vatican II.

The pre vatican II reject the permission granted nations to hear the Gospel message in Liturgy, does this sound reasonable? Although, Latinist are gaining ground back into the Liturgies in the U.S, because the Pope is approving or allowing the Latin Mass to be celebrated provided these priests are in full communion with the authority of the Pope. And keep the Traditions set by the Latin Mass. In fact we have a new ordained priest in our Parish, who sings in both Greek and Latin.

In daily Mass, practically half of the Mass is said in Latin from our new priest.

That said, The disciplines in the Church are subject to change but her doctrines are built on “Rock” which can never change. There is a difference here, because what one may view change in a solemn Mass, is not a change in Apostolic teaching, but change in cultures, vestments and languages. These are subject to change.

Pre vatican II priests are in schism with the authority of the Pope and their valid holy orders. This is not to say they are seperated in doctrine as protestants are.

It is not up to me, or any biblical scholar to refute what God has joined together. Show me a man who can seperate what God has joined together and I will reveal to you a devil. The supposed error’s found come from an individual’s interpretation from what is seen to the sceptics eyes. When these are grounded in dust or the physical, Faith begins.

To answer your question there are no errors in the canonized books of the bible as far as the full deposit of faith is concerned. Show me an error and I can show you faith.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If Christ is the Head and He is; why do you need a Pope? The church building is fully visible; but are you saying you know who the “elect of God” are?

Yes scripture and Apostolic Tradition with history reveals Jesus building his church upon Peter (Mt.16:15-18) and then upon the college of the Apostles. This holds true today where we have a Pope with unbroken apostolic succession to Peter, in communion with all the college of Bishops world wide as one body of believers. These are the shepherds united to one head Jesus Christ. Because Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and reigns from heaven binding and loosing what his Prime minister or Vicar the Pope binds and loose on earth. Peter and his successors remain here to hold fast the faithful to the Apostolic teachings of Jesus Christ. We find this from history when ouir first 30+ popes were all martyred for keeping the faith even until death.

Scriptures says the whole creations WAITS for the revealing of the Sons of God"; so reconcile you visibility statement with God’s Word.

What you touch on here is the Apostolic doctrinal teaching in the communion of Saints. When the Church Triumphant (Saints, martyrs) in heaven will be united once again with the Church militant (saints (believers) on earth) will be united in the final judgement day of the Lord in his “parousia” second coming.

Although, the second coming is not yet, we still maintain a communion with the Heaven through our head Jesus Christ. Jesus who reconciles all God’s children both in heaven on earth and under the earth to himself, when all these will bend their knee before the name of Jesus as we do in every Mass when heaven and earth are joined in the eternal liturgy of heaven with angels, saints in festival gathering with the first born Jesus Christ.

I don’t mean to linger here, but there is much more to reveal; So I will conclude with this;

Without the True presence of Jesus Christ body, blood soul and divinity, you are never the body of Jesus Christ.

 

[answermethis]

The Jews rejected them as Scripture and they were experts on the Scripture, but could not recognize their Savior, so they were not as expert in that sense for sure.

Which Jews rejected them since they were contained within the Septuagint? These “Jews” then did not have the inspiration of the Holy Spirit enough to recognize the Messiah how then are they enough of an authority to be recognized to lead the Church in discerning scripture that is inspired, infallible and profitable for the Church?

Since it at appears that the determining process for so many is direct quotation…
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?:knight1:

 

[answermethis]

Since the canon of “Jewish scriptures” was not officially established at the time of Christ, why should the Church of Christ accept that the Deuterocanonical scriptures are not inspired, infallible and profitable for the people of God. Also, since some of the disputed scriptures have been found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea scrolls, the argument that they were not known to the Hebrew speaking Jews or at least in that form for use during religious services no longer seems relevant.

 

[answermethis]

Who has the authority to decide which of the scriptures are profitable, inspired and infallible so that we neither look to writings that are misleading or overlook writings that are the Word of God.

 

[answermethis]

:knight2:

 

[elvisman]

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.

**Yes - I can see some similarities but I still feel the Sirach 10 verse **conveys Mary’s quote more accurately.

Any luck on that “Armor of God” passage? That was the opne I wanted you to answer firs*t.*
And, on this one - don’t give me simple OT “themes”. I want specifics.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

If Christ is the Head and He is; why do you need a Pope? The church building is fully visible; but are you saying you know who the “elect of God” are? Scriptures says the whole creations WAITS for the revealing of the Sons of God"; so reconcile you visibility statement with God’s Word.

More irrelevant red-herrings. If you’d like to discuss the Pope and any other subject you’ve tried to derail this thread with, please create a different thread.

 

[BrianH]

Yes - I can see some similarities but I still feel the Sirach 10 verse conveys Mary’s quote more accurately.

Any luck on that "Armor of God" passage? That was the opne I wanted you to answer* firs*t.
And, on this one - don’t give me simple OT “themes”. I want specifics.

Simple?
Yes. You told me to answer them in order and so I of course am not. You dont tell me what to do
But I will answer them all.
I can tell you already none of these are direct quotations. If they are allusions, it will simply reflect a familiarity with the work. In fact, if not stated the same as other direct quotations, it actually works against this argument because it does not say it is scripture.
But I will get to them all. I will tell you that I lean strongly towards it being an allusion at this time from my cursory examination but it was cursory so far.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Then why bother to pick 12? Look at the chaos so many on-Catholic churches have internally? No authority,but democractic in nature. Sorry,Jesus did not preach democracy.

Jesus picked the 12 or if you prefer; God picked the 12; He did not pick a pope - you are comparing Apples to Oranges according to my faith, which is that of Jesus.

 

[Masters_Servant]

I have asked; I have 2 cousins who are active pre vatican II priests. These are seeking communion back with the Pope. Their issues are not doctrinal, their issues relate to conformity of the Mass disciplines that Vatican II gave “Permission” for other nations to hear the Gospel in their native tongues. This permission is not a solid footing, it can be retracted from nations such as the U.S from saying Mass in the vernacular, if the U.S continue to allow abuse in the sacred Liturgy, abuses may place them back to pre-Vatican II.

The pre vatican II reject the permission granted nations to hear the Gospel message in Liturgy, does this sound reasonable? Although, Latinist are gaining ground back into the Liturgies in the U.S, because the Pope is approving or allowing the Latin Mass to be celebrated provided these priests are in full communion with the authority of the Pope. And keep the Traditions set by the Latin Mass. In fact we have a new ordained priest in our Parish, who sings in both Greek and Latin.

In daily Mass, practically half of the Mass is said in Latin from our new priest.

That said, The disciplines in the Church are subject to change but her doctrines are built on “Rock” which can never change. There is a difference here, because what one may view change in a solemn Mass, is not a change in Apostolic teaching, but change in cultures, vestments and languages. These are subject to change.

Pre vatican II priests are in schism with the authority of the Pope and their valid holy orders. This is not to say they are seperated in doctrine as protestants are.

It is not up to me, or any biblical scholar to refute what God has joined together. Show me a man who can seperate what God has joined together and I will reveal to you a devil. The supposed error’s found come from an individual’s interpretation from what is seen to the sceptics eyes. When these are grounded in dust or the physical, Faith begins.

To answer your question there are no errors in the canonized books of the bible as far as the full deposit of faith is concerned. Show me an error and I can show you faith.

Then they are not Pre Vat II and I don’t believe you based on what you said they said. Pre Vat II Catholics look at all post Vat I popes as “anti-popes” and do not even recognize them because of the many changes including doctrine. One example, pre vat II; if you are not a Catholic you are damned, post Vat II you don’t necessarily have to be Catholic and even the Muslims can be saved based on that they associate with the god of Abraham. That is a MAJOR change and a NEW doctrine not previously taught.It is the kinder , gentler, Catholic church…

Perhaps we are better off not staying on this particular topic. Google pre Vat II catholic believes and you will find more information if you really care to know the truth. But for this thread we better get back to track.

**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? **

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Then they are not Pre Vat II and I don’t believe you based on what you said they said. Pre Vat II Catholics look at all post Vat I popes as “anti-popes” and do not even recognize them because of the many changes including doctrine.

These are sedevantists whom believe that the chair or “sede” of Peter is empty --there’s actually quite a variety of traditional Catholics out there. Check out the “Traditional Catholicism” forums here. Sedevantists are in the minority and certainly not the defining feature of “Pre-Vat” Catholicism. The Church hasn’t changed; I agree with Gabe 12.

Perhaps we are better off not staying on this particular topic. Google pre Vat II catholic believes and you will find more information if you really care to know the truth. But for this thread we better get back to track.

Funny, since, you brought this subject yourself and now want us on track…

**

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?

**First, you must define are the errors–is it pretty much everything that looks remotely Catholic or something more?

 

[Masters_Servant]

What you touch on here is the Apostolic doctrinal teaching in the communion of Saints. When the Church Triumphant (Saints, martyrs) in heaven will be united once again with the Church militant (saints (believers) on earth) will be united in the final judgement day of the Lord in his “parousia” second coming.

Although, the second coming is not yet, we still maintain a communion with the Heaven through our head Jesus Christ. Jesus who reconciles all God’s children both in heaven on earth and under the earth to himself, when all these will bend their knee before the name of Jesus as we do in every Mass when heaven and earth are joined in the eternal liturgy of heaven with angels, saints in festival gathering with the first born Jesus Christ.

I don’t mean to linger here, but there is much more to reveal; So I will conclude with this;

Without the True presence of Jesus Christ body, blood soul and divinity, you are never the body of Jesus Christ.

You ignored the core; you claimed visibility with unity; that is not what you gave any evidence of. To do so would to claim to know the elect. Just as it is a sin to presume to know you are saved; yet the church then turns around and declares one a saint. So they cannot know if they are saved, but they can know that someone else is? I see lots of issues with that. But to answer as to why this is, the majority of saints came before the doctrine of presumption=damnation, which is why there exists the obvious contradiction. Although John Paul II canonized many many saints in almost every country He visited as though He knew, it was more political posturing to bring universality into the Church, which is one of the arguments and problems Pre Vat II Catholics have.

Paul made it clear in very clear terms that the Lord’s supper is eating braking and eating of bread as a remembrance of His broken Body for the Christian sake. I find it interesting that it was Paul, who was not there that God used to make it clear. But this is our differences in interpreters.

 

[blazerdave]

St. Paul also said that it was a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ

 

[Masters_Servant]

These are sedevantists whom believe that the chair or “sede” of Peter is empty --there’s actually quite a variety of traditional Catholics out there. Check out the “Traditional Catholicism” forums here. Sedevantists are in the minority and certainly not the defining feature of “Pre-Vat” Catholicism. The Church hasn’t changed; I agree with Gabe 12.
Funny, since, you brought this subject yourself and now want us on track…

****First, you must define are the errors–is it pretty much everything that looks remotely Catholic or something more?

No, the question is simple; if I show you errors, blatant error, will you believe it is the Word of God or will you say it cannot be the Word of God; no one wants to go out on a limb because they are either afraid to say i would be right or they already know the truth. i already hinted by mentioning, chronological, historical and doctrinal errors, so what is your answer. ** Does God Word contain error and if not, then any book that contains error is not from god…right or not right?**

 

[Masters_Servant]

St. Paul also said that it was a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ

Read carefully; he did not.