Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[irishpatrick]

You have placced all your faith in an excommunicated monk.

She has also denied historical facts. Amazing.

 

[Light_Seeker]

Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.

(KJV, since Latin Vulgate will probably be rejected too)

 

[irishpatrick]

Question: Why do so many people continue to say Catholics added books, when it is so obvious they did not?

 

[Light_Seeker]

Question: Why do so many people continue to say Catholics added books, when it is so obvious they did not?

I’ve unfortunately heard several Baptist ministers preaching this from their pulpits on radio programs.

Goes right along with other anti-Catholic beliefs that the Church invented things.

 

[Alindawyl]

I think I have shown plenty of evidence to place into question the seven books added to the Catholic Bible.

No, you have not. All you have done is claim that the Septuagint, widely used at the time of Jesus by Jews and the primary reference of both Jesus and the Apostles, is not something which should be considered a part of Biblical canon because some time after Jesus (not before, but after), the Jews who did not accept him devised a Jewish canon which did not include the deuterocanonicals.

The Jewish canon didn’t include the New Testament either, but you choose to overlook that little detail.

Your claim is basically that a group of people who heard and rejected the teachings of Jesus should be taken as divinely inspired in determining the proper composition of the Old Testament. The Church, on the other hand, although not divinely inspired in determining the canon of the Old Testament, WAS divinely inspired in determining the canon of the New Testament.

That makes no logical sense. All I can say is…

 

[JRKH]

That is merely one piece of information amidst volumes.

Not so, the Old Testament was preserved by the Jews. The Jews did not consider the Apocrypha inspired.

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?

The earliest canons did not include the Apocrypha.
The earliest canons were not disputed.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits the Deuteros were contested at first.

The Catholic Church acknowledges it did not determine a canon until Trent - after the Reformation.

etc., etc., etc.,…

I think I have shown plenty of evidence to place into question the seven books added to the Catholic Bible.

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

 

[irishpatrick]

I’ve unfortunately heard several Baptist ministers preaching this from their pulpits on radio programs.

Goes right along with other anti-Catholic beliefs that the Church invented things.

The canon is so obviously beeen changed by Protestants, that I just do not get why they do not see that.

 

[JRKH]

Ginger

It is not debatable that the early councils approved the canon as Catholics hold. Do you admit that fact?

You can rest assured that Ginger will not, at present, admit ANY inconvenient facts.
That being said though, I do have hopes that the shear weight of Good Data provided by the folks here will yield fruit once the Holy Spirit Enlightens her heart.

Peace
James

 

[NotWorthy]

Ginger, by your line of reasoning (the contesting of the OT Canon by numerous ECF’s), you need to also take out Revelation, Hebrews, and several of John and Peter’s Epistles for they were hotly contested.

You might want to then ask why we removed the Shepherd of Hermas and Clement’s Epistle to Corinth, for these (and numerous others) were often included in the Canon of the NT by various ECF’s.

The point is, none of this was hashed out until Hippo and Carthage. Since then, there has been overwhelming agreement - not 100%, we all realize - but the opposing view has been rather underwhelming when you consider 1100 years between Hippo and Trent.

 

[irishpatrick]

You can rest assured that Ginger will not, at present, admit ANY inconvenient facts.
That being said though, I do have hopes that the shear weight of Good Data provided by the folks here will yield fruit once the Holy Spirit Enlightens her heart.

Peace
James

I pray that happens, the angels and saints in Hevaen will sing that day.

 

[Ginger2]

No, you have not. All you have done is claim … the Jews who did not accept him devised a Jewish canon which did not include the deuterocanonicals.

We’ve already covered this, but here goes again…

1. The Jews absolutely believed they were God’s chosen people and the Holy Scriptures were sacred.

They would not do away with those writings to disprove Jesus. Instead they would deny Jesus fit the prophecies of the coming Messiah - which is what they did!

Jhn 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

1. Your argument makes no sense, because if the Jews were going to destroy sacred writings to deny Jesus, why would they keep books like Isaiah, Hosea, Zechariah, Amos, and even Psalms.

These books that testify to Jesus being the Christ.

Jhn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were **written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. **

 

[irishpatrick]

To all,

What is the point of this thread, now that the OP has been fully debunked?

 

[jlhargus]

Not quite…

“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”

The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

JL: Did you know the disputed deuteros (second list) were not just OT books but also NT books. The books disputed in the NT, were, Hebrews, Revelation, James, Jude and I think one of Peter’s. Also some thought other writings should be in the NT canon, such as the letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians. I’m not positive but I think those writings of the Shepherd of Hermes and a few others, I can’t recall, without looking it up. The book of Jubilees was discussed for inclusion in the OT , also.
[/quote]

 

[jlhargus]

Not so, the Old Testament was preserved by the Jews. The Jews did not consider the Apocrypha inspired.

JL Show me a set Jewish canon of OT scripture before the council of Jamnia about 100 AD, after Christ they had no authority to set a canon. Luther choose the OT canon set by those who rejected Christ.

 

[Mad_Amos]

They would not do away with those writings to disprove Jesus. Instead they would deny Jesus fit the prophecies of the coming Messiah…

This is not entirely accurate.

The Masoretic texts translate Psalm 22 quite differently than does the Septuagint. The former casts doubt on the latter’s otherwise clear allusion (as confirmed by the Qumran scrolls) to The Crucifixion. As a matter of fact, several contemporary Jewish scholars use the Masoretic translation as a specific point of contention in assailing the Messianic claims of Christianity.

The assertions in this case are not that Jesus of Nazareth failed to fulfill the prophecy in question, but rather that the prophecy does not state what is claimed by His disciples. In a sense, then, they have in fact ‘done away’ with the respective text, but through obfuscation as opposed to blatant omission.

In summary, I must second the opinion expressed by others in this thread that it is ill-advised for a follower of Christ to appeal to Roman-era Jewish canonical authority for the purpose of reconciling Christian doctrinal issues.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, by your line of reasoning (the contesting of the OT Canon by numerous ECF’s), you need to also take out Revelation, Hebrews, and several of John and Peter’s Epistles for they were hotly contested.

You might want to then ask why we removed the Shepherd of Hermas and Clement’s Epistle to Corinth, for these (and numerous others) were often included in the Canon of the NT by various ECF’s.

The point is, none of this was hashed out until Hippo and Carthage. Since then, there has been overwhelming agreement - not 100%, we all realize - but the opposing view has been rather underwhelming when you consider 1100 years between Hippo and Trent.

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.

I have already stated many many reason to believe these Apocrypha were not part of sacred Scriptures in the beginning.

 

[JRKH]

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.

I have already stated many many reason to believe these Apocrypha were not part of sacred Scriptures in the beginning.

And you have been answered with many many reasons why your original post is dead wrong.

Peace
James

 

[Ginger2]

This is not entirely accurate.

…the prophecy does not state what is claimed by His disciples.

Oh, but it does…

Philip was a disciple of John the Baptist and was present when John pointed out Jesus as the Messiah.

 

[irishpatrick]

I find that many people want to continue to argue even when reasons for arguing have long since passed.

Amazing.

 

[Mad_Amos]

I have already stated many many reason to believe these Apocrypha were not part of sacred Scriptures in the beginning.

Please clarify what is meant by ‘in the beginning’.