Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want to discuss the NT please start a new thread. ML is not my authority, but rather a motive for the RC to add extra-biblical books.
You know my argument was completely ridiculous. It was simply meant to show the “logic” behind your reasoning. You stated that there was not “unanimity” in the inclusion of the deutero’s. I’m simply pointing out that the same “logic” would dis-canonize the books I mentioned.
I have already stated many many reason to believe these Apocrypha were not part of sacred Scriptures in the beginning.
But that was not the point of your very own thread. It was to prove that Catholics added the books in response to Martin Luther (who you are not an authority on ;)). But you’ve resorted to arguing instead that they should haven’t been included in the 4th century, now.

It seems that you should have started the new thread, Ginger! 😉
 
The first two links are fine. The third is a farce.
I have to agree. ScriptureCatholic.Com, sadly, seems to have a pre-conceived belief, and then finds Scripture that agrees with it. Often this causes them to accept information that is far from conclusive, simply because it fits their beliefs.

As one who tends to think my Protestant brothers are guilty of this “putting the cart before the horse” Scripture Interpretation ;), I really hate to see a Catholic Apologetics site duplicate it.
 
But that was not the point of your very own thread. It was to prove that Catholics added the books in response to Martin Luther (who you are not an authority on ;)). But you’ve resorted to arguing instead that they should haven’t been included in the 4th century, now.

It seems that you should have started the new thread, Ginger! 😉
I don’t understand what you are talking about.

“Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles”

Martin Luther is related to this topic as Catholics claim he removed the books. So naturally he will be discussed. Just like the Councils of Hippo Carthage and Trent and other directly or indirectly related events and people.

But I am not equip to discuss ML and the New Testament. How am I supposed to know if you are portraying his thoughts accurately?

If you want my opinion without reading any of ML comments, here it is…

ML believed the RC was grossly misleading and taking advantage of people. He no longer trusted the church. It seems logical he would question everything he was taught in search of truth.

If he believed they lied about indulgences to line their pockets surely he was putting everything else to the test as well.

If he really removed some books from the OT because they “countered his will” then why did he keep James when you claim it countered his will.

To say that others wouldn’t allow him is a weak argument as I would ask why did these others then allow ML to remove the Apocrypha.

I just don’t think you can have it both ways.

I think I’ll let you have the last word.

Happy New Year
 
I have to agree. ScriptureCatholic.Com, sadly, seems to have a pre-conceived belief, and then finds Scripture that agrees with it. Often this causes them to accept information that is far from conclusive, simply because it fits their beliefs.

As one who tends to think my Protestant brothers are guilty of this “putting the cart before the horse” Scripture Interpretation ;), I really hate to see a Catholic Apologetics site duplicate it.
And it is really not needed either to prove your point. There ARE some legitimate Deuterocanonical references in the NT. Not many but some. Yes overstating your case against the Deuterocanonical like MANY Protestants do and then overstating the case for the Deuterocanonical to include unneccessary components is a pet peeve. I, like other Methodists, are coming around on this issue but it does not help when sites like the third link completely insult my, or anyone elses intelligence.
Whew:o
 
Ok, this is post #184. I have a feeling this dead horse we call a thread will be closed by tomorrow morning.
 
I don’t understand what you are talking about.

“Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles”

Martin Luther is related to this topic as Catholics claim he removed the books. So naturally he will be discussed. Just like the Councils of Hippo Carthage and Trent and other directly or indirectly related events and people.
Ginger, it seems you are arguing every point that is not relevant to the thread.

We’ve shown you Canons that had the Deuterocanonicals in them in the 4th century. You claimed that we added them 1100 years later as a prooftext against Martin Luther (whom you are not an expert on! ;)).

But you’ve shown no proof to that claim.
 
I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.
Ginger you have it backwords the protestants are missing 7 books
 
Here is the original post:

*I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.*​

The last line is the critical challenge. Ginger, going into this thread, believed that the Catholic Church added seven books to the Canon of Scripture as some sort of response to Martin Luther. This point has been proved to be utterly false. So, I am not sure why this thread continues.
 
Ginger2,

Read and study the book of Hebrews and you will notice how often the the Septuagint is quoted. This epistle is just one example.

God bless,
ZP
GINGER some deuterocanical books in the NT ; Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
 
If that be the case, why reject some Septuagint books? If all the Septuagint is believed divinely inspired, why are some rejected by the Catholic Church?

The Orthodox Church has four more books then the RC. If the Catholic Church always accepted these books from at least the fourth century to present, why did the RC remove four of these books at the council of Trent?

Do you see the problem with using the Catholic argument to defend the deuteros?
I don’t think you understand the spirit from your argument which seems to single out RC in the sence of (in your eyes) your trying to have it understood as being irrelivant.
There are many many books that are kept in the vatican and they are not used. Why would this be? Do youknow?
 
GINGER some deuterocanical books in the NT ; Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
This list is a farce.
 
The Jews also denied that Jesus was the Messiah. So your reasoning of relying on the Jews on matters of Christian Faith seems a bit Odd.
Christ, Through His Church, established the Christian Bible based upon the Septuigent. Do you wish to trust the Jews in this or Christ?

I will not deny that you have raised a number of points in regards to the various erly canons. However you have also studiously avoided anything that is inconvenient to your preconcieved ideas and the last line of your post above proves it.
You have been presented with clear evidence, that the Catholic Canon included the deutero’s long before the council of Trent. Even the Bible translated by Jerome, the Vulgate, contained the Deutero’s. Yet you state above that you have, “shown plenty of evidence to place into question the seven books added to the Catholic Bible.”

Further, you refuse to address the issue of whether the Church, and her councils, that established the canon were protected by Holy Spirit or not. If, as you believe, the Church erred in including Deutero’s what other errors might be in the Canon. Luther obviously believed that the NT books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation were suspect. How do you know that he wasn’t right?

The Simple fact is that Christ established His Church. And through That Church established the Canon. Luther Changed what he had been given by The Church.

Peace
James
James, it is unfortunate but a fact that Ginger can write but she does not read!

If you visit the other threads you will see for yourself that she does not really debate. She presents a question and posters respond, going to a lot of trouble (with the utmost patience) but she keeps on playing the same note - it is as if she thinks that she has hit the right note so why play any other - so she will persistently repeat herself. Therefore the debate can never advance. There is another thread on Confession - well, she started another thread making the same statement before the first thread was closed - so we have two threads on virtually the same subject with Ginger persistently hitting the same monotonous note! Believe it!

I asked her why she was on CAF. What was her objective? etc. and she refused to answer saying only that she cannot discourse with me!

My guess is that she has made a career of Catholic bashing and is addicted to this activity!

What else?

Good luck
Cinette
🤷
 
The oldest OT canons agree with the Protestant Bibles - dating back to the 1st century.

Why was there no one to disputing these canons if they were false? Why leave them go unchallenged for hundreds of years.
Why did it take over 300 years for anyone to suggest the deutoros might be part of the inspired Scriptures?
Why were other canons suggested after Hippo and Carthage?

While the RC can continue to claim it has held Apocrypha as sacred since the 4th century, the Protestants can claim to have an almost if not identical canon since the 1st century. 👍
**Who held the writings before they were writen for others to read?
Give me info stating that protestants did have Apocryphic writings handed down to them in the first centuary **
 
It doesn’t matter. Scripturecatholic.com has a list of supposed quotes/allusions to the deutero’s and because it seems to prove the Catholic point, many posters here will use the list and stick to it no matter how many times they have been shown the supposed quotes/allusions are bunk. It’s curious why scripturecatholic.com hasn’t taken down or revised the list.
I suppose…it matters to me.
WHY?😊 🤷
I suppose as a mainline Protestant, call it like it is, I think Catholics and Orthodox have a strong argument for the Deuterocanonical books. I do understand why Protestants put it in a seperate section, whether I agree or not. I, like one of my pastors just told me is the trend at her seminary, believe that a Bible without the Deuterocanonical in some form is a …historical aberration of the last two hundred years. When I see a strong argument, a weak one frustrates me.
 
Then why are you still here. 🤷

Is it really your place to tell everyone when they should stop discussions?

To end a discussion is easy - just stop talking. Yet, how many posts have I read so far that state this thread is done? I’ve lost count…

But I’m glad Catholics keep repeating it. That comment has been such a benefit to everyone here. :rolleyes:
I tell you why people are still here Ginger - they are amazed to see someone who, in the face of convincing proof, historical facts, irrefutable argument, can relentlessly persist in denying truth…It is like going to the Zoo to see the bearded lady!

It is amazing - one does not see this kind of thing every day!

:whacky: :hypno: :bigyikes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top