It's NOT in the Bible

[onemangang]

Well it was in the 400 or so they think they became inspired, but officially at the coucil of Trent. Dont forget Luther did have them in his first bible also. Luther had no intention of leaving the CC, they excommunicated him.

But really does any of this matter when they added the books. Why did they add them and find them inspired since the Jewish people didn’t find them inspried as they were in greek right.

The Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees,) or Aramaic (Tobit). And what about the deuterocanonical book of Baruch, it was found in Qumran in Greek!

Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.

There is debate as to whether the Council of Jamnia actually “closed” the Jewish canon because debate continued among Jews for hundreds of years afterward as to which books should be included or excluded. Even into the 3rd century A.D., controversy surrounded Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, and others.

The Council of Jamnia?

Now we have to back up a bit: around A.D. 90-100, after the Temple fell, a rabbinical school was formed by Johanan ben Zakkai. The “Council of Jamnia” (also called “Jabneh” or “Javneh”) is the name given to the decisions made by this pharisaic school. I repeat: the gathering at Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, “council” consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. At that time, Jews were being scattered, and the very existence of Jewry per the Pharisees’ vision of “Jewry” was being threatened. At this time, too, Christianity was growing and threatening that same Jewish identity, resulting in severe persecution of Christians by Jews. In reaction to these things and to the fact that “Nazarenes” (i.e., “Christians”, who at that time were overwhelmingly Hebrew) used the Septuagint to proselytize other Jews, Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel’s Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained 5, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds.** So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years. Note that at the time of Christ, most Jews spoke Aramaic, Latin (the official language of the area), and/or Greek (the lingua franca at that time), not Hebrew, which was a sacred language used by priests for the Hebrew liturgy**. In any case, a new Greek translation was created by Aquila – but one without the ancient Septuagint’s language that** proved more difficult for the Jews to defend against when being evangelized by the Christians, the point being that any idea that a book “had” to have been written in Hebrew to be “Biblical” wasn’t the issue. **

Moving the story along: in other words, the Protestant “Reformers” decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead – the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the “Nazarenes” of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai’s successor, Gamaliel, who forced the “Nazarenes” out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the “Prayer of Eighteen Petitions,” the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being “For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.”)

And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the “Roman Church” that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion I’ve actually read at “Messianic” websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn’t get news of the Council of Jamnia’s decisions still use those “extra” 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).

 

[onemangang]

Here is one Prophesy of Christ from the book of Wisdom, that the Early Jewish Christian Converts would reference, when witnessing to Jews.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/wisdom2.html

Wisdom 2:[11] But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. [12] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [13] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. [14] He is become a censurer of our thoughts. [15] He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different.

[16] We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. [17] Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. [18] For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. [19] Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. [20] Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

[21] These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. [22] And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. [23] For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. [24] But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: [25] And they follow him that are of his side.

 

[Luvtosew]

Well interesting , I read Wisdom 2, . I have the Catholic bible, I will reread it of course, so yes I can see why the Jews didn’t want them. Thank you for the link.
and your extensive posting.

 

[onemangang]

Well interesting , I read Wisdom 2, . I have the Catholic bible, I will reread it of course, so yes I can see why the Jews didn’t want them. Thank you for the link.
and your extensive posting.

You are welcome

 

[batman1973]

Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition that is not found in the Bible, therefore to a good ‘Bible only’ believing Christian it should be considered ‘un-biblical.’

Prove it. You always are wanting Sola Scripturists to prove their point, please provide proof that the Bible alone isnt sufficent. Think back if you will to St. Paul commending the Boreans for searching the scriptures rather than taking his word for it. If you want proof of Sola Scriptura, there’s a mighty fine example. To say that the bible isnt sufficent, no matter how good your intent, weakens God’s word, and then you get plunged into error. Take Joe Smith for example. He undermined the bible’s authority, so he could add his own books. Chuck Russell’s group rewrote the bible, and put a line through verses that disagreed with Wathtower theology.The Bible was printed and put together for a reason. God wants us to read it, and use it. It will protect us from error.I’ll close with the words of St. Paul:“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”(2 Tim 2:15 KJV)

 

[Cat_Herder]

Do we agree that the Bible is the word of God? I hope the answer is yes. If it is, then, do we agree that any tradition or ritual or action, etc, should not contradict the truths found within God’s word? Again, I hope the answer is yes. That is the meaning of sola scriptura.

If that is the meaning of Sola Scriptura, then no one would be claiming that SS was opposed to the Catholic Church, because nothing in the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible.

And yet virtually every Protestant makes that claim.

 

[Luvtosew]

If that is the meaning of Sola Scriptura, then no one would be claiming that SS was opposed to the Catholic Church, because nothing in the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible.

And yet virtually every Protestant makes that claim.

Wow that looks like some Cat, nice. Love cats. Well I just think Protestants interpret some of the areas different like say John 6 is one that comes to mine. The CC does try to back up everything with a verse or two, but see Protestant just don’t agree with some of the interpretation.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Prove it. You always are wanting Sola Scripturists to prove their point, please provide proof that the Bible alone isnt sufficent. Think back if you will to St. Paul commending the Boreans for searching the scriptures rather than taking his word for it. If you want proof of Sola Scriptura, there’s a mighty fine example. To say that the bible isnt sufficent, no matter how good your intent, weakens God’s word, and then you get plunged into error.

The complete Bible did not exist in any form until Revelation was written in AD ~90. Until the Council of Hippo in AD ~430, there was no definitive list of what books were and were not Scripture. And, of course, no one had a personal Bible until the printing press was invented in the 1400s. Until then, the only way you could read a Bible was to go to the Catholic Church (parish or monastery, the latter being where Bibles were made) or your local wealthy nobleman–good luck with that as a commoner in medieval feudal Europe.

If God expected people to use the Bible as the only arbiter of the truths necessary for salvation, He would have had to ensure that the Catholic Church would never teach anything that is against the Bible because there was no other access to the Bible (and thus no means to be saved) except through the Church. The bold part presupposes that the Church’s Tradition and Magisterium are divinely protected, and since they are, they are entitled to the same weight and authority.

I have explained this thoroughly here.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Wow that looks like some Cat, nice. Love cats. Well I just think Protestants interpret some of the areas different like say John 6 is one that comes to mine. The CC does try to back up everything with a verse or two, but see Protestant just don’t agree with some of the interpretation.

The ability to correctly interpret the Bible is necessary to salvation, and since there was no other way to obtain an interpretation of the Bible (or the Scriptures themselves) except through the Church until the 1400s, the Church had to have the God-given authority to correctly interpret the Scriptures, meaning that the Protestants had nothing to reform.

 

[Luvtosew]

The ability to correctly interpret the Bible is necessary to salvation, and since there was no other way to obtain an interpretation of the Bible (or the Scriptures themselves) except through the Church until the 1400s, the Church had to have the God-given authority to correctly interpret the Scriptures, meaning that the Protestants had nothing to reform.

You know what I’ll agree the Church of God changing to the Catholic Church did have the early Bible, but it took a while for them to interpret right? I disagree about the need for the Reformation, it was needed.
while there are differences in interpretation of scripture doesn’t mean the CC interpretation is right unless you believe it is, and believe their tradition.

So I disagree with you. The Church had the scriptures but who said the had the God given authority. Wait, the CC.

 

[SteveGC]

Prove it. You always are wanting Sola Scripturists to prove their point, please provide proof that the Bible alone isnt sufficent. Think back if you will to St. Paul commending the Boreans for searching the scriptures rather than taking his word for it. If you want proof of Sola Scriptura, there’s a mighty fine example. To say that the bible isnt sufficent, no matter how good your intent, weakens God’s word, and then you get plunged into error. Take Joe Smith for example. He undermined the bible’s authority, so he could add his own books. Chuck Russell’s group rewrote the bible, and put a line through verses that disagreed with Wathtower theology.The Bible was printed and put together for a reason. God wants us to read it, and use it. It will protect us from error.I’ll close with the words of St. Paul:“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”(2 Tim 2:15 KJV)

I’m not sure how the Bereans searching the scriptures validates the claim that scripture is the final authority. Searching the scriptures is indeed a good and righteous endeavor. No one is saying the Bible isn’t sufficient. It is sufficient for many things within the spiritual growth and faith life of a Christian. However, it is not sufficient as a “final authority”, because if it were sufficient for this, then no one who claims Sola Scriptura would disagree with another Sola Scripturist about anything within it. But disagreement is not only prevalent, it is the trademark of Protestantism. The Bible simply cannot act in the capacity of final authority without an authoritative interpretation, and in the Sola Scriptura world, which is to say, the entire non-Catholic Christian world, there simply is no authoritative interpretation.

Sola Scriptura is invalid not only because it is not found in Scripture (and therefore refuting it’s own theological claim), but also because it simply does not hold up to logical reasoning. The evidence against SS is found by a quick glance at the theologies of the protestant world.

It is not Bible alone
It is not Tradition alone
It is not Magesterium (teaching authority) alone.

It is all three, under Christ alone.

 

[batman1973]

If God expected people to use the Bible as the only arbiter of the truths necessary for salvation, He would have had to ensure that the Catholic Church would never teach anything that is against the Bible

And therin lies the rub. Protestants make that very claim. The Traditions and several teachings of the CC are not found in the bible, and therefore are “man made” Cathoics then counter that SS is “man made” This gets very dizzying.

 

[batman1973]

I’m not sure how the Bereans searching the scriptures validates the claim that scripture is the final authority. Searching the scriptures is indeed a good and righteous endeavor. No one is saying the Bible isn’t sufficient. It is sufficient for many things within the spiritual growth and faith life of a Christian. However, it is not sufficient as a “final authority”, because if it were sufficient for this, then no one who claims Sola Scriptura would disagree with another Sola Scripturist about anything within it. But disagreement is not only prevalent, it is the trademark of Protestantism. The Bible simply cannot act in the capacity of final authority without an authoritative interpretation, and in the Sola Scriptura world, which is to say, the entire non-Catholic Christian world, there simply is no authoritative interpretation.

Sola Scriptura is invalid not only because it is not found in Scripture (and therefore refuting it’s own theological claim), but also because it simply does not hold up to logical reasoning. The evidence against SS is found by a quick glance at the theologies of the protestant world.

It is not Bible alone
It is not Tradition alone
It is not Magesterium (teaching authority) alone.

It is all three, under Christ alone.

I like this answer. Thank you. (and a big thanks for the proper spelling of the Bereans. I had World of Warcraft on the brain I guess. There’s a zone called the Borean Tundra )

 

[Cat_Herder]

And therin lies the rub. Protestants make that very claim. The Traditions and several teachings of the CC are not found in the bible,

Prove the bold part.

Moreover, how can you say that Sacred Tradition is man made if the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church to allow access to salvation and Scripture to everyone?

 

[SteveGC]

while there are differences in interpretation of scripture doesn’t mean the CC interpretation is right unless you believe it is, and believe their tradition.

Do you believe that a “right interpretation” exists? Sounds as if you don’t.

So I disagree with you. The Church had the scriptures but who said the had the God given authority. Wait, the CC.

Actually, Christ said it. As did many of the earliest leaders of Christianity, if that’s significant to you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sola Scriptura is not in the Sola Biblia. Period.

However,

It would be nice to know the historical background and theological reasoning for the Traditions and traditions of the Church.

Take for example: Lent (From new advent-sorry I dont give the link since I bought the CD and I’m going from my files - you can just visit the site and search for Lent ).

Some of the Fathers as early as the fifth century supported the view that this forty days’ fast was of Apostolic institution. For example, St. Leo (d. 461) exhorts his hearers to abstain that they may “fulfill with their fasts the Apostolic institution of the forty days” — ut apostolica institutio quadraginta dierum jejuniis impleatur (P.L., LIV, 633), and the historian Socrates (d. 433) and St. Jerome (d. 420) use similar language (P.G., LXVII, 633; P.L., XXII, 475).

But the best modern scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting this view, for in the existing remains of the first three centuries we find both considerable diversity of practice regarding the fast before Easter and also a gradual process of development in the matter of its duration. The passage of primary importance is one quoted by Eusebius (Church History V.24) from a letter of St. Irenaeus to Pope Victor in connection with the Easter controversy. There Irenaeus says that there is not only a controversy about the time of keeping Easter but also regarding the preliminary fast. “For”, he continues, “some think they ought to fast for one day, others for two days, and others even for several, while others reckon forty hours both of day and night to their fast”. He also urges that this variety of usage is of ancient date, which implies that there could have been no Apostolic tradition on the subject. Rufinus, who translated Eusebius into Latin towards the close of the fourth century, seems so to have punctuated this passage as to make Irenaeus say that some people fasted for forty days. Formerly some difference of opinion existed as to the proper reading, but modern criticism (e.g., in the edition of Schwartz commissioned by the Berlin Academy) pronounces strongly in favor of the text translated above. We may then fairly conclude that Irenaeus about the year 190 knew nothing of any Easter fast of forty days.

You can’t go around saying something is Apostolic Tradition just because you think it was, or because you think it should be incorporated into a dogmatic matter and you need the Apostolic reputation to sustain your argument.

The Church must be diligent in presenting where these Traditions originated from.

Before Scott Hahn and Fr. Barron, I don’t remember this exposition on Tradition. I’m not saying there wasn’t anyone… I’m saying I don’t remember

Just because I trust the Church doesn’t mean I don’t need to learn and inquire about Its history and development. If anything, I need to know as much as I can in order to better serve the Church.

In this day and age, “Just because I say so” doesn’t cut it anymore. Our Lord has guided us throughout our history and He has been Graceful enough that we have been given signs and reinforcement into His Will and Word. If He can treat us with that love, the Church should only follow.

God Bless,

Jose

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not true! The RCC added nothing of the sort,but merely re-confirmed what other previous councils had already mentioned. The fact it was made official does not prove they were added. The doctrine of the Trinity was made official at Nicaea in 325 A.D.,does it prove the church added the belief and Trinitarian doctine 300 years later?

That is a huge misunderstanding by non-Catholics. If the church added them at Trent in 1545,then how is it even logical for someone like Luther to question those 7 books 20 years earlier,if they were added at Trent?

Actually it was in Isaiah 42:1

[bibledrb]Isaiah 42:1[/bibledrb]

I have given my spirit upon him

And confirmed in

[bibledrb]Matthew 12:18-21[/bibledrb]



Sorry couldn’t help it

In Him,

Jose

 

[Luvtosew]

Do you believe that a “right interpretation” exists? Sounds as if you don’t.

Actually, Christ said it. As did many of the earliest leaders of Christianity, if that’s significant to you.

Not any more no, in some things fine, I know the history of the early beginning of the Church of God and that, and I’m sure the intention was well in the early years and they had to conform to the culture and emperors and then they slowly became very powerful, and well we know what happens when power get involved.

 

[batman1973]

Prove the bold part.

Ok, Marian veneration: Where? Not in the bible. She says we will call her blessed, but that’s about it.
Purgatory: Not mentioned by name in the Bible(though the idea is)
The Rosary. There are prayers from the bible used, but, the whole idea itself isn’t.
Also, when you read Acts 17:11, you see that the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what Paul and Silas said was true. Why would they do that? They had to have a rule of faith. The Bible is an accepted rule by most people who believe in Christ. My study of Catholicism is coming from the bible, not what anyone says.
Steve GC hit the nail on the head"It is not Bible alone
It is not Tradition alone
It is not Magesterium (teaching authority) alone.

It is all three, under Christ alone."

 

[Cat_Herder]

Not any more no, in some things fine, I know the history of the early beginning of the Church of God and that, and I’m sure the intention was well in the early years and they had to conform to the culture and emperors and then they slowly became very powerful, and well we know what happens when power get involved.

You are positing a great apostasy: that once the Catholic Church supposedly became “corrupted” around 300-400 AD, that the world was without knowledge of the truth until over a thousand years later when Luther, Calvin, etc. came along and “fixed” everything.

Because of your great apostasy theory you must also take the position that billions upon billions of people who live and died during the “apostasy” period did not have knowledge of the truth and were therefore not saved. Otherwise the Reformers would have nothing to reform.

Do I have news for you.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, is God capable of accomplishing His Will or not? He’s GOD for crying out loud. He’s Almighty and Omnipotent and Omniscient. He has to at least have the sense to **protect the truth **so that everyone will have access to “knowledge of the truth” in order to have a chance to “be saved.” But since the Catholic Church was the only means of access to the Bible, that would mean that God would have to back up the Catholic Church so that She would always be able to impart “knowledge of the truth.” That is what we mean when we say the Church is infallible. It means that God can actually do what the Bible says He wills to be done: giving the opportunity of salvation and the truth to all men.

Thorough explanation here.