OT canon version: does not affect my faith says Protestant

[Nicea325]

My departed loved ones are in the Hands of God, the best Place to be…He does all things well…He and He alone is Judge. God thru Christ cleanses us and makes us righteous…it is by His astounding grace that we enter into the Presence…I need no “belief” in purgatory to find hope for my departed loved ones…they are in Good Hands.

Okay your position is contradicting…with all respect. You have no need to “believe” in Purgatory to find “hope” for your departed ones,but you have a “belief” to find “hope” they are in Good Hands? How do you know they are in good hands?

 

[SonCatcher]

Okay your position is contradicting…with all respect. You have no need to “believe” in Purgatory to find “hope” for your departed ones,but you have a “belief” to find “hope” they are in Good Hands? How do you know they are in good hands?

Not at all contradictory. Hope in Catholic theology is not dependent upon Purgatory. The opposite is the case. Purgatory is dependent on Hope. If one dies without Hope, he can neither enter Heaven nor Purgatory.

 

[Publisher]

Okay your position is contradicting…with all respect. You have no need to “believe” in Purgatory to find “hope” for your departed ones,but you have a “belief” to find “hope” they are in Good Hands? How do you know they are in good hands?

Because the Hands they are in can only be Good…since God is Good. I have as much “certainty” as you do concerning purgatory…not sure what point you’re trying to make?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Which book in the Catholic canon affect the salvation of a person? What “saving knowledge” is contained in them not found anywhere else?

If God revealed something as divinely inspired Scripture and we say, “No it isn’t,” then wouldn’t our entire faith be in question?

And in line with your question, can’t we snip some parts out of the Gospels or epistles, or whatever we think doesn’t affect salvation.

 

[Bran_Stark]

For the record, the KJV originally included the deuterocanonicals. They were only removed in the 19[sup]th[/sup] century when the English government refused to subsidize the publishing costs of bibles that included them. So you could point out that his edition is only a couple hundred years old (that is, if you don’t want to bring up the 1609 D-R).

Hear, hear! It’s so ironic that when Catholics attack Protestant Bibles for their deficient canon, they seem to like to use the KJV as an example - despite the fact that the KJV is one of the few Protestant Bibles that DOES include the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books.

I don’t think it was “the English government”, that stared the trend of omitting the Apocrypha, though - just private Bible societies of an Evangelical bent.

Anyhow, I kind of agree with the Protestant mentioned in this thread - I think these books are quite interesting to read, and it dosn’t matter terribly much to me if they are “inspired” in the same way that the rest of the canon is.

 

[Publisher]

If God revealed something as divinely inspired Scripture and we say, “No it isn’t,” then wouldn’t our entire faith be in question?

And in line with your question, can’t we snip some parts out of the Gospels or epistles, or whatever we think doesn’t affect salvation.

Is your faith in question because you don’t use those OT books that the Orthodox use? Is your salvation dependent on you finally accepting those books in the Orthodox canon the Catholic canon is missing?

Strange responses to me…when we come to God we are not asked to offer a list of writings we accept as “inspired” before He accepts us…and if a book on this list is missing…would he then reject us for not providing a “correct” list of books we accept as inspired…strange strange indeed such a God.

The God as revealed in Jesus of Nazareth says “Come to me…and I will give you rest”…not once was a list of books required in order to find grace and mercy through Him.

 

[Boywonder23k]

The apocryphal books were removed because they were not in the Jewish “old testiment” or Torah. The Jews were given the oracles of God so they would be the ones to know which books were canonical and which were not.

Saint Augustine was in favor of the apocryphal books… But only because he thought they were in the Jewish canon! He could not read Hebrew. One of the first church fathers who COULD actually read both Greek and Hebrew saint Jerome rejected the apocryphal books as did the Jews.

The council of Trent did not have all of the resources available to it that we have today. If they did they never would have voted the apocraphal books into the canon. especially in light of all the gross historical errors ie the temple being rebuilt 100 years before it was destroyed etc etc

Those books don’t effect our salvation because they are not God breathed. This is just another example of why submission to Rome is harmful to ones faith. No matter what historical, textual, or logical evidence that is given Catholics MUST accept those uninspired books because less than 70 men said so in Trent. Catholics have the “answer” and then try to find a way to make the facts fit. Protestants look at the facts and say what’s the best answer.

 

[Publisher]

No ones “salvation” is harmed by being joined with Rome…salvation occurs because of Christ and His work on the cross and HIs astounding grace and mercy.

 

[Boywonder23k]

You are correct! Salvation goes well beyond denominations. And especially beyond the deuterocanonical books.

 

[Publisher]

You are correct! Salvation goes well beyond denominations. And especially beyond the deuterocanonical books.

Yes it does…the assertion in this thread that by accepting or not accepting a specific group of writings harms one’s salvation seems so out of place with what we know of God as revealed in Jesus of Nazareth…yet it’s still asserted…I find that very disheartening…no wonder our world is still in darkness if those who follow Him turn others away because “you have to accept this set of books…or belong to this particualar faith community”…

 

[Boywonder23k]

Well… You do need to believe in the gospel. As submission to God breathed scripture is important. But the books in question clearly are not. But yes I agree one can technically be saved without ever reading the bible… But still… The protestant books are right!!!

 

[Publisher]

Well… You do need to believe in the gospel. As submission to God breathed scripture is important. But the books in question clearly are not. But yes I agree one can technically be saved without ever reading the bible… But still… The protestant books are right!!!

The “gospel” is not “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”. The “God Spell”…Good News is that God has come looking for us and all who turn to Him, he will “in no wise turn away”.

 

[pablope]

QUOTE=Boywonder23k;9276234]The apocryphal books were removed because they were not in the Jewish “old testiment” or Torah. The Jews were given the oracles of God so they would be the ones to know which books were canonical and which were not.

The Jews had no such canon. If they knew what was canonical and not…why did they reject the NT?

If you are talking about the council of Jamnia…this idea was not even proposed till 1870 or so…and the council is not even a council…it was a school.
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

This was also composed at that school*…While we can’t say that the Jamnia rabbinical school ever produced a Biblical canon, we can point to a major contribution of the school. It produced an ugly prayer called the Birkat haMinim, which cursed the Christians as sectarians, and prayed to God that for these “sectarians,” “let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down enemies and humbles sinners.” This prayer was to be prayed every Sabbath, and it forced the Jewish Christians to stop worshiping with the non-Christian Jews in synagogue.*

One of the first church fathers who COULD actually read both Greek and Hebrew saint Jerome rejected the apocryphal books as did the Jews.

I think you should be careful with what you say. Jerome did not reject them…he just had a different opinion. But he obeyed Pope Damasus when he inclused them in his work…the Vulgate.

The council of Trent did not have all of the resources available to it that we have today. If they did they never would have voted the apocraphal books into the canon. especially in light of all the gross historical errors ie the temple being rebuilt 100 years before it was destroyed etc etc

Trent closed the canon, by affirming what had been decided in prior councils in AD382 council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. At Carthage, Augustine had the pope affirm the decision, making it binding. You can check the canon decided at Carthage…and it is the same canon in the Catholic bibles.

Those books don’t effect our salvation because they are not God breathed.

How do you know that? Are you the authority to make a decision on what is God breathed or not?

This is just another example of why submission to Rome is harmful to ones faith.

So the several billion catholics since AD 33 have been harmed?

And what about the never ending splits in protestantism…do you consider this harmful or not also?

No matter what historical, textual, or logical evidence that is given Catholics MUST accept those uninspired books because less than 70 men said so in Trent.

Hmmmm…no…the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth…not the individual…as the Bible states so.

Catholics have the “answer” and then try to find a way to make the facts fit. Protestants look at the facts and say what’s the best answer.

Actually, Catholics have their teachings and doctrines confirmed in the Bible…for the Church came first before the Bible.

Protestants, generally, take out a text or passage…and build their theology or teaching around the text…in their private interpretation…resulting in different understanding or interpretations…which no one can agree with.

Maybe you should read this…to get a handle on the Catholic way…you carry a lot of misinformation…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Which I quote:

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).

The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.

 

[pablope]

Well… You do need to believe in the gospel. As submission to God breathed scripture is important. But the books in question clearly are not. But yes I agree one can technically be saved without ever reading the bible… But still… The protestant books are right!!!

Do you actually know how the DC books were taken out of the Bibles?

All bibles, protestant and catholic, were the basically the same…till about 1826 or so…when a Bible society decided not to publish the DC or as you put it, the Apocrypha…in the bibles they were printing…to save money on printing costs.

So do you think the decision to not include the DC books in the Bibles they printed is the correct decision?

Does this make protestant books right, in your estimation?

 

[SonCatcher]

The apocryphal books were removed because they were not in the Jewish “old testiment” or Torah. The Jews were given the oracles of God so they would be the ones to know which books were canonical and which were not.

Saint Augustine was in favor of the apocryphal books… But only because he thought they were in the Jewish canon! He could not read Hebrew. One of the first church fathers who COULD actually read both Greek and Hebrew saint Jerome rejected the apocryphal books as did the Jews.

The community that assembled the Dead Sea scrolls did indeed have several of the deuterocanonicals in their original Hebrew. That community regarded all the texts they assembled as canonical. Thus, St. Augustine was likely correct that those books had been in the Jewish canon and were only subsequently not included when the Jews formalized their canon.

The situation of the several versions of canon in the various apostolic Christian traditions (Catholic, Eastern, Oriental, Ethiopian, etc) happened because of the differences if collections that had been brought into those areas. The Jewish community likely had the same situation. They standardized their canon across the entire religion to a version that was in one place at one time. The Hebrew text of the deutercanonicals were simply lacking from that colection.

The council of Trent did not have all of the resources available to it that we have today. If they did they never would have voted the apocraphal books into the canon. especially in light of all the gross historical errors ie the temple being rebuilt 100 years before it was destroyed etc etc

While they lacked modern scholarship, the council were certainly aware of the concerns of canonicity since the issues of authorship and origins had been voiced over the history of the Church.

Those books don’t effect our salvation because they are not God breathed. This is just another example of why submission to Rome is harmful to ones faith. No matter what historical, textual, or logical evidence that is given Catholics MUST accept those uninspired books because less than 70 men said so in Trent. Catholics have the “answer” and then try to find a way to make the facts fit. Protestants look at the facts and say what’s the best answer.

That’s simply editorializing. The fact is that the Septuagint is the most ancient Christian scripture and has been since before the Jewish community formalized their canon.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Is your faith in question because you don’t use those OT books that the Orthodox use?

This does not answer my question. It dodges it and asks me an unrelated question because I don’t question the Orthodox canon on the basis of my hypotehetical personal view that those books are irrelevant to my salvation - which is the excuse the OP’s friend gave. If the Orthodox books were divinely inspired, then yes, I would want to know, and I would not scoff with some remark like “Who cares, they aren’t important to my salvation.” So I will ask you to stick with that OP topic.

 

[Publisher]

This does not answer my question. It dodges it and asks me an unrelated question because I don’t question the Orthodox canon on the basis of my hypotehetical personal view that those books are irrelevant to my salvation - which is the excuse the OP’s friend gave. If the Orthodox books were divinely inspired, then yes, I would want to know, and I would not scoff with some remark like “Who cares, they aren’t important to my salvation.” So I will ask you to stick with that OP topic.

I don’t question the Catholic canon…it simply is…I use a Bible that was once published as the “Common Bible”…I don’t think anyone has scoffed as “Who cares…they aren’t important…”…All scripture is profitable…I may define scripture as more inclusive than you do…but to claim any disbelief in any one book or a collection of books somehow causes a definiency on one’s salvation is beyond me…but then…I’m not Catholic.

 

[MarcoPolo]

to claim any disbelief in any one book or a collection of books somehow causes a definiency on one’s salvation is beyond me…but then…I’m not Catholic.

I think we both agree with the statement: If God revealed a text as divinely inspired, a faithful Christian should accept that. That’s my point. In order to reject a book’s divinely inspired quality, one must rationalize why they believe the book to be uninspired. Saying “because any one book is not important to my salvation” is faulty criteria.

 

[Publisher]

I think we both agree with the statement: If God revealed a text as divinely inspired, a faithful Christian should accept that. That’s my point. In order to reject a book’s divinely inspired quality, one must rationalize why they believe the book to be uninspired. Saying “because any one book is not important to my salvation” is faulty criteria.

No book IS so important to our salvation that our salvation would be called into question…they may assist us in forming our beliefs…but belief in a book does not “save” or “condemn.”…they may “inform”, but not “damn”.

 

[Uzziah1]

I once asked a Protestant whom I know is well-versed in scripture & Bible study why the King James version doesn’t have all the books of the Catholic canon (I didn’t put it that way exactly). He had posted something on facebook about the anniversary of the KJV (which is next yr), and he said that “my faith is not affected by which books are in the OT” or something close to that.

I wanted to offer a response, but was a bit stymied by that. Wouldn’t you want to *know *that you had the whole, authenticated version of the Bible??

What would you say to someone like that?

Thanks in advance for replies!

Mimi

Hi, Mimi.

Fundamentally, the OT is really about Christ.

The way it refers to Christ is much more faith-affirming than the NT: When you properly understand the OT, you realize how correct it is to abide in Christ.

Example: In Genesis 3:15, when God imposes sentence on the Satan Serpent for his role in Original Sin, He tells him that the “offspring of the woman,” Mary, who is referred to as “woman” by Christ two times in John’s gospel, “will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

This is a reference to Christ. Christ the offspring of the Woman, Mary, strikes at Satan’s head when His cross pierces the dust at SKULL Place – get it? – while Satan strikes at his heel with nails piercing Christ’s feet.

For example, at Exodus 17:8-13, Moses strengthens Israel in its battle against its enemies by having placing himself on a hilltop called “roshe,” of “head” in the original Hebrew and holding his staff above his head with his hands, with Aaron on one side and Hur on the other helping him to hold it up.

This is a reference to Christ. Christ strengthens us in our battle against evil by placing Himself on SKULL Place – a hill called “roshe” or “head” in Hebrew – and having his hands nailed to wood, with a man to his left and a man to his right – the good and bad thief.

For example, in Exodus 12:1-10, in the Passover ritual, the Israelites must take the blood of the Paschal Lamp and splatter it on their doorways by dipping a hyssop bush into it and whipping it in the direction of the doorway, and God’s killer angel, seeing this, is deterred.

This is a reference to Christ. In the Bible, doors, doorways and gates symbolize Christ. Christ actually SAYS this in John’s gospel. See John 10:9. So, when you see the Israelites whipping the hyssop at tyhe doorway to splatter it with the Paschal Lamb’s blood, that is a picture of Christ being scourged, so that He, Christ, ended-up being splattered with His Own blood, and, of course, it is His Own suffering at the hands of torturers which pays for our salvation and protects us from God’s killer angels at the end of time.

There are many references to Christ like this in the OT. I could go on and on and on and on and on.

I, personally, find that the OT impacts my faith MORE THAN the NT.