J
JRKH
Guest
Agreed -
Original Post - Stated
Original Post - Refuted
End of Thread.
Peace
James
- Status
Original Post - Stated
Original Post - Refuted
End of Thread.
Peace
James
T
twb1621
Guest
- 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.
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. **
It was not by choice that the Jews sacred writings were destroyed but it was intentional to reevaluate the contents once they were.
"…By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] Unfortunately we can only speculate on what Jesus thought on this issue. No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue.
Before the 2nd century, most Palestian Jews preferred a canon loosely similar to the Protestant OT; however, the Greek-speaking Jews preferred the larger canon found in the Greek Septuagint Bible - a 2nd-century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture. It was the “Bible” for the Greek-speaking Jews. When the Apostles began to evangelize the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, they used the already established Septuagint as their Bible. Using the Hebrew Scripture would have been as effective as using a Russian Bible to evangelize Americans. The Septuagint served to bridge the culture gap. Quickly the Greek-speaking converts outnumbered the Hebrew Christians. Scholars also recognize that the NT writers quoted extensively from the Septuagint, e.g. Matt. 1:23. The Septuagint became the OT of the early Church. [S&W, p. OT 433]
Only after the destruction of the Temple and debates with Christians, the Pharisees at Jamnia finally limited the Hebrew Canon in the 2nd century A.D. - a century after the Resurrection of Christ. They restricted the Hebrew Canon to Books written before 400 B.C. in Hebrew. They also rejected the Septuagint claiming it to be corrupted by the Christians. [S&W, p. OT 433]
In the mid-2nd century, St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue With Trypho commented on the difference between the Christian OT and the Hebrew Canon. Tertullian during this period also commented on this difference. [JBC, p. 523] These comments and concerns would have been inappropriate, if the early Christians and Jews shared the same OT canon.
The OT of the most ancient surviving Christian Bible manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) - are Greek Septuagint text. Apart from holes and missing pages, the Codex Vaticanus contains all the Books of the Catholic OT, except I and II Maccabees. The Codex Sinaiticus only lacks II Maccabees but also includes IV Maccabees. The Codex Alexandrinus contains all of the Catholic OT Books plus III and IV Maccabees. These manuscripts show that the Septuagint with its larger and looser canon was the OT “Bible” of the early Church."
continued at users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
G
Ginger2
Guest
Flavius Josephus wrote that the Jewish canon was closed long before Jesus. See # 8
earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.
**Actually, the Latin Church took out a few books that were part of the LXX used by the Greek Churches and their descendants:
3-4 Maccabees
3 Esdras
Prayer of Manasees**
**Actually, the Latin Church took out a few books that were part of the LXX used by the Greek Churches and their descendants:
3-4 Maccabees
3 Esdras
Prayer of Manasees**
S
SimonArizona
Guest
Read Luther’s words himself, The Church didn’t add any books, Luther did not accept the aforementioned books. He also did not accept, james, the apocalypse, hebrews, etc. Luther is a typical heretic, what made him successful in stealing souls was his timing. For the Church was corrupted and badly needed a reform. God raises up saints to reform His Church, Luther was no saint nor did he reform anything, he created multiple schisms, and confusion.
T
twb1621
Guest
It was not by choice that the Jews sacred writings were destroyed but it was intentional to reevaluate the contents once they were.
"…By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] Unfortunately we can only speculate on what Jesus thought on this issue. No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue.
Before the 2nd century, most Palestian Jews preferred a canon loosely similar to the Protestant OT; however, the Greek-speaking Jews preferred the larger canon found in the Greek Septuagint Bible - a 2nd-century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture. It was the “Bible” for the Greek-speaking Jews. When the Apostles began to evangelize the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, they used the already established Septuagint as their Bible. Using the Hebrew Scripture would have been as effective as using a Russian Bible to evangelize Americans. The Septuagint served to bridge the culture gap. Quickly the Greek-speaking converts outnumbered the Hebrew Christians. Scholars also recognize that the NT writers quoted extensively from the Septuagint, e.g. Matt. 1:23. The Septuagint became the OT of the early Church. [S&W, p. OT 433]
Only after the destruction of the Temple and debates with Christians, the Pharisees at Jamnia finally limited the Hebrew Canon in the 2nd century A.D. - a century after the Resurrection of Christ. They restricted the Hebrew Canon to Books written before 400 B.C. in Hebrew. They also rejected the Septuagint claiming it to be corrupted by the Christians. [S&W, p. OT 433]
In the mid-2nd century, St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue With Trypho commented on the difference between the Christian OT and the Hebrew Canon. Tertullian during this period also commented on this difference. [JBC, p. 523] These comments and concerns would have been inappropriate, if the early Christians and Jews shared the same OT canon.
The OT of the most ancient surviving Christian Bible manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) - are Greek Septuagint text. Apart from holes and missing pages, the Codex Vaticanus contains all the Books of the Catholic OT, except I and II Maccabees. The Codex Sinaiticus only lacks II Maccabees but also includes IV Maccabees. The Codex Alexandrinus contains all of the Catholic OT Books plus III and IV Maccabees. These manuscripts show that the Septuagint with its larger and looser canon was the OT “Bible” of the early Church."
continued at users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
"…By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] Unfortunately we can only speculate on what Jesus thought on this issue. No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue.
Before the 2nd century, most Palestian Jews preferred a canon loosely similar to the Protestant OT; however, the Greek-speaking Jews preferred the larger canon found in the Greek Septuagint Bible - a 2nd-century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture. It was the “Bible” for the Greek-speaking Jews. When the Apostles began to evangelize the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, they used the already established Septuagint as their Bible. Using the Hebrew Scripture would have been as effective as using a Russian Bible to evangelize Americans. The Septuagint served to bridge the culture gap. Quickly the Greek-speaking converts outnumbered the Hebrew Christians. Scholars also recognize that the NT writers quoted extensively from the Septuagint, e.g. Matt. 1:23. The Septuagint became the OT of the early Church. [S&W, p. OT 433]
Only after the destruction of the Temple and debates with Christians, the Pharisees at Jamnia finally limited the Hebrew Canon in the 2nd century A.D. - a century after the Resurrection of Christ. They restricted the Hebrew Canon to Books written before 400 B.C. in Hebrew. They also rejected the Septuagint claiming it to be corrupted by the Christians. [S&W, p. OT 433]
In the mid-2nd century, St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue With Trypho commented on the difference between the Christian OT and the Hebrew Canon. Tertullian during this period also commented on this difference. [JBC, p. 523] These comments and concerns would have been inappropriate, if the early Christians and Jews shared the same OT canon.
The OT of the most ancient surviving Christian Bible manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) - are Greek Septuagint text. Apart from holes and missing pages, the Codex Vaticanus contains all the Books of the Catholic OT, except I and II Maccabees. The Codex Sinaiticus only lacks II Maccabees but also includes IV Maccabees. The Codex Alexandrinus contains all of the Catholic OT Books plus III and IV Maccabees. These manuscripts show that the Septuagint with its larger and looser canon was the OT “Bible” of the early Church."
continued at users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
T
twb1621
Guest
Regarding the history and removal of the deuterocanonicals;
The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books – Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation – and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.
The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)
To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that “The Jews don’t except these books.” In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.
Rewriting Church History
In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church “added” these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent!
Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.
It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.
cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm
The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books – Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation – and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.
The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)
To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that “The Jews don’t except these books.” In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.
Rewriting Church History
In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church “added” these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent!
Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.
It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.
cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Then you have a problem, Josephus says the canon is 22 books, see #8, the KJV I have list 39 OT books. There were several different lists flooting around before Christ for the OT. Just as there were different list of NT, before it was set. My understanding is the Ethiopian Jews even today have the Septuagint canon with the book of Jubilee.
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011fea4.asp
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html SEPTUAGINT QUOTES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
G
Ginger2
Guest
Give me the link to what you want me to read.
Actually, I don’t care for ML much. I only heard of him a few years ago and had never read anything he wrote until a couple years ago after joining this forum. I seldom, take anyone’s word for fact. So I read some of his work to see if it actually said what was claimed.
Luther was a sarcastic snot. His sarcasm did him no service. But whether you think him a saint or a heretic, I don’t believe he was intentionally trying to create his own religion. I believe he was searching in a time of great trouble for truth. Whether or not he succeeded seems to be determined by what the individual already believes about him.
This is sad.
I knew nothing but part of my opinion is based on the fact that the first thing I read from Luther showed me some people have taken his words out of content to prove what they believe.
This is even sadder.
The truth can stand on its own. We do not need to lie to prove our point. If we stick to the truth, people will either come around to acceptance or let their pride get in the way and hang on to their errors.
Of course their are those who are spiritually blind and really see something that isn’t there.
A
Alindawyl
Guest
Such as a claim that, despite their existence in the Bible for over a thousand years, it was only at the Council of Trent in the 1500’s that seven of the Old Testament books were actually “added”?
I agree with others, this thread is done unless people really wish to engage in :banghead:
G
Ginger2
Guest
This issue has already been address by me and I think pwrlftr addressed it as well.
This I love!!! :dancing:
The very first example erroneously states:
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
But the very next verse, Mat 2:17 says “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,”
That was just too easy.
G
Ginger2
Guest
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.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I say this with all due respect, you are not having an honest discussion. You pose the challenge in the OP, then you run from it when people prove your challenge wrong. Why?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.
The bottom line is the Catholic Church has literally always held those seven books since the 4th century, while Protestant Churches did not come on the scene for over 1100 years after that and they are the ones that changed the accepted Canon–not the Catholic Church. The challenge you made in your OP has been 100% debunked, yet now you are trying to avoid that and morph this into something else, all while ignoring that your point has been debunked. Why? What good are you deriving from that?
Please forgive me if this is in any way disrepectful, for I do not meant it that way.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: I missed that please give me the post #. I would like to know how the OT canon could be set at 22 books as Josephus tells us and yet you have 39 books in the OT
W
wardrandolph
Guest
Just curious Ginger2,Which one of the hundreds of protestant churches do you belong to?I am not trying to offend,just wondering.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I am too tired to search through all these posts.
I think it will be easier for me to simply explain it again - only in more detail this time.
The reason we have 39 books and the canons from the first century have 22 or 24 yet still are the same as today’s Protestant Bibles is because of the way they are counted.
For example:
The 12 Minor Prophets (from Hosea to Malachi) were written on one scroll and counted as one book instead of 12 as we count them today.
1 & 2 Chronicles were also counted as one book.
etc.,…
B
BrianH
Guest
The first two links are fine. The third is a farce.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Have you some evidence for this, showing only those books added and not others for instance?
T
twb1621
Guest
If you refer to posts #163 and #164 it will provide a good insight for you along with the links provided. you are correct in your saying there is no reason to lie and I doubt anyone would do that in regard to the Teachings of the Church or related information because should a person then decide to convert they would realize they had been lied to any way. What is true is Luther was the seed that generated the weed we now have in so many beliefs in Christianity. He was Catholic and was preaching things that he believed against the doctrines of the CC. When it caught up to him he planned his seperation but it was his own personal opinions that he eventually turned into a practice with those who got sucked in by him. If you think it is difficult to do, I can show you a denomination in practice today named “The New Apostolic Church” which is rediculous but has over a million believing members today since it organized in the mid to late 1800’s. Figure that one out. New apostles… :doh2:
W
Wildkit
Guest
Dear Ginger2:
God Bless you. I am sure the truth is too difficult to read through all the posts,…but for so many …that may be the issue. Regardless, you are in my, and all the Saints in my Lord’s Church tonight!
Please know who you are and who you may be with!
- Status